Conservative SCOTUS majority overturns 40-year-old precedent in sovereign immunity case

Make sure to let us know what you think... we now have comments turned ON below the article!

With the makeup of the Supreme Court now leaning toward the right with a 5-4 conservative majority, it was predicted that the court would be more likely to issue rulings that are in line with the plain text of the U.S. Constitution.

That appears to be true with regard to the court’s recent 5-4 ruling in the case of Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which overturned a prior decision from 40 years ago that the current court held was inconsistent with the principle of states’ sovereign immunity.

Overturning precedent

The high court ruled on Monday that a state could not be sued by a private party in a different state unless it had first consented to be sued.

That decision reversed a 1979 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Nevada v. Hall, which declared that the Constitution offered no protection to individual states from private lawsuits originating in other states.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 5-4 decision. The four liberal justices were led in their dissenting opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer.

The liberal justices felt that prior court precedent should have been left alone and criticized the conservatives for overturning of a past ruling by a slim 5-4 majority, revealing their deeper concern that other longstanding precedents could be overturned in the future by a similarly narrow margin.

Thomas’ majority opinion

In the majority opinion, Thomas wrote that the 1979 ruling “misreads the historical record and misapprehends the ‘implicit ordering of relationships within the federal system necessary to make the Constitution a workable governing charter and to give each provision within that document the full effect intended by the Framers.'”

With regard to the precedent set in that case, Thomas wrote that it was “irreconcilable with our constitutional structure and with the historical evidence” which showed that states did enjoy sovereign immunity from private lawsuits

Broader implications?

The case at the heart of the court’s decision involved a dispute between a microchip inventor named Gilbert Hyatt who lived in Nevada and sued the California Franchise Tax Board in 1992.

Hyatt’s suit demanded that the tax agency compensate him for damages resulting from an audit it conducted on suspicion that Hyatt had moved from California to Nevada in order to avoid paying the state’s personal income tax. Hyatt alleged that the board shared personal information about him with business associates and unconstitutionally invaded his privacy.

This was actually the third time this particular case found its way to the Supreme Court, but it will almost assuredly be the last.

Now that the court has overturned its own prior ruling and found that Hyatt had no right to sue California from a Nevada courtroom absent its consent, liberal activists are left worrying about which other precedents may be vulnerable under fresh review.

1,751 Responses

  1. Nice post. I learn something totally new and challenging on websites I stumbleupon every day. It will always be exciting to read through articles from other authors and practice something from their web sites.

  2. I am really loving the theme/design of your web site. Do you ever run into any web browser compatibility issues? A couple of my blog visitors have complained about my blog not working correctly in Explorer but looks great in Chrome. Do you have any ideas to help fix this issue?

  3. Hi, I do think this is an excellent web site. I stumbledupon it 😉 I’m going to return yet again since i have saved as a favorite it. Money and freedom is the best way to change, may you be rich and continue to guide others.

  4. Hey There. I discovered your weblog the use of msn. This is a really well written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and come back to learn more of your useful info. Thank you for the post. I’ll certainly return.|

  5. My spouse and I stumbled over here coming from a different web page and thought I might check things out. I like what I see so i am just following you. Look forward to looking into your web page again.|

  6. Just desire to say your article is as astonishing. The clearness on your submit is just excellent and that i can think you are an expert on this subject. Well together with your permission allow me to seize your RSS feed to stay updated with impending post. Thank you one million and please carry on the rewarding work.|

  7. After I originally left a comment I appear to have clicked on the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now whenever a comment is added I get four emails with the same comment. There has to be a means you can remove me from that service? Thanks!|

  8. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wished to say that I have truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again soon!|

  9. I want to to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely enjoyed every bit of it. I have you saved as a favorite to check out new things you post…

  10. hey there and thank you for your information – I have definitely picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise several technical issues using this website, as I experienced to reload the website lots of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your web hosting is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will often affect your placement in google and could damage your high quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Well I’m adding this RSS to my e-mail and could look out for much more of your respective intriguing content. Ensure that you update this again very soon.|

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Popular