Constitutional Law - Pendent Jurisdiction v. Eleventh Amendment: Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted
Loading...
Authors
Daly, Daniel F.
Issue Date
1985
Volume
18
Issue
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION|The amenability of states to suits brought by individuals in federal courts is a controversial issue as old as the federal judiciary. The eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted in reaction to the Supreme Court's exercise of article III original jurisdiction in a suit brought against a state to recover a Revolutionary War debt in Chisolm v. Georgia. Since the adoption of the eleventh amendment in 1798, the Supreme Court has struggled to define the concept it embodies and, thus, the intended contours of its jurisdictional curb within the Constitution's article III grant of federal jurisdiction. The latest episode in this continuing struggle came in Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, where the Court attempted to reconcile the eleventh amendment with the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction while maintaining the integrity of both. Although the eleventh amendment generally bars federal jurisdiction over an individual's suit against an unconsenting state, an exception to the amendment's bar allows a federal court to entertain a suit seeking only to enjoin state enforcement...
Description
Citation
18 Creighton L. Rev. 75 (1984-1985)
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law