well your argument this morning in case seventeen twelve ninety nine franchise tax board of california versus hyatt mr waxman mr chief justice and may it please the court the participants in the ratification debates disagreed about whether the new constitution would or should subject states to suit in the new courts of the soon to be superior sovereign but they were unanimous in their understanding that states could not be sued in the courts of other states edmund pendleton sharing the virginia convention proclaimed quote the in possibility of calling a sovereign before the jurisdiction of another sovereign echoing writings and speeches given by hamilton marshall and madison among others in chisholm itself edmund it's nice that they felt that way but what we know is they then put it in the constitution and so we talk a lot now about not relying on legislative history but relying on the plain text of the constitution could you tell me what there is in our original case the nevada in the original case that didn't address this argument and says it wasn't compelling so what is new are you say the original case do you mean nevada or yes all that's what what is new well any of the arguments that were raised in that a versus hold that weren't addressed by the court well as we point out first of all what was and i know you say it was wrong putting aside the wrongness i want to i want to i'm i'm i'm not going to harp on the wrongness i think that's relatively clear from our petition and our merrill i know that's your position but i think before i address what the court missed in nevada versus hall i just want to point out that when you say what changed the only thing that ever says hall represents the only case in state or federal court in the two hundred years prior that had ever recognized the ability of one state to compel another state to answer it cited zero cases and while it isn't new from the time this court at least that high and this court decided hons versus louisiana until whatever its most recent supreme case was on sovereign immunity is always stated repeatedly uniformly that as the court explained in in all didn't state sovereign immunity is demarcated by fundamental postulates implicit in the constitutional design it quote sovereign immunity derives from the structure of the original constitute now i do think it is the structure since most sovereign immunity there's a lot of customary law involving it but at the essence and it was this way in the united states for a very long time recognizing the sovereign immunity of a foreign state was that this is question of the host state so have the us follow the pattern but in the tate letter it changed it around what do you think in the constitutional design reflects the willingness of one state to give up its power to protect its own citizens from the actions of us no other state who might intrude directly now we know because we recently had a case that states can be sued for you in my case i can't remember now  i don't know what you're that there we had a case recently where there is a question about whether a state can be sued to quiet title in another state so if one state owns property in another state it can be hauled into court to quiet title of that property so we know that the rule was an absolute possibly and so the question i have is w the constitutional design do we see and in light of of the the constitutional reservation to states of all powers not that it's needed by the basis in the constitution itself for the implicit plan the underlying postulate that this court has recognized for well over one hundred thirty years but let me just address first your point about you know their rights under the law of nations had the raw power to violate the law of nations obligation that friendly states respect each other's sovereign immunity just as nations had the raw power to violate each other's borders or declare war or to refuse to recognize each other's judgments but the states of the union in ratifying the constitution to  a more perfect union surrendered their powers to treat each other as legal strangers they gave up the so the producers know and wild west of international laws directly just so i understand you are you saying that the state's pray the constitution which were in the same position as foreign nations in other words it was their immunity then was a matter of comedy rather than as a matter of legal requirement is that correct so my view is my view is and i think this is this is well recognized in the courts cases that prior to certainly prior to the articles of confederation but you know but in any event prior to the constitution the states stood in respect to each other and had obligations under the law of nations and the law of nations you know it's true that that in essence the law of nation obligation to not ha courts was an enforceable and it's true that this court has referred to it as therefore in effect a matter of comedy and states were in that situation but this court explained in first national citibank versus the bank of china and in the seventeen overseas cuba case that and it's refer did in the schooner exchange itself that what comedy meant was that there was no obligation to it here or to the to apply that or any other log nations except with respect to friendly nations that the sovereign recognized what did and those that certainly characterize the the states of the union and that's why you know this court in all than in many other cases said that quote the contours of sovereign immunity are determined by the founder understanding and their understanding expressed by the anti federalists the federalists who thought it would be terrific if states could be sued in federal court and the federalists who like madison and marshall who assured everyone that it wouldn't they all understood that because the states were recognized by each other and were friendly there was an absolute law of nations immunity it's odd then that marshall didn't say that in schooner m to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territory must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself and that's what they said yes or no i didn't find language like raw power but what i found was it's a matter of comedy it's a matter and of course the founders were all talking about a situation where they were worried about federal power and the federal suit and bringing who could sue people under the federal power so when i looked at this before which i did i found international authority after