Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

2 

TORRES v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

history, and precedent all show that when the States rati-
fied the Constitution, they did not implicitly consent to pri-
vate  damages  actions  filed  in  their  own  courts—whether
authorized by Congress’ war powers or any other Article I 
power.  Because the Court today holds otherwise, I respect-
fully dissent. 

I 
After declaring independence, the former Colonies “con-
sidered themselves fully sovereign nations.”  Franchise Tax 
Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 6). 
And,  when  the  States  ratified  the  Constitution,  “they  en-
tered  the  Union  ‘with  their  sovereignty  intact,’ ”  Federal 
Maritime  Comm’n  v.  South  Carolina  Ports  Authority,  535 
U. S. 743, 751 (2002) (quoting Blatchford v. Native Village 
of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991)), retaining “a substan-
tial  portion  of  the  Nation’s  primary  sovereignty,  together 
with  the  dignity  and  essential  attributes  inhering  in  that 
status,” Alden, 527 U. S., at 714. 
  “ ‘An  integral  component’  of  the  States’  sovereignty  was
‘their immunity from private suits’ ” absent consent.  Fran-
chise Tax Bd., 587 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (quoting Fed-
eral Maritime Comm’n, 535 U. S., at 751–752).  That “doc-
trine . . . was universal in the States when the Constitution 
was drafted and ratified,” Alden, 527 U. S., at 715–716; see 
also  Hans  v.  Louisiana,  134  U. S.  1,  16  (1890),  because 
“[t]he generation that designed and adopted our federal sys-
tem considered immunity from private suits central to sov-
ereign  dignity,”  527  U. S.,  at  715;  see  also,  e.g.,  Federal 
Maritime Comm’n, 535 U. S., at 760.  In fact, sovereign im-
munity  was  so  important  that  “[t]he  Constitution  never 
would have been ratified if the States and their courts were 
to  be  stripped  of  their  sovereign  authority  except  as  ex-
pressly  provided  by  the  Constitution  itself.”  Atascadero 
State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 239, n. 2 (1985); 
see  also  Ex parte  New  York,  256  U. S.  490,  497  (1921);