From Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

Point being there is no way the SC could be a court of exclusive jurisdiction in these situations. There are just far too many.

I suppose that makes sense. I guess technically, every criminal trial prosecuted by the state is a case to which a state is party, unless I’m misunderstanding the definition of the word “party”. And if a constitutional question comes up in the course of the proceeding…

Wouldn’t that involve suing a state official? I thought states themselves couldn’t be sued by ordinary citizens without their consent.

Going into this a bit further, in general, you are correct. However, there are a ton of areas where states almost always waive this immunity (such as in tort cases). So it is still very possible in mayn areas to sue the state itself.

But, looking into this I found an outline that shows the issue between suing a state and suing a state official (in official capacity) is quite a bit more complicated than I imagined. Here is the outline, if you feel like boring yourself to death.

Re: difference between suing a state official and the actual state, I am not sure there is a substantive difference. I think the official is just a proxy for the state. Admittedly, though, I am bit 100%.

Re: case where the SC would have jurisdiction, you are correct and I should have been more careful in the example. But if it were a citizen of another state that was suing for the fall, I see nothing in the Constitution barring the SC from having original jurisdiction over that. It is a suit between the state and citizen of another state.

Point being there is no way the SC could be a court of exclusive jurisdiction in these situations. There are just far too many.

On July 29th, 2010 at 10:34 am, chapoutier said:

Do you know how many cases there are out there in which a state is a party? Do you really want the Supreme Court having to hear a slip and fall case that someone brings because they fell on a wet floor in a state office building?

Wouldn’t that involve suing a state official? I thought states themselves couldn’t be sued by ordinary citizens without their consent.

And even if they could, for any federal court to hear it, it would have to be a case where the Constitution authorizes federal court jurisdiction to begin with. The hypothetical case you describe doesn’t seem to fit the bill.

Why not just hire workers and not pay the employers tax on those workers? That would save me a lot of money that I can then pocket and make myself rich. Oh yeah, and I will be able to outbid all those suckers who do follow the law and run them out of business. What a racket. Unfair competition? Who cares?

I am required to check I9 status on all employees I hire. Why do I even mess around with that? If I just skip it, I could probably hire some people that will work for less money. Then I can find other illegals who will work for less than that, then someone who will work for less than minimum wage. Why follow that law either? And the 8 hour overtime law. Don’t follow that either. Why pay the time and a half to people. That takes money from my pocket. If I am going to cheat, I might as well go all the way. Someone else will.

Child labor laws? Workplace safety? Census reporting? Sales tax reporting? Thats all against my civil rights to have to do all that. I don’t want to compete fairly, I just want to be rich so laws don’t apply to me. Anarchists unite!

Do you really want the Supreme Court having to hear a slip and fall case that someone brings because they fell on a wet floor in a state office building?

When it’s something this serious and unsettled, there should – no, must – be an immediate route to remedy. The Constitution promises us this much -

Even a broken watch is right two times a day. This would be astonishing if it is true. First they helped defeat the DISCLOSE act. Now this. What is getting into our Senate RINOs these days?

I too question why this isn’t an automatic SCOTUS case, and maybe we will see this taken to them as the injunction should be invalidated.

Do you know how many cases there are out there in which a state is a party? Do you really want the Supreme Court having to hear a slip and fall case that someone brings because they fell on a wet floor in a state office building?