international authority many said just what marshall said it said just what a story said and you say well are states different well they're not different two respects almost all of them do give immunity to the of the state but if you find an outlier that doesn't you can't say it violates international law where they state there we have murders question with and what in the constitution would have to be something that in this respect makes them less solvent what is it that says you can't have an outlier so when you say you know if some states refuse to recognize that principle well that was one thing no state before ratification until nevada versus hall had ever done such a thing this court before nevada versus hall in a half a stretching over a hundred years how do you think it isn't that isn't quite my question well of course they didn't you almost all countries recognize sovereign immunity but you might have one i mean i don't know maybe  tasmania if it was a country then didn't recognize it and the question is how did so the answer of marshall story that tell no you don't  i think that tell who was quoted in reference and i'm going to talk about it tell the schooner exchange and then the point of what changed when the constitution was adopted and then where in the text of the constitution i'm immunity was a mandatory limit on the power of one sovereign to adjudicate a nother is claimed another to adjudicate claims against another sovereign and he held that the response to a violation of that law nations was war now in the schooner exchange chief justice marshall said it's of course you a sovereign has absolute territory absolute discretion over its own territory there is a law of nations principle that friendly nations who's in that case whose ships appear in our ports whose sovereign ships that appear in our ports in under the law there are certain principles under the law of nations in which the host stated is deemed as a matter of the law of nations to have waived its sovereign authority to have its courts exercise jurisdiction and he explained why that was the case that is there was an implicit consent now in the plan of convention the states you know at international law if there was a violation of it the nations had all sorts of retaliatory measures they could the states sovereign states are deemed to have consented to recognize the sovereign immunity of other sovereigns in those instances in which and that are enumerated and he explains why a visiting warship of a friendly nation is one of those i don't know if mr even if even if from oh i'm sorry can i yell shark even if i'm wrong about that the fact of the matter is that in the plan of convention and in the text itself the states in order to form a more perfect union surrendered all of the retaliatory means that nation would have had in order to deter or or in force mistrust that's what i understood your basic arguments to be right that there was this system of comedy it all worked very well essentially at least in part because states knew that they  had all these powers that they could use against each other and then they gave up those powers at the convention so what replaced it what replaced it was a constitutional rule that's your basic story is that correct yes a constant yes i just find myself thinking that i mean sort of you know going back to justice sotomayor is question what's the evidence of that because this is a gigantic constitute you know constitutional debate there are a thousand issues on the table everybody has things that they want and this this idea that there is this one for one exchange that you have we give up our power to blockade we get a rule of sovereign immunity i mean that's just not how big negotiations work and it's now unless you can show me evidence that that was the trade i mean if i could just if you would bear with me for one more moment professors bodie and sachs tell about another trade their trade is that there wasn't a rule of sovereign immunity but the states retained their ability not to enforce judgments against them if they violated their own immunity so i guess what i'm saying is all of these trades you can hypothesize them but they are just hypotheses and what's the evidence for any of them so i would say the evident i mean that there is a lot of evidence i don't think there's any disagreement that the framers intended to constitutional law as fundamental aspects of sovereignty the reference to the former colonies as states v the reference to the privileges and immunities clause of citizens of states the limitation the expressed limitations in the constitution including section ten of article one and of course the eleventh amendment itself makes sense only if the well maybe now it's your answer to this question but i'm still you know because we are all always very vigilant not to read things into the constitution they can't be found in the tax time waiting for the answer to which were reiterated again by justice kennedy for the court in all then some of which i have i have recognized i have i have already recit quote preserving fundamental aspects of sovereignty yet withdrawing the ability to protect sovereignty ves of the either nations or other states was in exchange for  guarantee that the then law of nature that then principle of sovereignty and the law of nations would be protected by the constitution and enforced by this court justice kagan has referred to it as a one for one bargain but what there really was was the plan the genius of the constitution the structural provisions of the constitution was that the states having had an unsatisfactory experience with confederation it by ratifying they surrendered their powers to treat each other as legal strangers in other words in chief justice marshall's words they were deemed to waive whatever sovereign parag if they had to describe why is it not in the text of the constitution in your view given that the constitution is a document in my view of majestic specificity it's got of wot of specific details i'm very minute things in this issue which you say rightly is so important but then somehow was not mentioned in the title of the commons to discussion this court has been explaining at least since hans that the principle of sovereign immunity states sovereign immunity was so fundamental that it is a postulate that underlies and gives meaning to other provisions of the constitution including as as then justice rehnquist explained in his dissent in nevada versus all the eleventh amendment itself but