Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): by citizens of other States, the Supreme Court has long held that the Amendment also bars suits against the State by its own citizens. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890); Sacred Heart Hospital of Norristown v. Pennsylvania (In re Sacred Heart Hospital of Norristown), 133 F.3d 237, 241 (3d Cir.1998). The Amendment divests federal courts from jurisdiction over private suits against unconsenting states. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1122, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). Nor may Congress pass a law under its Article I powers to vest federal courts with jurisdiction to hear such suits. Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 72-73, 116 S.Ct. at 1131-32; see also Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 2266, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Eleventh Amendment immunity derives from the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that congress may abrogate a states immunity pursuant to its enforcement power under  5 of the fourteenth amendment (B) holding that congress did not properly abrogate states eleventh amendment immunity from suits under the patent act (C) holding that states likewise retain immunity from private suit in their own courts which congress may not abrogate by article i legislation (D) holding that congress had no power under article i to abrogate state sovereign immunity (E) holding that congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to the patent clause of article i
Output (English): holding that congress had no power under article i to abrogate state sovereign immunity