Key Takeaways

1. Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) was the first significant U.S. Supreme Court case to address the question of whether a state could be sued by a citizen of another state in federal court, ultimately ruling in favor of federal judicial authority over state sovereignty.
2. The decision prompted immediate backlash from the states, leading directly to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment, which restricted the power of federal courts to hear certain lawsuits against states.
3. Chisholm v. Georgia remains a foundational case in American constitutional law, illustrating early tensions between state and federal power and shaping the contours of federalism in the United States.

Introduction

Chisholm v. Georgia, decided in 1793, stands as a cornerstone of American constitutional law. As the first major decision of the Supreme Court, it tested the limits of federal judicial authority and state sovereignty. The case arose in the wake of the American Revolution, at a time when the structure of the new federal government was still being defined and the relationship between states and the federal system was unsettled. The Supreme Court’s ruling, and the swift constitutional response it provoked, offer enduring lessons about the balance of power in the United States.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of Chisholm v. Georgia, examining the historical context, the facts of the case, the Supreme Court’s decision, the immediate aftermath, and the case’s lasting impact on American law and federalism. For further research and in-depth legal analysis, visit Counsel Stack.

Historical Context

The Post-Revolutionary Era and State Sovereignty

After the American Revolution, the United States operated under the Articles of Confederation, a system that emphasized state sovereignty and limited central authority. However, the weaknesses of the Articles led to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, which created a stronger federal government. Even so, many states remained fiercely protective of their independence and autonomy.

The Constitution established a federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, and granted it authority to hear cases "between a State and Citizens of another State" (Article III, Section 2). This language would later become central to the dispute in Chisholm v. Georgia.

The Emergence of Federal Judicial Power

The Judiciary Act of 1789 fleshed out the structure and jurisdiction of the federal courts, but the boundaries between state and federal authority were still ambiguous. Many states, wary of encroachment by the national government, interpreted their sovereignty as including immunity from lawsuits brought by individuals—especially citizens of other states.

The Facts of Chisholm v. Georgia

The Parties and the Dispute

The case began when Alexander Chisholm, executor of the estate of Robert Farquhar, sued the State of Georgia in the Supreme Court. Farquhar, a South Carolina merchant, had supplied goods to Georgia during the Revolutionary War. After the war, Georgia refused to pay the debt, and Chisholm sought to recover the money through the federal courts.

Georgia, however, refused to appear before the Supreme Court, asserting that as a sovereign state, it could not be compelled to answer a lawsuit brought by a private citizen from another state. This stance was rooted in the doctrine of sovereign immunity, a principle inherited from English common law that holds that a sovereign state cannot be sued without its consent.

Procedural Posture

The case was argued before the Supreme Court from February 5 to February 18, 1793. Georgia’s refusal to participate was itself a statement of its position: the state submitted no legal arguments and did not acknowledge the Court’s jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Majority Opinion

On February 18, 1793, the Supreme Court issued its decision in favor of Chisholm. In a 4-1 ruling, the Court held that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gave federal courts the authority to hear cases brought by citizens of one state against another state. The majority rejected Georgia’s claim of sovereign immunity, reasoning that the Constitution’s text superseded traditional notions of state inviolability.

The opinions were delivered seriatim, meaning each Justice wrote separately. The majority emphasized that the people, not the states, were sovereign under the Constitution, and that the federal judiciary had the power to adjudicate disputes involving states and citizens of other states. Justice James Wilson wrote:

"To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even there, it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves SOVEREIGN people of the United States."

The full opinions are available at Justia.

The Dissent

Justice James Iredell dissented, arguing that while the Constitution did grant federal courts jurisdiction over suits between states and citizens of other states, it did not necessarily abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity unless expressly stated. Iredell maintained that states could not be sued without their consent unless Congress passed a law specifically authorizing such suits.

His dissent foreshadowed the arguments that would soon prevail with the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment.

Immediate Aftermath and the Eleventh Amendment

State Reaction

The Supreme Court’s decision was met with alarm by many states. The prospect of being hauled into federal court by private citizens—especially creditors from other states or countries—was deeply unpopular. States feared that their treasuries could be depleted by lawsuits and that their sovereignty was under threat.

As described by the Federal Judicial Center, the reaction was swift and decisive.

Adoption of the Eleventh Amendment

In response to Chisholm v. Georgia, Congress proposed the Eleventh Amendment in 1794, and it was ratified by the states in 1795. The amendment reads:

"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."

The Eleventh Amendment effectively overturned the Supreme Court’s decision, restoring state sovereign immunity in federal courts for suits brought by individuals from other states or countries. The text and analysis of the amendment can be found at FindLaw.

