Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
When Can A State Be Sued?, William W. Van Alstyne
When Can A State Be Sued?, William W. Van Alstyne
Faculty Scholarship
In her Popular Government article "When You Can't Sue the State: State Sovereign Immunity" (Summer 2000), Anita R. Brown-Graham described a series of recent decisions in which a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court barred individuals from suing states for money damages for certain violations of federal law, such as laws prohibiting discrimination against employees because of their age. In the response that follows, William Van Alstyne argues that this barrier to relief is neither unduly imposing nor novel. The debate over the significance of these decisions is likely to continue. In February 2001, in another case decided by a five-to-four …
State Sovereign Immunity And Stare Decisis: Solving The Prisoners’ Dilemma Within The Court, Neil S. Siegel
State Sovereign Immunity And Stare Decisis: Solving The Prisoners’ Dilemma Within The Court, Neil S. Siegel
Faculty Scholarship
This Comment argues that the liberal and conservative blocs on the U.S. Supreme Court are embroiled in a Prisoners' Dilemma with respect to whether they should follow precedent on the question of congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity. The analytical consequence of this strategic situation within the Court is that, over the long run, all of the Justices would more fully realize their views of the merits of Eleventh Amendment cases by demonstrating more--not less--respect for the independent value of stare decisis. This Comment uses game theory to substantiate this claim, after which it offers a potential, contingent solution to …
Against Sovereign Immunity, Erwin Chemerinsky
Against Sovereign Immunity, Erwin Chemerinsky
Faculty Scholarship
In recent years, the Supreme Court has substantially expanded the scope of state sovereign immunity. These decisions provide an important occasion for a reconsideration of the entire doctrine of sovereign immunity. This article argues that sovereign immunity is an anachronistic concept, derived from long discredited royal prerogatives, and that it is inconsistent with basic principles of the American legal system. Sovereign immunity is justified neither by history nor, more importantly, by functional considerations. Sovereign immunity is inconsistent with fundamental constitutional requirements such as the supremacy of the Constitution and due process of law. This article concludes that sovereign immunity, for …