[Chisholm, a citizen of South Carolina and executor of the estate of a South Carolina merchant, sued the State of Georgia in the U.S. Supreme Court (original jurisdiction) to recover the value of clothing supplied to Georgia during the Revolutionary War. Georgia refused to appear, on the ground of sovereign immunity. A majority of the Court rejected this claim and rendered default judgment against the State, on the ground that Art. III §2 para. 1 cl. 6 (“The judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies ... between a State and citizens of another State”) precluded any claim of immunity. In response to this decision, the Congress quickly proposed and the States ratified the 11th Amendment. An excerpt from Justice Wilson's opinion is offered as an example of argument based on the plain meaning of the text of the constitution.]

Wilson, J.

[In earlier portions of the opinion, Wilson argued (i) that in relation to the Union, the States are not sovereigns; (ii) that even in European monarchies the practice of sovereign immunity was being abandoned; and (iii) that the people could have established the jurisdiction of the federal courts over States.]

The next question under this head, is, Has the Constitution done so? Did those people mean to exercise this, their undoubted power? These questions may be resolved, either by fair and conclusive deductions, or by direct and explicit declarations.....

Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the Constitution, will be satisfied, that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted, for such purposes, a national Government, complete in all its parts, with powers Legislative, Executive and Judiciary; and, in all those powers, extending over the whole nation. Is it congruous, that, with regard to such purposes, any man or body of men, any person natural or artificial, should be permitted to claim successfully an entire exemption from the jurisdiction of the national Government? Would not such claims, crowned with success, be repugnant to our very existence as a nation? When so many trains of deduction, coming from different quarters, converge and unite, at last, in the same point; we may safely conclude, as the legitimate result of this Constitution, that the State of Georgia is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court.

But, in my opinion, this doctrine rests not upon the legitimate result of fair and conclusive deduction from the Constitution: It is confirmed, beyond all doubt, by the direct and explicit declaration of the Constitution itself. 'The judicial power of the United States shall extend, to controversies between two States.' Two States are supposed to have a controversy between them: This controversy is supposed to be brought before those vested with the judicial power of the United States: Can the most consummate degree of professional ingenuity devise a mode by which this 'controversy between two States' can be brought before a Court of law; and yet neither of those States be a Defendant? 'The judicial power of the United States shall extend to controversies, between a state and citizens of another State.' Could the strictest legal language; could even that language, which is peculiarly appropriated to an art, deemed, by a great master, to be one of the most honorable, laudable, and profitable things in our law; could this strict and appropriated language, describe, with more precise accuracy, the cause now depending before the tribunal? Causes, and not parties to causes, are weighed by justice, in her equal scales: On the former solely, her attention is fixed: To the latter, she is, as she is painted, blind.

...