{"title":"主权豁免与宪法文本","authors":"William Baude","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2714540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the opprobrium heaped on the Supreme Court’s modern doctrine of sovereign immunity, there is a theory that makes sense of that doctrine, and also renders it consistent with the constitutional text. The theory is that sovereign immunity is a common law rule, a “backdrop,” that is not directly incorporated into the Constitution but is shielded by the Constitution from most kinds of change.That theory also has important implications for the future of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court’s decision in Nevada v. Hall holds that state sovereign immunity need not be respected in another state’s courts. Last term, in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt the Court nearly overruled Hall, and its future hangs by a single vote. The backdrops theory suggests that Nevada v. Hall is rightly decided, consistent with modern doctrine, and should not be overruled.","PeriodicalId":47840,"journal":{"name":"Virginia Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sovereign Immunity and the Constitutional Text\",\"authors\":\"William Baude\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2714540\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the opprobrium heaped on the Supreme Court’s modern doctrine of sovereign immunity, there is a theory that makes sense of that doctrine, and also renders it consistent with the constitutional text. The theory is that sovereign immunity is a common law rule, a “backdrop,” that is not directly incorporated into the Constitution but is shielded by the Constitution from most kinds of change.That theory also has important implications for the future of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court’s decision in Nevada v. Hall holds that state sovereign immunity need not be respected in another state’s courts. Last term, in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt the Court nearly overruled Hall, and its future hangs by a single vote. The backdrops theory suggests that Nevada v. Hall is rightly decided, consistent with modern doctrine, and should not be overruled.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47840,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Virginia Law Review\",\"volume\":\"103 1\",\"pages\":\"1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Virginia Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2714540\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virginia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2714540","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite the opprobrium heaped on the Supreme Court’s modern doctrine of sovereign immunity, there is a theory that makes sense of that doctrine, and also renders it consistent with the constitutional text. The theory is that sovereign immunity is a common law rule, a “backdrop,” that is not directly incorporated into the Constitution but is shielded by the Constitution from most kinds of change.That theory also has important implications for the future of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court’s decision in Nevada v. Hall holds that state sovereign immunity need not be respected in another state’s courts. Last term, in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt the Court nearly overruled Hall, and its future hangs by a single vote. The backdrops theory suggests that Nevada v. Hall is rightly decided, consistent with modern doctrine, and should not be overruled.
期刊介绍:
The Virginia Law Review is a journal of general legal scholarship published by the students of the University of Virginia School of Law. The continuing objective of the Virginia Law Review is to publish a professional periodical devoted to legal and law-related issues that can be of use to judges, practitioners, teachers, legislators, students, and others interested in the law. First formally organized on April 23, 1913, the Virginia Law Review today remains one of the most respected and influential student legal periodicals in the country.