Taking supremacy seriously: The contrariety of official immunities

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 80, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 443-477

  Doernberg, Donald L ^a  

^a PACE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 81855228941     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (233)

1. "A government's immunity from being sued in its own courts without its consent." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 818 (9th ed. 2009).
2. U.S. CONST. art. VI, § 2.
3. "You talk as if independence were the rule! It's never been done before! No colony has ever broken from the parent stem in the history of the world!" PETER STONE & SHERMAN EDWARDS, 1776: A MUSICAL PLAY (1970).
4. "[T]he impartial historian would report that no government had ever been instituted on the basis of popular consent[.]" Peter S. Onuf, Introduction, in DECLARING INDEPENDENCE: The ORIGIN AND INFLUENCE OF AMERICA'S FOUNDING DOCUMENT ix, ix (Christian Y. Dupont & Peter S. Onuf eds., 2008).
5. JOHN C. MILLER, THE FEDERALIST ERA 1789-1801, at 1 (1960)
6. DONALD L. DOERNBERG, C. KEITH WINGATE & DONALD H. ZEIGLER, FEDERAL COURTS, FEDERALISM AND SEPARATION OF POWERS 607 (4th ed. 2008)
7. EDWARD S. CORWIN, The Progress of Constitutional Theory Between the Declaration of Independence and the Meeting of the Philadelphia Convention, 30 AM. HIST. REV. 511 (1925), reprinted in AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY: Essays BY EDWARD S. CORWIN 1, 3 (Alpheus T. Mason & Gerald Garvey eds., 1964).
8. ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION of 1781, pmbl. ("Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled . . . agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union . . . .").
9. U.S. CONST. pmbl.
10. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 208 (1882) ("Under our system the people, who are there [in England] called subjects, are the sovereign.").
11. DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1787-1870, at 25 (1894) [hereinafter DOCUMENTARY HISTORY] (Delaware)
12. CATHERINE DRINKER BOWEN, MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA: The STORY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION MAY TO SEPTEMBER 1787, at 297 (1966)
13. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 403-04 (1819)
14. STEPHEN BREYER, MAKING OUR DEMOCRACY WORK: A JUDGE'S VIEW 122 (2010).
15. Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 153-54 (1996) (Souter, J., dissenting).
16. RONALD DWORKIN, TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY 18 (1978).
17. Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907).
18. The Western Maid, 257 U.S. 419 (1922)
19. Cf. Louis L. Jaffe, Suits Against Governments and Officers: Sovereign Immunity, 77 HARV. L. REV. 1, 4 (1963)
20. THOMAS HOBBES, LEVIATHAN (Oxford Univ. Press 1909) (1651).
21. DONALD L. DOERNBERG, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OR THE RULE OF LAW: The NEW FEDERALISM'S CHOICE 26 (2005).
22. JOHN LOCKE, TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT (Peter Laslett ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 2d ed. 1963) (1690).
23. ROBERT FILMER, PATRIARCHA AND OTHER WRITINGS (Johann P. Sommerville ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 1991) (1680).
24. JEAN BODIN, ON SOVEREIGNTY (Julian H. Franklin ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 1992) (1576)
25. U.S. CONST. art. VI, § 2.
26. DOERNBERG, supra note 13, at 71 (citing MAGNA CARTA, ch. 61 (Eng. 1215), translated and reprinted in JAMES C. HOLT, MAGNA CARTA app. 6, at 448, 471 (2d ed. 1992)).
27. Paul F. Figley & Jay Tidmarsh, The Appropriation Power and Sovereign Immunity, 107 MICH. L. REV. 1207, 1212 (2009).
28. Ludwik Ehrlich, Proceedings Against the Crown (1216-1377), in 6 OXFORD STUDIES IN SOCIAL AND LEGAL HISTORY pt. XII, at 97 (Paul Vinogradoff ed., 1921).
