Suchergebnisse

The federal courts recently have renewed the debate concerning whether a person can sue a state government or its instrumentalities for copyright infringement. The question presents a clash of fundamental constitutional principles between the copyright and patent clause,' whose purpose is to promote the free flow of ideas by rewarding creativity,' and the eleventh amendment,whose primary purpose is to protect the federal form of government by insulating states from suit in federal court. The Copyright Act of 1976 (the 1976 Act) and its predecessor, the Copyright Act of 1909 (the 1909 Act), grant copyright proprietors"exclusive" rights in their works. While 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) grants federal courts exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to entertain actions concerning copyright infringement, the eleventh amendment generally prohibits suits in federal court against state governments." Thus, absent a waiver or other abrogation of eleventh amendment immunity, a proprietor's rights in a work apparently are not always exclusive; in effect, the owner is required to share his copyright if the infringer is a state government or its instrumentality. The resolution of this question necessarily requires an examination of two constitutional issues. The first issue is the extent to which a state impliedly waives its eleventh amendment immunity from suit in federal court by engaging in a federally regulated activity. The United States Supreme Court first enunciated the implied waiver doctrine in Parden v. Terminal Railway. Federal courts traditionally have interpreted Parden to mean that Congress may condition a state's participation in certain federally regulated activities, such as the operation of an interstate railroad,'upon the state's waiver of immunity to potential private suits in federal court. In a copyright infringement suit, however, it is unclear whether the state's use of copyrighted material constitutes consent to suit in federal court. Thus, the question of whether the implied waiver doctrine articulated in ...

This book reconstructs the fascinating but obscure history of the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution, which limits the exercise of US judicial power when American states are sued. Its modern meaning was largely shaped around cases concerning the liability of Southern states to pay their debts during and after Reconstruction: by shielding states from liability, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment eased the establishment of post-Reconstruction Southern society and left a maddeningly complicated law of federal jurisdiction.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT STATE SOVEREIGNTY IS PROTECTED BY PRINCIPLES OF COMMON LAW RATHER THAN EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES UNDER THE TENTH AND ELEVENTH AMENDMENTS. THE COURT HAS ALSO CAUTIONED THAT CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS, EVEN UNDER DELEGATED POWERS, MAY NOT THREATEN THE INTEGRITY OF STATES AS SOVEREIGN ENTITIES IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM. THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES DECISION IN 1976 APPEARED TO REVERSE THIS DOCTRINE BY IMPLYING THE EXISTENCE OF TENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF STATE ACTIONS IN TRADITIONAL FUNCTIONAL AREAS. HOWEVER, THE FEDERAL COURTS DISCOUNTED THE NLC RULING AS A COMPELLING PRECEDENT IN SUBSEQUENT FEDERALISM CASES BECAUSE OF ITS VAGUENESS AND ITS FUNDAMENTAL INCONSISTENCY WITH ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE. IN 1985, THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED THE RULING IN GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO, REAFFIRMING THE COMMON LAW NATURE OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND ARGUING THAT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF STATE INTERESTS LIES PRIMARILY IN THE REPRESENTATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM RATHER THAN IN SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES.

Most scholars and courts assume that the Eleventh Amendment emerged from a sudden 'shocked' public reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision in Hans v. Louisiana has been subject to particular criticism for extending the doctrine of sovereign immunity beyondthe text of the amendment and the particular subject matter before the Court in Chisholm. This article contends that the modern emphasis on Chisholm v. Georgia as the generative source of the Eleventh Amendment is historically incorrect. Public debate regarding the key issues behind the Eleventh Amendment had been underway long before the Court handed down its decision in Chisholm and the actual opinions had little impact on public discussion due to their being generally unavailable until months after the decision was handed down. The critical issue involved the concept of compelling a state to defend itself in federal court at the behest of an individual. That debate preceded Chisholm and would not reach critical mass until the state of Massachusetts responded to its own suit in Vassal. All sides in this debate accepted the idea that the national government could invoke sovereign immunity against similar suits. Denying states the same immunity called into question whether they remained sovereign entities and retained the non-delegated sovereign rights and powers that Federalists had promised in the state ratifying conventions. More was at stake than mere betrayal, or even fiscal liability. Whether the states remained sovereign entities under the Constitution affected the basic rules of constitutional construction for, according to the Law of Nations, delegations of power from a sovereign are to be strictly construed. Allowing suits against states thus implicated the principle of limited federal power across all areas of delegated authority. The key to understanding the Eleventh Amendment is the text's focus on the proper judicial construction of delegated power in Article III - a demand that federal courts respect the retained rights of the people in the states and apply the background rule of strict construction.