Download Free Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity and write the review.

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. * * * The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "The Judicial power of 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." U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Supreme Court in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890), "extended the Eleventh Amendment's reach to suits by in-state plaintiffs, thereby barring all private suits against non-consenting States in federal court." Lombardo v. Pa., Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 540 F.3d 190, 194 (3d Cir. 2008) (emphasis omitted). Immunity from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment is designed to preserve the delicate and "proper balance between the supremacy of federal law and the separate sovereignty of the States." Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 757, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999). The Eleventh Amendment serves two fundamental imperatives: safeguarding the dignity of the states and ensuring their financial solvency. See Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 52, 115 S.Ct. 394, 130 L.Ed.2d 245 (1994) (identifying "States' solvency and dignity" as the concerns underpinning the Eleventh Amendment). Karns v. Shanahan, 879 F. 3d 504 (3rd Cir. 2018)
The Eleventh Amendment is one of the most obscure and sharply debated parts of the United States Constitution. The interpretation of this seeminly simple clause has troubled the Supreme Court at crucial periods in American history, and continues to excite sharp debate in the Court today. John V. Orth reconstructs the fascinating but little-known past of the Eleventh Amendment and connects it to pressing modern issues to provide new insight into the history of judicial interpretation.
As part of a new series of Greenwood's comprehensive reference guides to the United States Constitution, Professor Durchslag's edition on the Eleventh Amendment's guarantee of state sovereign immunity is the most thorough and up-to-date treatment of that amendment. The Court's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment over the past two centuries has been an attempt to balance the sovereign interests of the states against the primacy of federal law, and is currently its primary means of articulating its federalist doctrine. Beginning with an extensive history of the Eleventh Amendment and the ratification debates surrounding it, Durchslag proceeds to a chronological discussion of the development of the first generation of Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence from 1793 - 1890. The book then proceeds topically, tracing the developments of the various doctrinal components of the Amendment, and includes suggestions as to how they may evolve. The work concludes with an erudite bibliographic essay to guide the reader to relevant primary and secondary works, and is fully indexed. For constitutional students, scholars, and legal practitioners, as well as for political scientists and historians studying the constitution or federalism.
Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Pages: 29. Chapters: United States Eleventh Amendment case law, Chisholm v. Georgia, Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State, Parker immunity doctrine, City of Boerne v. Flores, Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, Seminole Tribe v. Florida, Ex parte Young, Edelman v. Jordan, Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County, Giles v. Harris, Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, Parker v. Brown, Alden v. Maine, Hans v. Louisiana, Tennessee v. Lane, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, California Retail Liquor Dealers Association v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, Abrogation doctrine, Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, Osborn v. Bank of the United States, Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development. Excerpt: Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), is a landmark decision concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The case was "the first Indian land claim case won on the basis of the Nonintercourse Act." The Supreme Court held that Indian tribes have a common law cause of action for possessory land claims based upon aboriginal title, that the Nonintercourse Act did not preempt that cause of action, and that the cause of action was not barred by a statute of limitations, abatement, implicit federal ratification, or nonjusticiability. Four dissenting justices would have held for the counties on the defense of laches, a question which the majority did not reach, but expressed doubts about. Furthermore, the court held...
"Sovereign Immunity or the Rule of Law suggests a fresh look at the doctrine of sovereign immunity through the lens of political philosophers whose writings were well known to the people who framed and ratified the United States Constitution. Some of those philosophers espoused theories of sovereignty that logically compelled sovereign immunity. John Locke, the philosopher upon whom the former colonists predominantly relied, espoused a theory of sovereignty that, by contrast, cannot tolerate the idea of sovereign immunity - a government not answerable to its own laws or to the instrument that gave it life. Donald L. Doernberg argues that the United States Constitution exists for no purpose other than to restrain government power, and that to declare the government immune from accountability under it is a profanation of our political and philosophical history."--BOOK JACKET.