29. Jack Beatson, Reforming an Unwritten Constitution, 126 LAW Q. REV. 48, 48 (2010)
30. THE FEDERALIST No. 81, at 548-49 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961)
31. THE DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 533 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 2d ed. 1881)
32. WILLIAM PALEY, THE PRINCIPLES OF MORAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 251 (London, W. Green 1817) (1783)
33. "The life of the law has not been logic: It has been experience." OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR., THE COMMON LAW 1 (1881).
34. E.A. Reitan, The Civil List in Eighteenth-Century British Politics: Parliamentary Supremacy Versus the Independence of the Crown, 9 HIST. J. 318, 337 (1966)
35. 106 U.S. 196 (1882).
36. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 380 (1821)
37. Lee, 106 U.S. at 207 (citing Cohens, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) at 380).
38. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
39. Lee, 106 U.S. at 208.
40. KENNETH C. DAVIS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TEXT § 27.04, at 501 (3d ed. 1972).
41. PAULINE MAIER, FROM RESISTANCE TO REVOLUTION: Colonial RADICALS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN OPPOSITION TO BRITAIN, 1765-1776, at 245 (1972)
42. THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 118 (William T. Hutchinson & William M. Rachel eds., 1962)).
43. JACK P. GREENE, THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 18 (2011).
44. PAULINE MAIER, AMERICAN SCRIPTURE: Making THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 17-30 (1997)
45. GEORGE DARGO, ROOTS OF THE REPUBLIC: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON EARLY AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM 58 (1974) (internal quotation marks omitted))).
46. Jack Wade Nowlin, Conceptualizing the Dangers of the "Least Dangerous" Branch: A Typology of Judicial Constitutional Violation, 39 CONN. L. REV. 1211, 1218 (2007) (referring to Hamilton's defense of judicial review as "canonical")
47. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkrantz, The Subjects of the Constitution, 62 STAN. L. REV. 1209, 1221 n.32 (2010).
48. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Aug. 30, 1823), in 3 The REPUBLIC OF LETTERS: The CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THOMAS JEFFERSON AND JAMES MADISON 1776-1826, at 1875, 1876 (James Morton Smith ed., 1995)
49. 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 163 (1803).
50. Ashby v. White, (1703) 92 Eng. Rep. 126 (K.B.) 136
51. 2 Ld. Raym. 938, 953.
52. A.V. DICEY, INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION 207 (9th ed. 1952)
53. Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, 23 YALE L.J. 16, 55 (1913).
54. Donald H. Zeigler, Rights Require Remedies: A New Approach to the Enforcement of Rights in the Federal Courts, 38 HASTINGS L.J. 665, 677-78 (1987).
55. James E. Pfander, Sovereign Immunity and the Right to Petition: Toward a First Amendment Right to Pursue Judicial Claims Against the Government, 91 NW. U. L. REV. 899, 901 (1997)
56. WILLIAM S. HOLDSWORTH, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW 266-67 (1927)
57. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
58. (1865) 122 Eng. Rep. 1191 (Q.B.)
59. 6 B. & S. 257.
60. J.H. BAKER, AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH LEGAL HISTORY 473 (4th ed. 2002).
61. MAGNA CARTA, ch. 39 (Eng. 1215)
62. Magna Carta. EDWARD COKE, THE SECOND PART OF THE INSTITUTES OF THE LAWES OF ENGLAND (1642)
63. reprinted in 2 THE SELECTED WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF SIR EDWARD COKE 745, 750 (Steve Sheppard ed., 2003)
64. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 6, cl. 1.
65. Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 501, 507-08 (1975).
66. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 7
67. 341 U.S. 367 (1951).
68. "A canon of construction holding that to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of the other, or of the alternative." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 661 (9th ed. 2009).
69. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 18.
70. Crown, 1688, 1 W. & M., 2d Sess., c. 2, § 9 (Eng.).
71. Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1 (1842)
72. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)
73. Donald L. Doernberg, The Unseen Track of Erie Railroad: Why History and Jurisprudence Suggest a More Straightforward Form of Erie Analysis, 109 W. VA. L. REV. 611 (2007).
