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.

1,958 Responses

  1. I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the structure of your website? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or two pictures. Maybe you could space it out better?|

  2. Greetings from Carolina! I’m bored to tears at work so I decided to check out your website on my iphone during lunch break. I enjoy the information you present here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home. I’m surprised at how quick your blog loaded on my cell phone .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyhow, superb blog!|

  3. I blog quite often and I seriously thank you for your information. Your article has really peaked my interest. I’m going to bookmark your website and keep checking for new information about once a week. I opted in for your Feed too.|

  4. Nice post. I learn something totally new and challenging on sites I stumbleupon every day. It will always be exciting to read through articles from other authors and use a little something from other sites.

  5. Good day very nice site!! Guy .. Beautiful .. Wonderful .. I will bookmark your website and take the feeds additionally…I am happy to seek out numerous helpful info right here in the publish, we’d like develop extra techniques on this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .

  6. I’m impressed, I have to say. Actually hardly ever do I encounter a blog that’s each educative and entertaining, and let me inform you, you’ve got hit the nail on the head. Your idea is outstanding; the problem is one thing that not enough people are speaking intelligently about. I am very pleased that I stumbled across this in my search for something referring to this.

  7. With havin so much written content do you ever run into any problems of plagorism or copyright infringement? My website has a lot of completely unique content I’ve either created myself or outsourced but it looks like a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my agreement. Do you know any methods to help protect against content from being stolen? I’d truly appreciate it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Popular