Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

IV 

The respondents and the principal dissent do not dispute 
that the NGA empowers certificate holders to condemn pri-
vate property.  They argue instead that sovereign immunity 
bars  condemnation  actions  against  nonconsenting  States. 
And  even  if  such  actions  are  constitutionally  permissible,
the respondents (but not the dissent) contend that §717f(h) 
does not speak with sufficient clarity to authorize them.  We 
address each of these arguments in turn. 

A 
“States’  immunity  from  suit  is  a  fundamental  aspect  of 
the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratifi-
cation of the Constitution.”  Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 
713 (1999).  When “the States entered the federal system,” 
they did so “with their sovereignty intact.”  Blatchford, 501 
U. S., at 779.  Although the Court initially held that States
could  be  subject  to  suit  by  citizens  of  other  States,  see 
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793), the ratification of 
the Eleventh Amendment soon corrected this error.  That 
Amendment  provides  that  “[t]he  Judicial  power  of  the
United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit
in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of 
the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citi-
zens  or  Subjects  of  any  Foreign  State.”    Our  decision  in 
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), clarified that States
retain  their  immunity  from  suit  regardless  of  the  citizen-
ship of the plaintiff.  Since Hans, “we have understood the 
Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says,
but  for  the  presupposition  of  our  constitutional  structure 
which it confirms.”  Blatchford, 501 U. S., at 779. 

Under our precedents, a State may be subject to suit only 
in limited circumstances.  A State may of course consent to 
suit,  although  such  consent  must  be  “unequivocally  ex-
pressed.”  Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U. S. 277, 284 (2011) (in-