# Hans v. Louisiana

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 3, 1890 · 134 U.S. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9841763

## Case

- **Full name:** Hans v. Louisiana
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 3, 1890
- **Citations:** 134 U.S. 1; 10 S. Ct. 504; 33 L. Ed. 842; 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1943
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by HablaN
- **Judges:** Beadley, Hablan
- **Cited by:** 2,659 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Native Village of Noatak v. Hoffman, 872 F.2d 1384 (1989).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9841763

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the Eleventh Amendment not only repudiated the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793), but restored the original understanding of the persons who drafted the Constitution—in Hamilton's phrase, "the plan of the con…
- recognizing that the FDOC is an entity of the State of Florida and “immune from suit for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment”
- holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction over a suit arising under federal law against a State by a citizen of that State
- holding that sovereign immunity barred a federal question suit against a State brought by one of its own citizens, even though the text of the Eleventh Amendment only addresses suits brought by citizens of another State
- holding that, under the Eleventh Amendment, the judicial power of the United States does not extend to a suit against a state by one of its own citizens unless that state has consented to suit

## Opinion text

Me, . Justice HablaN
concurring.
I concur with the .court in holding that a suit directly against a State by one of its own citizens is not one to which the judicial power of the United States extends, unless the State itself consents to be sued. Upon this ground alone I assent to the judgment. But I cannot give my assent to many things said in the opinion. The comments made upon the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia do not meet my approval. They are not necessary to the determination of the present case. Besides, I am of opinion that the decision in that case was based upon a sound interpretation of the Constitution as that instrument then was.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9841763. Public record. Not legal advice.