Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 434.0

524US2

Unit: $U91

[09-06-00 17:16:26] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 381 (1998)

389

Opinion of the Court

trict court’s original jurisdiction. The presence of the non-
diverse party automatically destroys original jurisdiction:
No party need assert the defect. No party can waive the
defect or consent to jurisdiction.
Insurance Corp. of Ire-
land v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U. S. 694,
702 (1982); People’s Bank v. Calhoun, 102 U. S. 256, 260–261
(1880). No court can ignore the defect; rather a court, notic-
ing the defect, must raise the matter on its own.
Insurance
Corp. of Ireland, supra, at 702; Mansﬁeld, C. & L. M. R. Co.
v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884).

The Eleventh Amendment, however, does not automati-
cally destroy original jurisdiction. Rather, the Eleventh
Amendment grants the State a legal power to assert a sover-
eign immunity defense should it choose to do so. The State
can waive the defense. Atascadero State Hospital v. Scan-
lon, 473 U. S. 234, 241 (1985); Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S.
436, 447 (1883). Nor need a court raise the defect on its
own. Unless the State raises the matter, a court can ignore
it. See Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U. S. 496, 515,
n. 19 (1982).

These differences help to explain why governing authority
has treated the defects differently for purposes of original
jurisdiction. Where original jurisdiction rests upon Con-
gress’ statutory grant of “diversity jurisdiction,” this Court
has held that one claim against one nondiverse defendant
destroys that original jurisdiction. See, e. g., Newman-
Green, Inc., supra, at 829 (“When a plaintiff sues more than
one defendant in a diversity action, the plaintiff must meet
the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant
or face dismissal”). But, where original jurisdiction rests
upon the Statute’s grant of “arising under” jurisdiction, the
Court has assumed that the presence of a potential Eleventh
Amendment bar with respect to one claim, has not destroyed
original jurisdiction over the case. E. g., Pugh, 438 U. S.,
at 782; Papasan v. Allain, 478 U. S. 265 (1986). See also