Did the Founders Make a Mistake? The 11th Amendment Explained

Everyone knows the Bill of Rights. Fewer people can even name the 11th Amendment. Yet this one quiet clause has shaped who can sue whom, where, and for what – often deciding whether an ordinary person ever gets a day in court. It was born just four years after the Bill of Rights, and over two centuries its meaning has stretched far beyond its original 1795 wording. Some say it protects federalism. Others say it slams the courthouse door. Let’s unpack what it says, why it exists, and how it affects you.

How We Got Here: A Package vs. Patchwork

The first ten amendments were drafted together and ratified as a bundle in 1791. They read like a unified plan to limit government power and protect individual rights. After that, amendments usually popped up as events forced the issue – war, elections, reform fights. The 11th Amendment is the first of those “respond to the moment” changes. It wasn’t a grand theory. It was a reaction to a single Supreme Court case that scared the states.

The Text, Translated

The 11th Amendment says the federal courts’ power “shall not be construed” to cover any lawsuit against a state brought by a citizen of another state or a foreign citizen. In plain English: if you live in State A, you can’t sue State B in federal court without its say-so. That’s it, on the page. It looks narrow: outsiders can’t drag a state into federal court. But the story didn’t stop there.

The Spark: Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

Here’s the lightning bolt. A South Carolina man tried to collect Revolutionary War debts from the State of Georgia. Georgia refused to show up, saying, “You can’t sue us without our consent.” The Supreme Court disagreed and allowed the suit. States panicked at the thought of a flood of claims, domestic and foreign, crashing into federal court. Congress moved fast; within two years the 11th Amendment was ratified to shut that door. Think of it as the states telling the Court, “Back off.”

From Narrow Text to Broad Shield

Over time, the Court read the amendment not just as words, but as a principle: state sovereign immunity. That idea is simple and sweeping – states are sovereign in our system; you can’t haul a sovereign into court unless it agrees. The key move came in Hans v. Louisiana (1890), where the Court said even a citizen can’t sue their own state in federal court for damages. The text doesn’t say that – but the Court said the “spirit” of the amendment does. That one step changed the map.

The Modern Rule (and Its Edges)

Today, the default looks like this: you generally can’t sue a state for money in federal court without its consent. There are two big carve-outs. First, a state can waive its immunity (not common). Second, Congress can allow certain suits – but only when it acts under specific constitutional powers, most notably Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That’s why some civil-rights laws let people sue state employers for discrimination – Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976) is the classic example. By contrast, Congress can’t use its regular Article I powers to strip state immunity – Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996) said no. Later, Board of Trustees v. Garrett (2001) narrowed which disability claims against states can proceed. The theme: limited openings, lots of closed doors.

The Workaround Everyone Uses

If you can’t sue the state, can you sue someone? Often, yes: sue a state official to stop them from enforcing an unconstitutional law. That’s the Ex parte Young path. It’s a forward-looking fix – the court can order the official to follow the Constitution. But it usually doesn’t get you damages for harm already done. It’s more of a brake than a repair. Helpful, yes. Satisfying, not always.

When “Home Court” Doesn’t Help: Alden v. Maine

What if you sue in state court instead? In Alden v. Maine (1999), state probation officers said they were denied overtime pay under federal law. The Supreme Court said they couldn’t sue their state employer – even in state court – for that federal claim without the state’s consent. That left them with a grim choice: accept unpaid overtime or quit. The ruling showed how far sovereign immunity could reach: it wasn’t just blocking federal courthouses; it closed certain state courthouse doors, too.

Why Critics Say It Breaks the Rule of Law

Here’s the bite. If a private company violates overtime rules, workers can sue and win. If a state does the same thing and hides behind immunity, workers may have no damages remedy at all. Same wrong, different outcome – based solely on who the defendant is. That looks like a double standard. It feels like the opposite of “no one is above the law.” The law becomes uneven: strong against private violators, soft against public ones.

Why Defenders Say It Protects the Union

Flip the coin. Without immunity, states could drown in lawsuits – creditors, policy fights, contract spats – each one a chance for federal judges to micromanage state budgets and choices. Immunity, they argue, protects state treasuries, preserves the balance between Washington and the 50 capitals, and prevents courts from taking over policy. It pairs with the Tenth Amendment to keep some meaningful power in state hands. In that view, the amendment didn’t break the rule of law; it kept federal courts from breaking the federal system.

Justice That You Can Actually Reach

Fairness is not just about having rights on paper; it’s about remedies you can actually use. When a state can violate a rule yet dodge damages, trust erodes. People start to believe there are two lanes – one for the governed, one for the government. I get why states fear a flood of lawsuits. But there’s a middle ground: targeted waivers, clear claims processes, and steady, narrow avenues for real harms. A right without a remedy is a right with an asterisk.

Federalism Without Fear

We don’t need to choose between chaos and capture. States can keep immunity for big-ticket policy crashes while opening lanes for basic fairness – wages owed, contracts kept, constitutional injuries stopped and, when appropriate, compensated. Clear rules on when Congress can authorize suits, plus simplified procedures to sue officials for prospective relief, would take a lot of heat out of this. Federalism survives. People still get heard.

So…Did the Founders Make a Mistake?

The 11th Amendment wasn’t a Founders’ manifesto; it was an early course correction by their immediate successors. The original text solved a narrow problem from Chisholm. The “mistake,” if there is one, came later – when the Supreme Court stretched that text into a wide doctrine that sometimes leaves injured people with nowhere to go. The amendment itself didn’t require that outcome. Doctrine did.

A Better Balance for the Next Century

We can keep the core – no blindside lawsuits that wreck state budgets – while fixing the edges. Three ideas: (1) States adopt consistent waiver rules for routine claims (wages, contracts). (2) Congress uses Fourteenth Amendment power with precision, pairing rights with remedies that survive review. (3) Courts apply Ex parte Young generously for forward-looking injunctions and clarify simple paths to fees and costs when citizens are right. That’s not tearing up federalism. That’s tuning it.

Rebalancing Remedies and Respect

The 11th Amendment began as a narrow shield against outsider suits. Over time, it grew into a broad armor of sovereign immunity. That armor protects the structure of our federal system – but it can also bruise the people living inside it. Did the Founders “make a mistake”? Not exactly. But later readings swung the pendulum too far. The fix isn’t to scrap the amendment; it’s to rebalance remedies and respect, so states stay strong, and justice stays reachable.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.