Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Alden, 527 U. S., at 716. 

Although States generally retained their immunity from
suit, “in ratifying the Constitution, [they] did surrender a 
portion  of  their  inherent  immunity.”    Federal  Maritime 
Comm’n,  535  U. S.,  at  752.  As  Alexander  Hamilton  ex-
plained in The Federalist, sovereign immunity was part of 
“the  general  sense  and  the  general  practice  of  mankind,”
and the Constitution therefore left it “with the States” un-
less they had “surrender[ed]” some portion “of this immun-
ity in the plan of the convention.”  The Federalist No. 81, 
pp. 487–488 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961); see also Hans, 134 U. S., 
at 13; Alden, 527 U. S., at 755. 

During the Nation’s first 200 years, this Court recognized 
only  two  instances  in  which  the  States  had  surrendered 
their sovereign immunity in the constitutional plan, both of 
which involved suits prosecuted by other sovereigns.  The 
States had agreed to be sued by other States in this Court, 
see Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313, 328 
(1934), and by the United States in federal court, see United 
States  v.  Texas,  143  U. S.  621,  644–645  (1892);  Franchise 
Tax Bd., 587 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 9–10).  When it 
came to private litigation, however, this Court long main-
tained  that  “the  Framers  thought  it  an  impermissible  af-
front to a State’s dignity to be required to answer the com-
plaints  of  private  parties  in  federal  courts,”  Federal 
Maritime Comm’n, 535 U. S., at 760, and that “the Conven-
tion did not disturb States’ immunity from private suits,” 
id., at 752. 

Nevertheless, in the last two decades, the Court has rec-
ognized two surrenders of sovereign immunity in cases im-
plicating private parties.  First, in Central Va. Community 
College v. Katz, 546 U. S. 356 (2006), this Court held that 
States  waived  immunity  against  the  federal  discharge  of
debts when they ratified the Bankruptcy Clause.  And, in 
PennEast, 594 U. S. ___, it held that States waived immun-
ity  against  condemnation  proceedings  brought  by  private