The Asymmetry of State Sovereign Immunity

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
R. Seamon
{"title":"The Asymmetry of State Sovereign Immunity","authors":"R. Seamon","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.271791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses whether a State has sovereign immunity from claims for just compensation. The article concludes that the States are indeed immune from just-compensation suits brought against them in federal court; States are not necessarily immune, however, from just-compensation suits brought against them in their own courts of general jurisdiction. Thus, the States' immunity in federal court is not symmetrical to the States' immunity in their own courts. This asymmetry, the article explains, is the result of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause obligates a State to provide just compensation every time the State takes private property for public use. A State may be able to meet that obligation through a non-judicial compensation scheme. If a State fails to establish an adequate non-judicial scheme for providing just compensation, the State's remedial obligation falls upon the State's courts. A State's courts thereby play an important role in enabling the State to meet its due process obligations. Unlike a State's own courts, the federal courts cannot enable a State to meet the State's due process obligations. Thus, the existence of a federal-court remedy does not excuse the State's failure to provide its own remedies. By the same token, the absence of a federal-court remedy for a State's failure to pay constitutionally required just compensation does not imply the absence of a remedy in the State's own courts. For this reason, the Supreme Court case law indicating that States are immune from just-compensation suits brought in federal court does not support recognizing a similar immunity in a State's own courts.","PeriodicalId":46514,"journal":{"name":"Washington Law Review","volume":"6 1","pages":"1067"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2001-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Washington Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.271791","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article discusses whether a State has sovereign immunity from claims for just compensation. The article concludes that the States are indeed immune from just-compensation suits brought against them in federal court; States are not necessarily immune, however, from just-compensation suits brought against them in their own courts of general jurisdiction. Thus, the States' immunity in federal court is not symmetrical to the States' immunity in their own courts. This asymmetry, the article explains, is the result of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause obligates a State to provide just compensation every time the State takes private property for public use. A State may be able to meet that obligation through a non-judicial compensation scheme. If a State fails to establish an adequate non-judicial scheme for providing just compensation, the State's remedial obligation falls upon the State's courts. A State's courts thereby play an important role in enabling the State to meet its due process obligations. Unlike a State's own courts, the federal courts cannot enable a State to meet the State's due process obligations. Thus, the existence of a federal-court remedy does not excuse the State's failure to provide its own remedies. By the same token, the absence of a federal-court remedy for a State's failure to pay constitutionally required just compensation does not imply the absence of a remedy in the State's own courts. For this reason, the Supreme Court case law indicating that States are immune from just-compensation suits brought in federal court does not support recognizing a similar immunity in a State's own courts.
国家主权豁免的不对称
该条讨论国家是否对公正赔偿要求享有主权豁免。文章的结论是,各州确实免于联邦法院对其提起的公正赔偿诉讼;然而,国家不一定不受在本国具有一般管辖权的法院对其提起的公正赔偿诉讼的影响。因此,各州在联邦法院的豁免与各州在本国法院的豁免是不对称的。文章解释说,这种不对称是宪法第十四修正案的正当程序条款造成的。正当程序条款要求各州在每次将私有财产用于公共用途时提供公正的赔偿。一个国家也许能够通过非司法赔偿办法来履行这项义务。如果一个国家未能制定提供公正赔偿的适当的非司法办法,则该国的补救义务由其法院承担。因此,一国法院在使该国能够履行其正当程序义务方面发挥着重要作用。与各州的法院不同,联邦法院不能使各州履行其正当程序义务。因此,联邦法院补救办法的存在并不能成为国家不提供自己的补救办法的借口。出于同样的原因,对一个州未能支付宪法所要求的公正赔偿而没有联邦法院的补救并不意味着在该州自己的法院没有补救。因此,最高法院的判例法指出,各州对联邦法院提起的公正赔偿诉讼享有豁免权,这并不支持在各州法院承认类似的豁免权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Washington Law Review is a student-run and student-edited scholarly legal journal at the University of Washington School of Law. Inaugurated in 1919, it is the first legal journal published in the Pacific Northwest. Today, the Law Review publishes Articles and Comments of national and regional interest four times per year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信