1793 • Foundational

Chisholm v. Georgia

2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793)

📄 Read the Actual Opinion

U.S. Reports opinion (PDF) →

📋 Summary of the Opinion

A South Carolina citizen sued the State of Georgia in federal court. The Supreme Court allowed it under Article III jurisdiction.

⚖️ Why It Mattered

The decision sparked outrage and directly led to the Eleventh Amendment, which barred such suits and reshaped state sovereign immunity.

✅ What It Provided or Took Away

✅ Provided:

For a short time, federal courts could hear suits by private citizens against states.

❌ Took Away:

Quickly reversed by the Eleventh Amendment, restoring broad immunity to states.

🤔 Overreach or Proper Role?

It was a bold, text-driven reading of Article III, but many saw it as intruding on state sovereignty. The quick amendment showed how constitutional checks worked against perceived overreach.

💡 Plain-English Impact Today

You generally cannot sue a state in federal court for money damages without its consent or a valid federal override.