74. James E. Pfander & Jonathan L. Hunt, Public Wrongs and Private Bills: Indemnification and Government Accountability in the Early Republic, 85 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1862 (2010).
75. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 695-96, 701, 710 (1976)
76. 44 U.S. (3 How.) 87 (1845).
77. (1822) 129 Eng. Rep. 1290 (C.P.)
78. 3 Brod & B. 275
79. Kendall, 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 98 citing Gidley, 129 Eng. Rep. 1290
80. 3 Brod & B. 275.
81. Gidley, 129 Eng. Rep. at 1294-95 & n.a
82. 3 Brod & B. at 286 & n.a ("'No man would accept of any office of trust under government upon such conditions . . .
83. Macbeath v. Haldimand, (1786) 99 Eng. Rep. 1036 (K.B.) 1041
84. 1 T.R. 172, 181-82.
85. 48 U.S. (7 How.) 89 (1849).
86. Hannaford v. Hunn, (1825) 172 Eng. Rep. 68 (K.B.) 72 note
87. 2 Car. & P. 148, 158 note.
88. 420 U.S. 308, 322 (1975)
89. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 557 (1967)
90. 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
91. Wood, 420 U.S. at 321
92. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 817-18
93. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 735-36 (1982)
94. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997)
95. 18 U.S.C. § 242 (2006)
96. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
97. United States v. Lanier, 73 F.3d 1380, 1392-93 (6th Cir. 1996)
98. vacated and remanded, 520 U.S. 259 (1997)
99. Lanier, 520 U.S. at 261.
100. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739-41 (2002).
101. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987)
102. Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004)
103. Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 198
104. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 206 (2001)
105. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-02
106. Creighton, 483 U.S. at 640
107. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (No. 10-98), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral-arguments/argument-transcripts/10-98.pdf.
108. Laurence H. Tribe, Seven Deadly Sins of Straining the Constitution Through a Pseudo-Scientific Sieve, 36 HASTINGS L.J. 155, 157-58 (1984)
109. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)
110. Cf. U.S. CONST. art. VI, § 2.
111. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 806-07, 814 (1982)
112. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 506-07, 512-16 (1978)
113. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 422-28 (1976)
114. Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 318-21 (1975)
115. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 241-42 (1974).
116. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655-57 (1961)
117. Corinna Barrett Lain, Countermajoritarian Hero or Zero? Rethinking the Warren Court's Role in the Criminal Procedure Revolution, 152 U. PA. L. REV. 1361, 1374 (2004)
118. 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
119. Craig M. Bradley, Interrogation and Silence: A Comparative Study, 27 WIS. INT'L L.J. 271, 271-72 (2009)
120. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams (Sept. 11, 1804), in 8 THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 310 n.1, 311 n.1 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1897)
121. G. Edward White, The Constitutional Journey of Marbury v. Madison, 89 VA. L. REV. 1463, 1484-91 (2003)
122. Yale Kamisar, On the Fortieth Anniversary of the Miranda Case: Why We Needed It, How We Got It-and What Happened to It, 5 OHIO ST. J. CRIM. L. 163, 178-84, 197-203 (2007)
123. Sean D. Doherty, Note, The End of an Era: Closing the Exclusionary Debate Under Herring v. United States, 37 HOFSTRA L. REV. 839, 845-53 (2009)
124. 129 S. Ct. 855 (2009).
125. Van de Kamp, 129 S. Ct. at 859-60.
126. 424 U.S. 409 (1976).
127. Van de Kamp, 129 S. Ct. at 860
128. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 424.
129. Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350 (2011).
130. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
131. Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1357
132. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 14:27, 14:30.1 (2007).
133. Friedman v. Rehal, 618 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2010)
134. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)
135. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 423
136. N.Y. GEN. MUN. LAW § 50-k (McKinney 2007).
137. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
138. 438 U.S. 478 (1978).
139. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974)
140. Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 321 (1975)
141. 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011).
142. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)
143. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 489 (1978).
144. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 218-23 (1882)
145. Economou, 438 U.S. at 506.
146. 416 U.S. 232 (1974), abrogated by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
147. 386 U.S. 547 (1967).
148. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006).
149. Pierson, 386 U.S. at 553-54.
150. Scheuer, 416 U.S. at 240.
151. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170 (1803).
152. 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
153. 424 U.S. 693 (1976).
154. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971)
155. Paul, 424 U.S. at 708-09.
156. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376 (1951)
157. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418 (1976)
158. Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 317 (1975)
159. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967)
160. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 417.
161. Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979).
162. 365 U.S. 167 (1961).
163. Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 318 (1975).
164. Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, ch. 22, § 1, 17 Stat. 13
165. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006).
166. 407 U.S. 225 (1972).
167. 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (2006).
168. Mitchum, 407 U.S. at 242
169. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346 (1879)
170. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)
171. Mitchum, 407 U.S. at 243.
172. Younger, 401 U.S. at 41.
173. 28 U.S.C. § 2283
174. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43, 54.
175. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-45, 52-54.
176. Mitchum, 407 U.S. at 242-43
177. Donald H. Zeigler, A Reassessment of the Younger Doctrine in Light of the Legislative History of Reconstruction, 1983 DUKE L.J. 987.
178. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, § 2, 14 Stat. 27
179. Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140
180. 18 U.S.C. § 242 (2006)).
181. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 99 (1945)
182. United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997)
183. United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966).
184. Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1886, 1891 (2009)
185. Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 65 (1968)
186. Stewart v. Kahn, 78 U.S. (1 Wall.) 493, 504 (1870)
187. 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
188. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961)
189. Monell, 436 U.S. at 663.
190. 445 U.S. 622 (1980).
191. ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, FEDERAL JURISDICTION § 8.5.3, at 523 (5th ed. 2007).
192. Owen, 445 U.S. at 638.
193. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981)
194. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694-95
195. CONG. GLOBE, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. 749 (1871).
196. David Jacks Achtenberg, Taking History Seriously: Municipal Liability Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
197. Debate over Respondeat Superior, 73 FORDHAM L. REV. 2183, 2196 (2005).
198. Monell, 436 U.S. at 670 n.21.
199. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY § 2.04 cmt. b, at 141 (2006)
200. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 430-37 (1997) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
201. 475 U.S. 469 (1986).
202. 520 U.S. 397 (1997).
203. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938).
204. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 519-20, 527-29 (1997).
205. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)
206. Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-351, § 701(a), 82 Stat. 197, 210
207. 18 U.S.C. § 3501(a) (2006)
208. Dickerson, 530 U.S. at 441-44.
209. Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 247-48, 250-52 (1833).
210. JOHN E. NOWAK & RONALD D. ROTUNDA, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW §§ 10.2, 11.6, at 396-99, 462-67 (7th ed. 2004).
211. 533 U.S. 194 (2001).
212. 555 U.S. 223 (2009).
213. 131 S. Ct. 2020 (2011).
214. California v. Rooney, 483 U.S. 307, 311 (1987) (per curiam)
215. Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.S. 117 (1945)
216. Camreta, 131 S. Ct. at 2037-38 (Kennedy, J., dissenting)
217. Pitcairn, 324 U.S. at 125-26
218. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).
219. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011).
220. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236-37 (2009)
221. Ct. at 2036 (Scalia, J., concurring)
222. Camreta, 131 S. Ct. at 2027.
223. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104-05 (1980)
224. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34, 139-40 (1977)
225. U.S. CONST. amend. XVIII, repealed by U.S. CONST. amend. XXI.
226. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673-78 (1974)
227. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776).
228. ROBERT BOLT, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS act 2, at 156 (1962).
229. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, para. 2 (referring to the king's "usurpations").
230. U.S. CONST. art. VI, § 2.
231. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
232. Olmstead, 277 U.S. at 472 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
233. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 407 (1819).