Legal and Constitutional Significance

Federalism and the Balance of Power

Chisholm v. Georgia is a foundational case in the development of American federalism. The case highlighted the tension between the supremacy of the federal government and the autonomy of the states. The Supreme Court’s willingness to subject states to federal judicial authority underscored the new, more centralized structure of government envisioned by the Constitution.

However, the rapid adoption of the Eleventh Amendment demonstrated the limits of federal power and the enduring strength of state sovereignty. The episode illustrated the dynamic nature of American constitutional law, where Supreme Court decisions can be checked and modified through the amendment process.

Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation

Chisholm v. Georgia also showcased the Supreme Court’s role as the interpreter of the Constitution. The case predated Marbury v. Madison (1803)—the landmark case that established the principle of judicial review—but it demonstrated the Court’s willingness to assert its authority over constitutional questions.

The seriatim opinions in Chisholm reflected divergent views on constitutional interpretation. The majority read the Constitution’s language expansively, while the dissent cautioned against abrogating traditional state immunities without explicit authorization.

Sovereign Immunity in American Law

The doctrine of sovereign immunity—the principle that a sovereign entity cannot be sued without its consent—remains a core feature of American law. Chisholm v. Georgia was a rare instance in which the Supreme Court curtailed state immunity, but the decision was quickly reversed by constitutional amendment.

Today, the Eleventh Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court decisions continue to shape the contours of sovereign immunity. The Court has interpreted the amendment broadly, generally barring most suits against states in federal court, though with some exceptions (such as suits by the United States or by states themselves).

For more on sovereign immunity, see Oyez.

The Legacy of Chisholm v. Georgia

Influence on Federal-State Relations

The legacy of Chisholm v. Georgia is evident in the ongoing evolution of federal-state relations. The case set an early precedent for the supremacy of federal law but also demonstrated the ability of states to assert their interests through the constitutional amendment process.

The balance between federal authority and state sovereignty remains a central theme in American law, with echoes of Chisholm v. Georgia in many subsequent disputes over the limits of federal power.

Role in Constitutional Law Education

While Chisholm v. Georgia is not as widely cited as other early Supreme Court cases, it is a staple of constitutional law courses and legal scholarship. The case is often referenced in discussions of federal jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and the amendment process.

Academic analysis of the case can be found in resources such as the Georgetown Law Scholarship.

Enduring Questions

The questions raised by Chisholm v. Georgia—about the nature of sovereignty, the reach of federal judicial power, and the mechanisms for resolving constitutional disputes—remain relevant. The case illustrates how constitutional meaning can be shaped not only by judicial decisions but also by political and popular response.

Related Cases and Later Developments

Hans v. Louisiana (1890)

After the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment, the Supreme Court continued to grapple with the boundaries of state sovereign immunity. In Hans v. Louisiana, the Court held that a citizen could not sue his own state in federal court, extending the Eleventh Amendment’s protections beyond its literal text. The decision cemented the principle that states are generally immune from suits by individuals in federal court.

Other Developments

Over the years, the Supreme Court has carved out exceptions to state sovereign immunity, such as allowing certain suits against state officials for prospective relief (Ex parte Young, 1908) and permitting Congress to abrogate state immunity in some circumstances (Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 1976). However, the core principle established in the wake of Chisholm—that states enjoy broad immunity from private suits in federal court—remains intact.

For further reading, see the Federal Judicial Center’s timeline.

Conclusion

Chisholm v. Georgia was a pivotal moment in the early history of the United States Supreme Court and American constitutional law. By affirming the authority of the federal judiciary over the states, the Court set a precedent for federal supremacy but also ignited a swift and decisive political response that restored state sovereignty through the Eleventh Amendment.

The case’s significance lies not only in its immediate outcome but also in its demonstration of the ongoing negotiation between state and federal power—a negotiation that continues to shape the American legal landscape. Chisholm v. Georgia remains a vital reference point for understanding the structure of American federalism, the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation.

For attorneys and legal researchers seeking authoritative analysis and primary sources, we recommend Counsel Stack for advanced legal research tools and resources.

Additional Resources

• Federal Judicial Center - Chisholm v. Georgia
• Oyez - Chisholm v. Georgia
• Justia - Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
• FindLaw - Eleventh Amendment
• Georgetown Law Scholarship - Chisholm v. Georgia
• Wikipedia - Chisholm v. Georgia
• Ballotpedia - Chisholm v. Georgia

Disclaimer: This guide is intended as a general overview of Chisholm v. Georgia and related legal principles. It does not provide legal advice and may not address all nuances or developments in the law. For specific legal questions or situations, consult a qualified attorney or legal research service such as Counsel Stack.