in this regard justice kavanagh this principle of state sovereign immunity is no different then chief justice marshall is a recognition in mcculloch versus maryland of the constitutional principle of intergovernmental immunity of the principle against commandeering that's recognized by the court in prince and new york versus united states in  doctrine in the dormant commerce clause the constitution was not as as commentators and i believe some of the founders explained was not meant to replicate a european code of laws and regulations there were some things that were understood and were fundamental to the union that are not expressed in tax nice or last minute when the states disagreed with us and shows about the ability to hold states into federal court the states amended the constitution we got the eleventh the men we have forty four states suggesting we overrule home that's two thirds of the states why don't they move to get the constitution and then if we're getting it wrong you're asking us to do their work if this is such a important principle to them they could express it very directly the way they did and in the eleventh amendment well that that statement that observation just the sort of lawyer and by the way i'm including california there are forty seven states and we have three states that happens but we've got a lot of what a lot of state is in the house and in the senate if they're really excise they can do something about it you know but they're instead they're choosing to let us decide yet anybody it is a state doesn't have the right to protect its citizens you could have said exactly the same thing about why pardon shouldn't be overruled you could say exactly the same thing about any number of outlaw or anomalous constitutional decisions of this court that protect its citizens and there are a mika who suggests that there are principles that have been cabin that we've already recognized that this turned to this turns from a multimillion dollar case california has expended defending itself and this is not some one off problem this is in fact a significant problem we cited a half a dozen of recent cases the states themselves have added another ten and just this weekend the newspapers reported i mean this is this is astonishing in talking talking about disrespecting the dignity and sovereignty of states a nevada citizen sued the commonwealth of massachusetts in nevada state court steve when the casino operator and he sought and on friday evening obtained an injunction from in nevada state judge in join the massachusetts department of gaming regulation from issuing a report it had prepared evaluating the suitability of mr wynn to operate a casino in the boston area that's the nature of the problem now yes the states could propose an amendment to a constitution our constitution is not amended lightly and the fact of the matter is and we've cited a number of state courts state supreme court decisions that followed about a versus hall they all expressed shock the same kind of shock and surprise that met chisholm it's true chisholm produced a very under inclusive constitutional amendment but they were all these state supreme courts are basically saying ok well be you know what we all fought for two hundred years before nevada versus hall that we couldn't exercise sovereignty we couldn't exercise judicial power over other states sovereign and in fact in  i think it was nine hundred sixty one in the western union case this court dismissed a suit in the pennsylvania state courts on the grounds that new york was a necessary power was a necessary  take you back to some of the questions you were previously asking because i want to give you a chance to sort of give your best argument which is you know given that you're claiming that the system of comedy which was working well for all of the states that this system was converted into a particular constitutional a rule at the framing and a very particular one because there could have been other ways as professors bodie and sac suggest for the states to protect themselves given that that's what your claim and what is the best and expand what some of my colleagues and said you don't have to give me even textual evidence what's the best textual or historical evidence that the states made exactly this bargain at the framing that let me take a try would something i haven't hauled out yet inherent in our federal union is the principle that snow state may regulate the government of another state and just as one state's governor can't direct the bureaucracy of another and one state's legislature can't regulate the government actions of another one state's judiciary can't call another states government to the bar of the court and sanction it for carrying out its own laws that is unconstitutional interference with the independence of the states just as reflected in these other non textual universal rule in the law of nations their argument is it wasn't constitutional eyes that just stayed some sort of common wall rule was an abrogation but it wasn't constitutionalized the world in the  regime they envision in which states can ignore what they acknowledge to be a universal rule but don't worry about it because by invoking common law precedents super hundred fifty years ago by pennoyer versus neath states can just refuse to honor in the resulting judgment that is not the constitutional union that the framers invision or produced that's my that's my best shot if i could preserve the balance of power thank you coun ve citizens when injured including by their state's there's no compelling reason for overruling this precedent discarding star decisis at the very least in this case a lot of the case doctoring this is the established law in nevada versus halt this court concluded by saying that prevent states from exercising their jurisdiction in this manner would be the real intrusion of the power of the state to the people of the united states under the tenth amendment the question for this court is is there anything in the constitution that keeps states from exercising this jurisdiction i'd suggest this court can look to three sources the text of the constitution itself the constitutional convention in the  waxman did point to something that's important intuitively and otherwise we would say it would be wrong for one state to tell another state how to run its cover or how to run an agency or what rules it should follow within its own state what in the end what is it that keeps them from doing that if it's not the constitutional