---
title: U.S. Const. Amend. XI. Restriction of Judicial Power Against the States
collection: code
id: us-const:amend-xi
cite_as: U.S. Const. Amend. XI
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xi
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xi.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xi/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/1us-const-(v1)-2025-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=328b75b8_0#page=1126
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/index.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-x.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xii.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
omitted: notes
omitted_chars: 28777
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xi.md?notes=all&start=11326
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
heading_path: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION / Amendments
---

# U.S. Const. Amend. XI. Restriction of Judicial Power Against the States

A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record that.

The Judicial power to the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

## Editor's Notes

U.S. Const., amend. 11 modifies U.S. Const., art. III, sec. II, cl. 1.

## Law Reviews

For article, “Georgia Versus the United States Supreme Court,” see 4 J. Pub. L. 285 (1955).

For comment criticizing Gainer v. School Bd., 135 F. Supp. 559 (M.D. Ala. 1955), refusing to enforce injunction against school board for discriminatory salary practices on grounds of this amendment, see 7 Mercer L. Rev. 387 (1956).

For comment on Knowles v. Housing Auth., 212 Ga. 729, 95 S.E.2d 659 (1957), holding that the act giving the housing authority unqualified power to sue and be sued under § 49-2-6 waived any immunity the authority otherwise might have claimed under the state’s privilege of governmental immunity, see 20 Ga. B.J. 258 (1957).

For article, “Sovereign Immunity in Administrative Law—A New Diagnosis,” see 9 J. of Pub. L. 1 (1960).

For article, “The Eleventh Amendment: Adoption and Interpretation,” see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 207 (1968).

For note, “Sovereign Immunity and the Fair Labor Standards Act,” see 21 J. of Pub. L. 415 (1972).

For comment discussing Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1973) and Rothstein v. Wyman, 467 F.2d 226 (2d Cir. 1972), as to restrictions under this amendment on federal jurisdiction over suits seeking to force state officials to make retroactive payment of withheld state-federal welfare payments, see 7 Ga. L. Rev. 366 (1973).

For comment discussing executive immunity under this amendment, in light of Krause v. Rhodes, 471 F.2d 430 (6th Cir. 1972), rev’d sub nom. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 42 U.S.L.W. 4543 (1974), see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 669 (1974).

For article discussing developing principles of state sovereignty limitations on Congress’ exercise of its granted powers, see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 35 (1976).

For note discussing state liability for highway defects and waiver of sovereign immunity under this amendment, see 27 Emory L.J. 337 (1978).

For a note analyzing sovereign immunity in this state and proposing implementation of a waiver scheme and creation of a court of claims pursuant to Ga. Const. 1976, Art. VI, Sec. V, Para. I, see 27 Emory L.J. 717 (1978).

For comment on Kimble v. Solomon, 599 F.2d 599 (4th Cir. 1979) and this amendment, see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 135 (1979).

For article discussing interpretation of this amendment, see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 389 (1980).

For comment on Owen v. City of Independence, 444 U.S. 822, 100 S. Ct. 1398, 64 L. Ed. 2d 850 (1980), discussing state and municipal immunity from suit, see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 605 (1980).

For note, state standing in police-misconduct cases: expanding the boundaries of parens patriae, see 16 Ga. L. Rev. 865 (1982).

For note, “Express Waiver of Eleventh Amendment Immunity,” see 17 Ga. L. Rev. 513 (1983).

For article surveying 1982 Eleventh Circuit cases involving constitutional civil law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 1221 (1983).

For survey of 1985 Eleventh Circuit cases on employment discrimination, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 1315 (1986).

For article, “Georgia and the Development of Constitutional Principles: An Essay in Honor of the Bicentennial,” see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1987).

For article, “Federal Preemption, Federal Conscription Under the New Super-fund Act,” see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 643 (1987).

For survey of 1986 Eleventh Circuit cases on bankruptcy, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 1097 (1987).

For survey of 1986 Eleventh Circuit cases on trial practice and procedure, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 1371 (1987).

For article, “Eleventh Amendment Jurisprudence After Atascadero: The Coming Clash with Antitrust, Copyright, and Other Causes of Action over Which the Federal Courts Have Exclusive Jurisdiction,” see 37 Emory L.J. 645 (1988).

For annual Eleventh Circuit survey of constitutional law — civil, see 42 Mercer L. Rev. 1313 (1991).

For comment on the role of the Eleventh Amendment in shipwreck litigation, see 42 Emory L.J. 1099 (1993).

For article, “Individual Rights and the Powers of Government,” see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 343 (1993).

For article, “Annual Eleventh Circuit Survey January 1, 1993 — December 31, 1993: Constitutional Civil Law,” see 45 Mercer L. Rev. 1217 (1994).

For comment, “Roving Federalism: Waiver Doctrine After College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board,” see 49 Emory L.J. 859 (2000).

For comment, “Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland: Reaffirming Ex parte Young and the Necessity of Finding Regulatory Hand-Back Schemes to a Gift or Gratuity,” see 52 Emory L.J. 1519 (2003).

For note, “Lapides: Striking a Balance Between State Sovereignty and Fairness to Individual Litigants?,” see 54 Mercer L. Rev. 1741 (2003).

For note, “Finding Immunity: Manders v. Lee and the Erosion of 1983 Liability,” see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 1505 (2004).

For article, “General Intangible or Commercial Tort: Moral Rights and State-Based Intellectual Property as Collateral under U.C.C. Revised Article 9,” see 22 Bank. Dev. J. 95 (2005).

For article, “Rethinking Constitutional Review in America and the Commonwealth: Judicial Protection of Human Rights in the Common Law World,” see 35 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 99 (2006).

