## Facts

- Georgia’s executive council authorized commissioners in 1777 to buy supplies from Robert Farquhar for Continental troops near Savannah, promising payment in indigo or continental currency.
- Farquhar delivered the supplies but died in 1784 without receiving payment.
- Alexander Chisholm, executor of Farquhar’s estate, petitioned the Georgia legislature for payment in 1789; the petition was rejected.
- The legislature suggested suit against the individual commissioners, though the commissioners had drawn funds from the state treasury.
- Chisholm filed an assumpsit action in the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to recover the claimed debt and damages from the State of Georgia.
- Georgia refused to appear and filed a protest asserting that, as a sovereign state, it could not be sued by a private citizen without its consent.

## Issues

1. Whether Article III permits the U.S. Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction over a contract action brought by a citizen of one state against another state without the defendant state’s consent.
2. Whether, assuming jurisdiction exists, an action of assumpsit and the contemplated process could proceed against a nonappearing state.

## Decision

- The Court ruled for Chisholm by a 4–1 vote, issuing seriatim opinions.
- The majority held that Article III’s extension of federal judicial power to controversies “between a State and Citizens of another State” includes suits brought against a state by an out-of-state citizen.
- The Court rejected Georgia’s assertion that sovereign immunity categorically barred such suits under the Constitution’s text.
- The Court directed that judgment be entered for the plaintiff given Georgia’s refusal to appear and contemplated a writ of inquiry to assess damages.
- Justice Iredell dissented, concluding that absent clear statutory authorization, a private assumpsit action could not be maintained against a nonconsenting state.

## Legal Principles

- Article III’s grant of jurisdiction over controversies “between a State and Citizens of another State” was construed to authorize federal judicial power when the state is a defendant, not only when the state is a plaintiff.
- The Constitution’s allocation of judicial power was treated as controlling over generalized common-law claims of sovereign immunity where the text describes a category of cases.
- Dissenting view: sovereign immunity remained the default rule for states; a private action against a state required explicit legislative authorization defining the cause of action and procedures.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a citizen of one state could sue another state in the Supreme Court on a contract claim without the defendant state’s consent, rejecting a blanket sovereign-immunity bar under Article III; the decision triggered rapid political opposition that led to adoption of the Eleventh Amendment limiting such suits.


Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793)