1989•The University of Chicago Law ReviewRequires access

The Diversity Explanation of the Eleventh Amendment: A Reply to Critics

William Andrew Fletcher

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

During the past dozen years the original meaning of the Eleventh Amendment has become a matter of active controversy, both among legal scholars and among the justices of the Supreme Court.' Modern Eleventh Amendment doctrine remains governed by the traditional view, which in gross outline holds that the amendment is a jurisdictional bar prohibiting the federal courts from hearing unconsented suits brought against states by out-ofstate citizens or by foreign citizens or subjects.2 The principle from which the amendment derives, though not the text of the amendment, similarly bars unconsented suits brought by in-state citizens.3 The amendment's bar may be avoided or overcome in a number of ways, the most significant of which are suits against individual state officers for prospective relief,4 Congressional abrogation of the amendment by explicit statutory language,5 and volun-

About this research paper

What this paper is about

During the past dozen years the original meaning of the Eleventh Amendment has become a matter of active controversy, both among legal scholars and among the justices of the Supreme Court.' Modern Eleventh Amendment doctrine remains governed by the traditional view, which in gross outline holds that the amendment is a jurisdictional bar prohibiting the federal courts from hearing unconsented suits brought against states by out-ofstate citizens or by foreign citizens or subjects.2 The principle from which the amendment derives, though not the text of the amendment, similarly bars unconsented suits brought by in-state citizens.3 The amendment's bar may be avoided or overcome in a number of ways, the most significant of which are suits against individual state officers for prospective relief,4 Congressional abrogation of the amendment by explicit statutory language,5 and volun-

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

During the past dozen years the original meaning of the Eleventh Amendment has become a matter of active controversy, both among legal scholars and among the justices of the Supreme Court.' Modern Eleventh Amendment doctrine remains governed by the traditional view, which in gross outline holds that the amendment is a jurisdictional bar prohibiting the federal courts from hearing unconsented suits brought against states by out-ofstate citizens or by foreign citizens or subjects.2 The principle from which the amendment derives, though not the text of the amendment, similarly bars unconsented suits brought by in-state citizens.3 The amendment's bar may be avoided or overcome in a number of ways, the most significant of which are suits against individual state officers for prospective relief,4 Congressional abrogation of the amendment by explicit statutory language,5 and volun-

Key concepts: Eleventh, Amendment, Diversity (politics), Political science, Law, Law and economics, Sociology, Physics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Diversity Explanation of the Eleventh Amendment: A Reply to Critics — Research Paper | ScholarLens