For 2006 eleventh circuit survey of admiralty law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 1113 (2007).

For article, “Congressional End-Run: The Ignored Constraint on Judicial Review,” see 45 Ga. L. Rev. 211 (2010).

For comment, “Keeping the Arms in Touch: Taking Political Accountability Seriously in the Eleventh Amendment Arm of the State Doctrine,” see 64 Emory L.J. 819 (2015).

For article, “Eleventh Circuit Survey: January 1, 2014 — December 31, 2014: Employment Discrimination,” see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 927 (2015).

For annual survey on employment discrimination, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 875 (2016).

For article, “A Penal Colony for Bad Lawyers,” see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 743 (2018).

For article, “Transcript: Abortion and Gay Rights,” see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 871 (2019).

For article, “Coequal Federalism and Federal-State Agencies,” see 55 Ga. L. Rev. 287 (2020).

## Purpose.

The very object and purpose of U.S. Const., amend. 11 is to prevent the indignity of subjecting a state to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the instance of private parties. Ramsey v. Hamilton, 181 Ga. 365, 182 S.E. 392, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 94 (1935).

U.S. Const., amend. 11 grants a state immunity from suits by an individual. Turner v. Ledbetter, 906 F.2d 606, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 12049 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 928, 111 S. Ct. 2041, 114 L. Ed. 2d 125, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 2769 (1991).

## How Amendment to Be Construed.

— In order to secure the manifest purpose of the constitutional exemption guaranteed by U.S. Const., amend. 11, it should be interpreted not literally and too narrowly, but with the breadth and largeness necessary to enable it to accomplish its purpose; and must be held to cover not only suits brought against a state by name, but those against its officers, agents, and representatives, where the state, though not named, is the real party against which the relief is asked and the judgment will operate. Ramsey v. Hamilton, 181 Ga. 365, 182 S.E. 392, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 94 (1935).

Georgia Attorney General lacks statutory authority to waive the state’s eleventh amendment immunity from suit; only the legislature can authorize a waiver of sovereign immunity. Ramey v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 153 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12883 (M.D. Ga. 2001).

## Standing of County in Federal Court.

— A political subdivision of this state, such as the DeKalb County School District and its Board of Education, does not have standing to maintain a suit against the state in federal court for a breach of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. DeKalb County Sch. Dist. v. Schrenko, 109 F.3d 680, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6429 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1015, 118 S. Ct. 601, 139 L. Ed. 2d 489, 1997 U.S. LEXIS 7366 (1997).

## Partial Dismissal Permitted.

Federal courts may dismiss claims which run afoul of U.S. Const., amend. 11 without dismissing other claims involved in the case. Brown v. Composite State Bd. of Medical Exmrs., 960 F. Supp. 301, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4064 (M.D. Ga. 1997).

Federal court had jurisdiction over

## State Agency.

The Georgia Department of Transportation was subject to jurisdiction of the federal court in an action by citizens seeking a preliminary injunction against a federally-funded road widening project that involved removal of a historically significant oak tree. Hatmaker v. Georgia DOT ex rel. Shackelford, 973 F. Supp. 1047, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21785 (M.D. Ga. 1995), dismissed, 973 F. Supp. 1058, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18510 (M.D. Ga. 1997).

Determination of dischargeability

## Of Student Loan.

An adversary proceeding to determine the dischargeability of a student loan which, if successful, would restrain the defendant state from collecting the student loan debt at issue constitutes a suit for eleventh amendment purposes. Wilson v. South Carolina State Educ. Assistant Auth., 258 B.R. 303, 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 57 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2001).

## Immunity Applies to Awards Payable From State Treasury.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibits a monetary award when the amount of that award would be paid from the state treasury. Eley v. Morris, 390 F. Supp. 913, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13845 (N.D. Ga. 1975); Fouche v. Jekyll Island-State Park Auth., 713 F.2d 1518, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 24131 (11th Cir. 1983).

U.S. Const., amend. 11 is, in effect, the prohibition of an award of damages which must be paid out of the state treasury. Davis v. Griffin-Spalding County Bd. of Educ., 445 F. Supp. 1048, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15029 (N.D. Ga. 1975).

Retroactive monetary relief

## Against a State.

U.S. Const., amend. 11 restricts the power of the federal courts to order retroactive monetary relief against a state. Davis v. Griffin-Spalding County Bd. of Educ., 445 F. Supp. 1048, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15029 (N.D. Ga. 1975).

Because an award of costs does not compensate the plaintiff for the injury that first brought the plaintiff into court, such an award does not violate U.S. Const., amend. 11’s proscription against awards of “retroactive” relief against the state. Georgia Ass’n of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel, 855 F.2d 794, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 12870 (11th Cir. 1988).

For the purposes of U.S. Const., amend. 11, there is no reason for distinguishing between actual costs and interest on those costs that result from a lengthy appellate process. Georgia Ass’n of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel, 855 F.2d 794, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 12870 (11th Cir. 1988). cies of the state may be instituted, without making the state a party and without its consent, where they are seeking to enforce an unconstitutional statute or a valid law in an unconstitutional manner. Davis v. Cook, 55 F. Supp. 1004, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2343 (D. Ga. 1944).

## Suits Against Administrative agen-Suit Against Agency and Officials.

Eleventh amendment barred lawsuit by Medicaid recipients seeking a portion of a tobacco settlement against state agency; however, the more difficult issue of whether the eleventh amendment barred the lawsuit insofar as the state officials were concerned was not addressed since the issue lacked merit anyway. McClendon v. Ga. Dep’t of Cmty. Health, 261 F.3d 1252, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18566 (11th Cir. 2001).


> The printed notes continue for 28,777 more characters, not shown here. Continue at https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xi.md?notes=all&start=11326