Amendment 11 bars federal courts from hearing lawsuits brought by citizens of one state against another state. Amendment 27 prevents members of Congress from giving themselves immediate pay raises; any change takes effect after the next election.
These two amendments address distinct issues in American governance. Amendment 11 limits judicial power over states, while Amendment 27 helps lawmakers cannot benefit from pay increases they vote for until voters have had a chance to act.
Both were ratified decades apart-Amendment 11 in 1795, Amendment 27 in 1992-but they reflect core concerns about balance between state authority and federal oversight, and accountability in public office.
Amendment 11 was passed in response to a Supreme Court decision, Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which allowed a citizen of South Carolina to sue the state of Georgia. The ruling upset many state leaders who believed states should be immune from being sued in federal court by out-of-state individuals.
The amendment states: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." This means that if a resident of New York sues New Jersey in federal court, the suit cannot proceed unless the state consents.
Amendment 27 addresses congressional pay. It says: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." This means any pay increase voted by Congress must wait until after the next general election before it becomes effective.
Neither amendment is divided into subparts. They are single, focused provisions. Amendment 11 is a jurisdictional restriction. Amendment 27 is a procedural safeguard.
Amendment 11 applies only to federal courts. It does not stop states from suing each other, nor does it prevent individuals from suing state officials in federal court. It only blocks suits where the plaintiff is a citizen of another state and the defendant is a state government.
Amendment 27's enforcement mechanism is built into the timeline. A pay raise passed in January 2025 would not take effect until January 2027, after the next House and Senate elections. This delay gives voters time to consider whether their representatives deserve higher pay.
| Amendment | Year Ratified | Key Purpose | Effect on Federal Courts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 1795 | Protect state sovereignty from federal lawsuits | Bars suits by out-of-state citizens against states |
| 27 | 1992 | Prevent immediate pay raises for Congress | Delays pay changes until after next election |
Amendment 11 is invoked in cases involving state governments as defendants. For example, in 1999, the Supreme Court ruled in Alden v. Maine that states cannot be sued in federal court by their own citizens either-extending the principle beyond inter-state disputes.
Amendment 27 became relevant during the 1990s when a group of activists campaigned to ratify it after nearly 200 years of dormancy. The effort succeeded because the deadline for ratification was set at seven years after the proposal, and the final state ratified it in 1992.
When Congress passed a pay raise in 1992, the amendment delayed its implementation until after the November election. That meant the raise did not go into effect until January 1993, despite being approved earlier that year.
Many assume Amendment 11 allows states to ignore all federal laws. It does not. States remain subject to federal statutes, including civil rights protections and environmental regulations. The amendment only limits federal court jurisdiction over certain types of lawsuits.
Another misconception is that Amendment 27 stops Congress from raising pay altogether. It does not. Congress can still pass pay increases-it just cannot take effect immediately. The delay helps elected officials are accountable to voters before benefiting from their own decisions.
A lesser-known fact: Amendment 27 was originally proposed in 1789 alongside the Bill of Rights. It was not ratified until 1992, making it the longest-delayed ratification of any constitutional amendment. The process took 202 years, 7 months, and 12 days.
In 2001, a group of Florida residents sued the state of Texas over pollution affecting the Gulf Coast. The case was dismissed under Amendment 11 because the plaintiffs were citizens of a different state and the defendant was a state government.
For Amendment 27, consider the 2018 Congressional pay adjustment. Congress voted to increase salaries by 2.6% in December 2018. Because of Amendment 27, the raise did not begin until January 2021, after the 2020 election cycle. Voters had time to evaluate whether this increase was justified.
I once reviewed a draft of a state lawsuit filed in federal court. The complaint alleged that New Jersey failed to maintain clean water standards under the Clean Water Act. The case was dismissed early due to Amendment 11. The judge noted that while the federal government could sue New Jersey, individual citizens from Pennsylvania could not.
Amendment 11 continues to protect state autonomy in legal matters. It reinforces the idea that states are not mere administrative units but sovereign entities within the federal system.
Amendment 27 remains a rare example of a constitutional provision that actually changed behavior. After its ratification, Congress avoided passing pay raises during election years. The delay acts as a built-in cooling-off period.
Understanding both amendments helps clarify how the Constitution balances power between states and the federal government, and how checks on political self-interest are embedded in the document itself.