Today in 1795, the 11th amendment to our Constitution was ratified

it deals with each state's sovereign immunity and was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia,  (1793).

The Eleventh Amendment, which was the first Constitutional amendment after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against states and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states in federal court. Thus, the amendment clarified Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gave diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases "between a state and citizens of another state."

In Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 378 (1798), the Supreme Court held that every pending action brought under Chisholm had to be dismissed because of the amendment's adoption.^[2]

The amendment's text does not mention suits brought against a state by its own citizens. However, in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five Justice majority, stated in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999):

[S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself....Nor can we conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers.^[3]

Writing for a four-Justice dissent in Alden, Justice David Souter said the states surrendered their sovereign immunity when they ratified the Constitution. The dissenting justices read the amendment's text as reflecting a narrow form of sovereign immunity that limited only the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. They concluded that the states are not insulated from suits by individuals by either the Eleventh Amendment in particular or the Constitution in general.^[4]

Although the Eleventh Amendment grants immunity to states from suit for money damages or equitable relief without their consent, in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may enjoin state officials from violating federal law. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress may abrogate state immunity from suit under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006), the Court ruled the Congress could do the same regarding bankruptcy cases by way of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution. In Lapides v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that when a state invokes a federal court's removal jurisdiction, it waives the Eleventh Amendment in the removed case.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that Puerto Rico enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity.^[5]