Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) — State Sovereignty and Federal Jurisdiction

Case Identification

Case name: Chisholm v. Georgia Court: Supreme Court of the United States Jurisdiction: Federal Year: 1793 Citation: 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 Claim Presented Alexander Chisholm, executor of a South Carolina estate, brought suit against the State of Georgia to recover payment for goods supplied during the Revolutionary War. Georgia declined to appear, asserting that as a sovereign state it could not be sued by a citizen of another state without its consent.

Authority Cited Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which extends federal judicial power to controversies "between a State and Citizens of another State."

Court's Analysis The Court examined whether Article III conferred jurisdiction over suits brought by individual citizens against non-consenting states. The majority determined that the constitutional text extended federal judicial power to such controversies. The Court evaluated the nature of state sovereignty under the Constitution, the status of states as parties subject to suit, and the explicit language granting jurisdiction over disputes between a state and citizens of another state. The majority concluded that the constitutional framework permitted federal courts to exercise jurisdiction in this matter.

Disposition Jurisdiction affirmed. The suit was permitted to proceed.

Procedural Outcome The case was allowed to proceed in federal court against the State of Georgia.

Archival Note This entry documents the judicial record in Chisholm v. Georgia as preserved in the official reports. The decision addressed federal judicial authority over suits involving states and clarified constitutional interpretations of state sovereignty and jurisdiction at the time of the Court's disposition.