Chisholm v. Georgia

2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 419 (1793), argued 5 Feb. 1793, decided 18 Feb. 1793 by vote of 4 to 1; seriatim opinions by Jay, Cushing, Wilson, and Blair, Iredell in dissent. The first great case decided by the Court, Chisholm presented a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty. The plaintiff, a citizen of South Carolina and the executor of a South Carolina merchant, sued the state of Georgia for the value of clothing supplied by the merchant during the Revolutionary War. Georgia refused to appear, claiming immunity from the suit as a sovereign and independent state. The Constitution (Article III, sec. 2) extended federal judicial power to controversies between “a State and Citizens of another State” (see Cases and Controversies). The Court entered a default judgment against Georgia. The opinions of James Wilson and John Jay were ringing declarations of the nationalist view that sovereignty resided in the people of the United States “for the purposes of Union” and that as to those purposes Georgia was “not a sovereign state” (p. 457). Chisholm roused old Antifederalist fears of “consolidation” while raising the prospect of creditors flocking to the federal courts. The immediate consequence of the decision was action by Congress ultimately leading to the Eleventh Amendment (1798), which took away jurisdiction in suits commenced against a state by citizens of another state or of a foreign state. This is the first instance in which a Supreme Court decision was superseded by a constitutional amendment. (.)

See also Federalism; Reversals of Court Decisions by Amendment; State Sovereignty and States' Rights

— Charles F. Hobson

• 2 Dall. 419 (1793)
• Vote: 4–1
• For the Court: seriatim opinions by Jay, Cushing, Wilson, and Blair
• Dissenting: Iredell

During the American War of Independence, agents of the state government of Georgia purchased clothing, blankets, and other goods from Robert Farquhar, a merchant in Charleston, South Carolina. Farquhar died in 1784, and the executor of his estate was Alexander Chisholm. Acting for a minor (non-adult) heir of Farquhar, Chisholm sought payment from the Georgia state government for money that he claimed it owed Farquhar. Georgia officials refused to pay, however, because the state had already paid its agents for the goods. Chisholm was unable to collect the money owed his client from these agents. So he took his case to the newly established federal courts and sued the state of Georgia for the monetary value of the goods supplied by Farquhar.

The Issue

The state of Georgia refused to send a representative to the Supreme Court. Georgia argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction in this case because a state government could not be sued by a citizen from another state.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chisholm. This decision was based on Article 3, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, which says, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases… between a State and Citizens of another State.” Chief Justice John Jay wrote, “Any one state in the Union may sue another state in this court, that is, all the people of one state may sue all the people of another state. It is plain, then, that a state may be sued, and hence it plainly follows that suability and state sovereignty are not incompatible.” In other words, a suit brought by citizens of one state against the government of another state does not diminish or threaten the authority or independent power of that state government.

Dissent

Justice James Iredell argued that under common law no state could be sued unless it consented to the action. This state right was necessary in order for the state to retain its sovereignty (supreme power within its borders, free of external influences), said Iredell.

Significance

This decision caused an uproar in Congress. A large majority in the House of Representatives (81–9) and the Senate (23–2) voted in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia. The state governments ratified this proposal, which became the 11th Amendment to the Constitution: “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.” This was the first time a Supreme Court decision was overturned by constitutional amendment.

What happened to Chisholm's financial claim against Georgia? It succeeded. Robert Farquhar's heir accepted securities (bonds) of the Georgia state government in full payment of his claim against the state. These bonds paid interest to the holder and could be exchanged for cash.

Sources

• John V. Orth, The Judicial Power of the United States: The Eleventh Amendment in American History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987)

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas 419 (1793). The heirs of Alexander Chisholm, citizens of South Carolina, sued the state of Georgia to enforce payment of claims against that state. Georgia refused to defend the suit, and the Supreme Court, upholding the right of citizens of one state to sue another state under Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, ordered judgment by default against Georgia. No writ of execution was attempted because of threats by the lower house of the Georgia legislature. The Eleventh Amendment ended such actions.

Bibliography

Corwin, Edward S. The Commerce Power versus States Rights. Gloucester, Mass.: P. Smith, 1962.

Orth, John V. The Judicial Power of the United States: The Eleventh Amendment in American History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

—E. Merton Coulter/A. R.

Chisholm v. Georgia
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 5, 1793 Decided February 18, 1793
Full case name: Alexander Chisholm, Executors v. Georgia Citations: 2 U.S. 419; 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419; 1 L. Ed. 440; 1793 U.S. LEXIS 249 Prior history: Original action filed, U.S. Supreme Court, August, 1792 Subsequent history: None on record
Holding
Article III, Section 2's grant of federal jurisdiction over suits "between a State and Citizens of another State" abrogated the States' sovereign immunity recognized at common law, thus allowing a private individual to hale a State into federal court.
Court membership
Chief Justice: John Jay Associate Justices: James Wilson, William Cushing, John Blair, James Iredell
Case opinions
Seriatim opinion by: Cushing Seriatim opinion by: Blair Seriatim opinion by: Wilson Seriatim opinion by: Jay Dissent by: Iredell
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. III; Judiciary Act of 1789
Superseded by
U.S. Const. amend. XI

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793)^[1], is considered by many to be the first United States Supreme Court case of great significance and impact. Because of its early date, there is little background information (particularly in American law) available for it.

Background of the case

In 1792 in South Carolina, Alexander Chisholm, the executor of the estate of Robert Farquhar, attempted to sue the state of Georgia in the Supreme Court over payments due them for goods that Farquhar had supplied Georgia during the American Revolutionary War. U.S. Attorney General Edmund Randolph appeared to argue the case for the plaintiff before the Court. Georgia refused to appear, claiming that as a "sovereign," a state did not have to appear in court to hear a suit against it to which it did not consent.

The Court's decision

The Court, in a 4-1 decision, found in favor of the plaintiff, with Chief Justice of the United States John Jay concurring with Justices Blair, Wilson, and Cushing, with Justice Iredell dissenting. (At the time, there was no one "majority" opinion; the Justices simply delivered their own opinions one by one, in order from the most junior to the most senior.) The Court argued that Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution abrogated the States' sovereign immunity and granted federal courts the affirmative power to hear disputes between private citizens and States.

Subsequent developments

In 1795, largely as a result of Chisolm, the Eleventh Amendment was ratified, which removed federal jurisdiction in cases where citizens of one state or foreign countries attempt to sue another state. However, citizens of one state or foreign countries can still use the Federal courts if the state consents to be sued or if Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of Fourteenth Amendment remedial powers, abrogates the states' immunity from suit. See, e.g., Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976).

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 2

References

• Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation, New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.
• Jean Edward Smith, The Constitution And American Foreign Policy, St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1989.

External links

1. ^ 2 U.S. 419 (Full text of the decision at Findlaw.com)

• Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) (full text with links to cited Supreme Court opinions and sections of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Code, and C.F.R.)

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)