Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

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

3 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, com-
menced or prosecuted against one of the United States 
by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects
of any Foreign State.”  U. S. Const., Amdt. 11. 

This text “means what it says.  It eliminates federal judicial 
power  over  one  set  of  cases:    suits  filed  against  states,  in
law or equity, by diverse plaintiffs.”  Baude & Sachs, The 
Misunderstood  Eleventh  Amendment,  169  U.  Pa.  L. Rev. 
609, 612 (2021).

The  Eleventh  Amendment  sometimes  does  less  than 
structural immunity:  It applies only in federal court (“the 
Judicial power of the United States”).  And it applies only to 
diversity suits (“by Citizens of another State”).  But some-
times the Amendment does more:  It imposes an Article III 
subject-matter jurisdiction barrier (“The judicial Power . . . 
shall not be construed  to extend”), not a mere privilege of 
personal jurisdiction.  And it admits of no waivers, abroga-
tions, or exceptions (“to any suit in law or equity”).

This  case  appears  to  present  “the  rare  scenario”  that
comes within the Eleventh Amendment’s text.  Brief for Re-
spondent State of New Jersey 12.  Because PennEast sued 
New Jersey in federal court, this suit implicates “the Judi-
cial power of the United States.”  See 28 U. S. C. §§132, 451. 
This condemnation suit, by any stretch, is “a[ ] suit in law 
or  equity.”  See  Kohl  v.  United  States,  91  U. S.  367,  376 
(1876)  (“a  proceeding  to  take  land”  and  “determin[e]  the 
compensation to be made” is “a suit at common law”); Boom 
Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, 406–407 (1879) (same).  Pen-
nEast  “commenced”  this  suit  “against”  New  Jersey. 
It 
named the State in its complaint as a defendant as required 
by the Civil Rules.  Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 71.1(c)(1).  And it 
asked the court for an injunction permitting it to take “im-
mediate possession” of New Jersey’s soil.  Hagood v. South-
ern, 117 U. S. 52, 67–68 (1886) (“The State is not only the 
real  party  to  the  controversy,  but  the  real  party  against