## Facts

- South Carolina Maritime Services, Inc., a private cruise operator, filed a complaint with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) alleging that the South Carolina State Ports Authority (SCSPA) repeatedly denied berthing space at the Port of Charleston for its cruise ship.
- The complaint alleged violations of the Shipping Act of 1984 and sought reparations and cease-and-desist relief, including a request that the FMC seek injunctive relief in federal court.
- SCSPA was treated as an arm of the State of South Carolina and asserted sovereign immunity from the administrative proceeding.
- An FMC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the complaint on sovereign-immunity grounds.
- The FMC, acting on its own motion, reversed the ALJ and held that sovereign immunity applies to judicial tribunals, not executive-branch agencies.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the FMC’s adjudication is sufficiently similar to civil litigation to trigger state sovereign immunity.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the FMC could adjudicate a private party’s complaint against a nonconsenting State entity.

## Issues

1. Whether state sovereign immunity prevents the FMC from adjudicating a private Shipping Act complaint against a nonconsenting state entity.
2. Whether sovereign immunity is limited to Article III courts and the Eleventh Amendment’s text, or also applies to certain executive-branch adjudications that resemble civil lawsuits.
3. Whether FMC administrative proceedings are sufficiently adjudicatory and coercive, in form and effect, to implicate the State’s immunity interests.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit in a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Thomas.
- State sovereign immunity barred the FMC from adjudicating a private party’s complaint against a nonconsenting State.
- The Court held that sovereign immunity is a structural constitutional doctrine not confined to the Eleventh Amendment’s literal terms or to Article III forums.
- The FMC’s complaint process was deemed functionally comparable to civil litigation, including trial-type hearings before an ALJ, adversarial procedures, and binding determinations with potential monetary reparations.
- Because South Carolina did not consent and Congress had not validly abrogated immunity in this setting, the FMC could not entertain the private complaint against SCSPA.

## Legal Principles

- State sovereign immunity is a constitutional principle grounded in the federal structure and the retained sovereignty of the States, not merely a limit defined by the Eleventh Amendment’s wording.
- Sovereign immunity can apply outside Article III courts when a federal proceeding, though housed in an executive agency, is sufficiently like a private civil suit in its coercive and adjudicatory character.
- For immunity purposes, the relevant inquiry focuses on the nature of the proceeding and its impact on the State’s status as a coequal sovereign, not solely the formal label of the adjudicative forum.
- Absent state consent or valid congressional abrogation, a private party may not hale a State or its arm into an adjudicatory process that results in binding liability determinations and monetary or coercive relief.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the FMC may not adjudicate a private Shipping Act complaint against a nonconsenting state port authority because state sovereign immunity extends to administrative adjudications that are functionally comparable to civil lawsuits.


Fed. Mar. Comm’n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743 (2002)