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. When someone writes an piece of writing he/she maintains the idea of a user in his/her brain that how a user can know it. Therefore that’s why this paragraph is outstdanding. Thanks!|

  2. Great goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you’re just too wonderful. I actually like what you’ve acquired here, really like what you are saying and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still take care of to keep it smart. I can not wait to read far more from you. This is really a tremendous site.

  3. I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the page layout of your site? 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 2 images. Maybe you could space it out better?

  4. Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point. You definitely know what youre talking about, why throw away your intelligence on just posting videos to your blog when you could be giving us something informative to read?

  5. Good post. I learn something new and challenging on sites I stumbleupon every day. It will always be useful to read content from other authors and practice a little something from their web sites.

  6. The next time I read a blog, I hope that it does not disappoint me as much as this one. I mean, Yes, it was my choice to read, however I really believed you would probably have something useful to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about something that you can fix if you weren’t too busy seeking attention.

  7. Hi there, I discovered your website via Google while searching for a related matter, your web site got here up, it seems to be great. I have bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

  8. Aw, this was an exceptionally nice post. Finding the time and actual effort to create a great article… but what can I say… I hesitate a whole lot and don’t manage to get anything done.

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