structure first comedy protect this is the comedy that existed the pre ratification period and continues this case shows the importance of that comedy initially the data supreme court excluded all negligence claims based on comedy then the data supreme court struck a two hundred fifty take care of most cases and actually i did look at this case and i was trying to figure out what it was that the matter did to intrude or what california did to intru think it's crucial just to sort of mirror because while there is the importance of one day regulating another there is also the crucial interest for the state has in protecting its citizens when they're injured including by another state this court has long day when sued another state is liable for no more than the form state be liable for so the damage judgment on the basis of doubt rule which this court found full faith and credit was limited to one hundred thousand dollars i go back to your initial question to mr constitution that limits the power of a state under the tenth amendment to define its own jurisdiction for remedy for others when they're injured if you if you look at the constitutional convention this wasn't discussed at the constitution the protections that a state had from another state was based on comedy in fact if you look at pages thirty one and thirty two of the petitioners pretty explicitly says in the prerogative cation period there was no protection based on sovereign immunity it was comedy the same company that exists today to collect the state from another state what do you do with federalist eighty one which said that it was inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without it which is written the concern at that time was whether the new government in these new federal courts be able to hold state governments liable they were very afraid because of the debts they might be bankrupt and so hamilton was providing assurance to the states that they wouldn't be held liable in federal court that's what the eleventh amendment was about overruling jism versus ga it was about limiting the power of the federal courts relative to state governments all diverses maine was about the he that protected other states from being sued do you think it's plausible that there would be a great concern about a state's being sued in a federal court which is a more neutral tribunal but no concern about a state the state in the courts of another state yes for two reasons your honor first the framers were very concerned especially the anti federalists were concerned about the powers of this new level of government the federal court they had already seen that they had protection state to state based on comedy in second year out of quite important the states didn't want to give up their own power had the states put in the constitution a limit on the abil suits against other states with a limit on say power the states didn't perceive it necessary because of comedy and they didn't want to restrict their own or thirty of the comedy that exist what is your answer to the to the argument that once the united states was formed either under the articles or under the constitution the relationship between the states was an entirely different from the relationship among indication of such a limit in the text of the constitution in the constitutional convention or from the pre ratification era you know if california were a republic you know we had the if we had the california republic which is that it would have to be careful about what it did to california but the situation al's different because there are states in the union i think nevada might already feel that california overwhelms it too much but in terms of international i go back to justice priors point with regard to his questions mr waxman the schooner exchange case said that under the national law the only protection of foreign country had another sovereign was based on comedy and there's no indication that that was insufficient the reality that this is an issue that relatively really arises well in the remedy for the failure to accord comedy international law was recognized to be war would remedy do the states have under your view if the state chooses not to extend comedy to sister state well they certainly have a remedy in this court based on high it too that damages will be limited to the amount that the form states reliable and second th prospective remedy that's quite important states can enter into a compact with one another to prevent themselves from being sued just to sort of hear our talk requires a degree ment of the other states well for example to go back to justice alito is question given the disparity in a number of respects between them and in california that it's best hope is to be able to sue california in its states so it has an entirely different view of the significance of that right in california would the idea that where you can just go agree on something is not going to be a complete answer but your honor that's true but then you go back to the tenth amendment does nevada have the sovereign power is the state to choose to not enter a compact to define the jurisdiction of its courts and be able to write a actually if you look at footnote twenty nine in the data for saul it does cite to a case state of georgia for society of chattanooga it says that if a state owns property in another state it's subject to eminent domain and judicial proceedings in that but when it does arise it is so important that a state be able to exercise its sovereign power but your honor i would stress to you that this doesn't come to court on a blank slate that there's a forty year old precedent in this court has made nothing has changed since then mr waxman it is prefer points to this court sovereign immunity decisions but the quite distinguishable most of them have done but the eleventh amendment and the power of the federal courts and of course that's quite different than clearly said that it was consistent with nevada versus hall and so in that sense there is nothing that has changed since was argued to this court in one thousand nine hundred eighty nine and there's no compelling reason for overturning story deci nevada vs hall seems quite inconsistent with the principles in the majority opinion and more consistent with the principles and justice rehnquist's sent in the series of cases that you describe in other words if we were five reward that might have been a harder hill to climb but now that you have all these other cases that might leave about a