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.

1,429 Responses

  1. Its really a great and useful piece of info. Im happy that you just shared this useful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.

  2. Can I just say what a aid to search out somebody who really knows what theyre speaking about on the internet. You positively know the best way to carry a problem to mild and make it important. Extra people have to learn this and perceive this aspect of the story. I cant consider youre not more well-liked because you definitely have the gift.

  3. Hey there! This post couldn’t be written any better! Reading this post reminds me of my previous room mate! He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this write-up to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!|

  4. Hello! Do you know if they make any plugins to safeguard against hackers? I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve worked hard on. Any suggestions?|

  5. Do you have a spam issue on this site; I also am a blogger, and I was wondering your situation; many of us have developed some nice methods and we are looking to swap methods with others, why not shoot me an e-mail if interested.

  6. I just couldn’t leave your site before suggesting that I really loved the usual info a person supply on your guests? Is going to be back ceaselessly in order to check up on new posts|

  7. First of all I want to say fantastic blog! I had a quick question in which I’d like to ask if you don’t mind. I was interested to know how you center yourself and clear your head prior to writing. I’ve had trouble clearing my mind in getting my ideas out there. I truly do enjoy writing however it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes are generally lost just trying to figure out how to begin. Any recommendations or tips? Thanks!|

  8. certainly like your website however you need to take a look at the spelling on quite a few of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling issues and I in finding it very bothersome to inform the truth however I will certainly come back again.

  9. Si vous suivez ces quelques conseils, votre page Facebook remontera progressivement dans les résultats de recherche de Google. Mais comme toujours, il va falloir être patient et tenace… Mais rappelez-vous, dans l’algorithme de Google, le nombre de likes ou l’engagement de la page ne sont pas pris en compte et même si c’est positif d’avoir un grand nombre de likes, cela n’aura pas d’effet direct sur le positionnement de votre site dans les réponses du moteur. Et ne vous trompez pas, si votre but c’est la visibilité de votre entreprise sur Google, il vaut mieux travailler le référencement naturel de votre site internet directement.

Leave a Reply to you could try here Custom banner online Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Popular