October Term 2001 · Docket 01-46
Does sovereign immunity bar private suits against states in federal administrative tribunals?
The Federal Maritime Commission argues that states lack immunity from executive branch adjudication. South Carolina claims sovereign immunity blocks private suits in federal administrative forums.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Clement argued that states enjoy no sovereign immunity from federal executive branch action.
Mr. Dean argued that sovereign immunity protects states from private suits in federal administrative tribunals.
Mr. Hughey argued that the Commission's adjudication is an exercise of executive power.
Mr. Dean argued that the case implements important policies of the State of South Carolina.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 41-35 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 41-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-37
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether a state can be sued by private parties in a federal administrative tribunal. The Federal Maritime Commission asserts that states have no sovereign immunity from federal executive branch action. South Carolina contends that sovereign immunity protects states from such private suits. The Commission argues this process is an exercise of executive power.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 41-35 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 41-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 49-13
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 25, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-37
What each side wants
The Federal Maritime Commission wants the Court to hold that states lack sovereign immunity from federal executive branch adjudication.
South Carolina wants the Court to hold that sovereign immunity protects states from private suits in federal administrative tribunals.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 41-35 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 41-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 49-13
What each side says
The Federal Maritime Commission argues that states have no immunity from suits brought by the federal government or executive branch action.
South Carolina argues that sovereign immunity protects states from private suits brought before federal administrative tribunals.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 41-35 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 41-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 49-13
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the proceeding is a suit within the meaning of sovereign immunity doctrine.
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the Department of Justice enforces laws against states in a similar manner.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-37
Why it matters
This case determines whether states can be sued by private parties in federal administrative forums. It defines the scope of sovereign immunity against executive branch adjudication. It clarifies the boundary between administrative regulation and judicial suits. It impacts state autonomy in federal regulatory processes. It shapes the relationship between federal agencies and state entities.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 41-35 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 41-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 49-13
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-37
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 41-35 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 41-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 41-35 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 41-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 49-13
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.