Against Sovereign Immunity

By Chemerinsky, Erwin | Stanford Law Review, May 2001 | Go to article overview

Against Sovereign Immunity


Chemerinsky, Erwin, Stanford Law Review


I. INTRODUCTION: OF COURSE, THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO WRONG

Sovereign immunity is an anachronistic relic and the entire doctrine should be eliminated from American law. The principle of sovereign immunity is derived from English law, which assumed that "the King can do no wrong."(1) Since the time of Edward the First, the Crown of England has not been suable unless it has specifically consented to suit.(2) Throughout American history, United States courts have applied this principle, although they often have admitted that its justification in this country is unclear.(3)

A doctrine derived from the premise that "the King can do no wrong" deserves no place in American law. The United States was founded on a rejection of a monarchy and of royal prerogatives.(4) American government is based on the fundamental recognition that the government and government officials can do wrong and must be held accountable. Sovereign immunity undermines that basic notion.

The doctrine is inconsistent with the United States Constitution. Nowhere does the document mention or even imply that governments have complete immunity to suit. Sovereign immunity is a doctrine based on a common law principle borrowed from the English common law. However, Article VI of the Constitution states that the Constitution and laws made pursuant to them are the supreme law, and, as such, it should prevail over government claims of sovereign immunity.(5) Yet, sovereign immunity, a common law doctrine, trumps even the Constitution and bars suits for relief against government entities in violation of the Constitution and federal laws.

Sovereign immunity is inconsistent with a central maxim of American government: no one, not even the government, is above the law. The effect of sovereign immunity is to place the government above the law and to ensure that some individuals who have suffered egregious harms will be unable to receive redress for their injuries.(6) The judicial role of enforcing and upholding the Constitution is rendered illusory when the government has complete immunity to suit. Moreover, sovereign immunity undermines the basic principle, announced in Marbury v. Madison, that "[t]he very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury."(7)

All of this seems so clear and obvious. Yet sovereign immunity is not fading from American jurisprudence; quite the contrary, the Supreme Court is dramatically expanding its scope. In Alden v. Maine, the Court held that sovereign immunity broadly protects state governments from being sued in state court without their consent, even to enforce federal laws.(8) In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, the Court greatly limited the ability of Congress to authorize suits against state governments and to override sovereign immunity.(9) The Court applied this principle within the past couple of years to bar suits against states for patent infringement(10) and for age discrimination.(11) Although all of these cases involve suits against state governments, the Court has indicated no willingness or likelihood of relaxing the sovereign immunity of the United States government.

In this article, I argue that this entire body of law is simply wrong and that the doctrine of sovereign immunity should be banished from American law. No government--federal, state, or local--should be accorded sovereign immunity in any court. Part II considers the constitutional status of sovereign immunity and makes two arguments: first, that sovereign immunity is not a doctrine based in the United States Constitution; and second, that sovereign immunity should be regarded as inconsistent with the Constitution. Part III then considers the policy justifications for sovereign immunity and argues that it is an undesirable doctrine that undermines both government accountability and compensation for injured individuals. In Part III, I also consider the primary justifications for sovereign immunity--protecting government treasuries, separation of powers, the lack of authority for suits against government entities, the existence of adequate alternatives to suits against the government, and tradition--and argue that none of these justify the doctrine.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Against Sovereign Immunity
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.