versus hall seeming an outlier where how do you respond to that ari i disagree i think that all of the subsequent cases were very distinguishable context primarily they were about congress ought to authorize suits against states there are about whether or not federal courts can use suits against states all then versus main was whether or not congress can require that a state court use it against the state none of them involve the tenth amendment question presented in this case is there anything in the constitution that prohibits a state from exercising jurisdiction but i did specially direct you to the language in all the inverses maine at five twenty seven at seven thirty eight the constitution did not reflect an agreement on the states to respect the sovereign immunity of one another or at the same decision all the main pages seven three nine seven an versus maine and so in that sense justice capital nothing has changed since one nine hundred seventy nine and the just prudence of this court to cast doubt upon the holding the data versus all how should we think about the fact that forty seven or forty five or whatever it is states have joined in this am indicating that they think that their sovereign immunity power is a good deal more important than the power that you've referenced to protect their own citizens in their own courts the attorney generals of those states filed a brief saying they don't want to have to defend suits and i'm sure the attorney generals of those states would like to see you over on the batteries all but i don't think you can equate a brief filed by state attorney generals with the position of state governments either state legislatures state judiciaries indeed states cured so deeply not only could they amend the constitution is just a story but as i said to chief justice roberts they could enter into contact with one another to protect themselves from it's a pretty remarkable search in that we should understand representations of the state's attorneys general to represent the views of the state i mean each the states have opera apparatus of their own if they don't think the attorney general and i don't know who to speak speaking of whether it's a legislature the governor to direct the attorney general to because it varies from state to state but certainly you would expect expect the attorney general's views to reflect the views of the states your honor the attorney general is an officer of the we regard the submissions of the solicitor general here is reflecting the views of the united states or simply the solicitor general the solicitor general is representing the united states government that doesn't necessarily mean that congress will agree with the position of the solicitor general i'm not saying you should discard the brief for the attorney general but answer justice kagan i was simply saying i wouldn't necessarily assume because the attorney generals the states don't want to be sued that the state governments want to give up their sovereign power into the tenth amendment what we're talking about here have there been attempts  by the states to him enter into agreements of this sort not that i'm aware of your honor but i think that probably reflects this isn't a serious problem it doesn't arise all that often for example if you look at the br those forty four states referred to if you look at page thirteen they identify a total of nine cases since one thousand nine hundred seventy nine which state governments have been sued in other states words and i would think that states would want if another state comes in and violates the rights of its citizenship here to be able to provide a remedy the forty seven states don't like this rule make an effort to find things that this had happened to their what are the clues in it's not a problem we can certainly hypothesize states could begin retaliating as other states but it just hasn't happened and if it does states have the mechanism for protecting themselves and states are protected already on the other hand in a situation like this a citizen like mr hyatt has no other remedy but the ability to sue in state court and he's injured by another where he could have gone to the california courts no he couldn't have gone to california courts because california california office of tax assessment but was quite important your honour's that was about his tax liability in california this is a suit about the torts that were committed against him by california officials within the state of nevada cheated the actual premises could he have thrown some sort of suit in nevada to adjudicate whether he was a resident of california or not or to find that he had no tax liability i think a challenge to tax liability would be different in part because of the tax injunction act and also because of a different principle of comedy but a fair assessment of real estate versus mcnairy which crucial about this case is it's not about tax liability it's about towards the invasion of property rights the defamation the invasion of privacy rights that occurred council what do you do about the petitioner's argument that it's in congress that indian indian community in footnote eight the court specifically said that was an open question and there's actually a cert petition and that question now pending before you it's will express this p c gaming the alabama supreme court held that indian tribes could be sued in petition for your answers or throw the indian tribes under the bus well no your honor i'm saying that it's an unresolved question but there is a second point that may answer the come of you just made congress has planted a power over indian tribes by the states the relationship of congress to the indian tribes is quite different than the relationship of congress to the states and so congress can limit state court jurisdiction of the guard in it there is no way that congress can limit state court jurisdiction to the tenth amendment so it's quite distinguishable the doctrine of star decisis serves many valuable purposes so which one would you say most strongly or which ones would you say most strongly supports  argument here is there any reliance here and if not what other stari decisis factors would you cite well i go back to this court's decision in the hill vs south carolina case in this court there said it hearings to precedent promote relied upon this in filing the suit but it's also about respect for judicial officer already this court overturning its own precedents and here only undermines that respect for judicial authority so i would say in terms of all of the values that are identified and built and started decisis important here it was in hilton that the court said there has to be a compelling reason in there is no compelling reason there's nothing that's been argued today they couldn't have been presented this court and wasn't  general question i have and i'd like to call in your knowledge of this is imaginary or not but i'm about to say that every time we overrule a case it's like a little chink in an armor an lawyers have to use our cases to talk to clients in the client doesn't like what he's hearing can we do everything about it read over the field and the more cases we over rule the harder it is for the lawyer to say no and therefore in many areas people start to ask us to overrule cases because from my point of view there are many wrong cases and that's true of every judge and law professor and once you start down the road you have to be careful for that reason in part is that true or in my making it up out of my imagination yes you're out here i thought it would be your  says you know we're never going to admit we made a mistake because we sat it and we decided it we're going to stick to it even if we think it's wrong or an institution that says well you know we're generally going to stick to what we've done but we're not perfect and when we look back and we think we will we made a big mistake we're going to go back and correct it which kind of institution with a respect more of course this court should overrule precedent times we all agree that brown versus board of education needed overall pl any question is how we figure out what the compelling reason is and that's very difficult and you say nothing has changed that's true in a lot of cases where the court has nonetheless overruled a prior decision and so how are we supposed to think about it is it enough for example of we think it's agreed just we were wrong and the prior decision has severe practical consequences and there's no real reliance interest at stake is that a nuff how to apply that to a particular case is hard but what i just said in terms of agree just we wrong severe practical consequences no real reliance is that enough in your view to overrule i think agree just the wrong no practical consequence to really pressed it certainly go a long way to indicating there is a compelling reason for doing so but also start always by asking is there anything today that's before the court that he didn't have when the earlier case was decide all if we applied that strictly a lot of cases that everyone agrees should be overruled would not have been overruled and so i think i'm questioning that particular factor but i think it's a starting point analysis and then i'm comfortable with the adverbs you use like agree just wrong and what i've argued here today is that now that it's whole not only was not agree just the wrong but was correctly decided but i would emphasize in conclusion that this case is decided by the law of the case doctrine here in the second time the cases before you you said you were affirming the judgement by a four to four decision forty four split is court and that is decision by saying that the real intrusion on state would keep them from exercising their sovereign power to define their jurisdiction but a remedy for their citizens when they're injured by another state the courts adapt via diminishment of the powers of the people of the united states thank you thank you counsel for minutes with mr waxman thank you mr chief justice in mcculloch versus maryland chief justice marshall announced for the court the constitutional principle the eight textual constitutional principle of intergovernmental immunity because as he explained the power of one sovereign to tax another is the power to destroy today all versus nevada stands as the only thing that states can do to each other the power to render judgments against states that when they entered the union were effectively bankrupt they were loaded with revolutionary war debt that power to subject sovereign treasuries to judgments of other sovereigns courts is very much the power to destroy and had anyone thought at the framing that by forming a more perfect union th these states burdened with this debt were subjecting themselves to suits in other state courts to cuss it to sion would never have been adopted the notion that chisholm's mistake was not suing georgia in the state courts of his home state south carolina would have been considered an absurdity now this really is a case where hall is a quote survivor of obsolete constitutional thinking the question was you know what has changed what have we done to recall that the number of cases this court has decided in the sovereign immunity area we're talking you know not just seminole tribe but union gas welsh keel was all of those cases and the reasoning of those cases the south carolina case all along followed this court's decision and the basis for this court's decision in nevada versus hall both of which have been repudiated by this court's later jurisprudence are number one the court said there's nothing explicit in the constitution and we're not going to read a and immunity that is not explicit in the constitution this court in at least a dozen cases has subsequently held over and over again that what matters for the protection of sovereign immunity was the framers understanding at the time of the framing and the postulates that under law the principles of the consequences of giving up the wild west law of nations for a more perfect union in which states won't retaliate against each other by saying well now we're going to you know we're going to allow everybody to sue other states in our court and we're going to do this and we're going to do that the but the other thing that is different is in nevada versus hall this court identified one interest supported by the principle of state sovereign immunity and that was the state's fisk's which of course was overwhelmingly important at the time of the framing but since then this court has said in at least a half a dozen cases that the dignity of states and their self government autonomy are as the as justice thomas explained for the court in the federal maritime commission case the paramount interest to be protected by principles of sovereign immunity neither of those two principles that have since been elucidated by the court were referenced or acknowledged in nevada versus hall thank you mr chang q mr waxman counseled the cases submitted