Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case addressed two principal questions: whether the President of the United States has a formal role in the process of amending the U.S. Constitution, and whether the Eleventh Amendment applies to cases that were already pending before its ratification.
Background
The case arose from a land dispute. Levi Hollingsworth, a Pennsylvania merchant and shareholder in the Indiana Company, sought to recover land from the Commonwealth of Virginia in what is now West Virginia. The case was originally brought by William Grayson, a Virginian, but Hollingsworth replaced him as plaintiff after the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which held that a state could be sued in federal court by a citizen of another state. Because Hollingsworth was a citizen of Pennsylvania, he could bring suit against Virginia under the reasoning of Chisholm.
In response to Chisholm, Congress proposed the Eleventh Amendment, which provides that the judicial power of the United States shall not extend to suits against a state by citizens of another state or by foreign subjects. President John Adams announced on January 8, 1798, that the amendment had been ratified.
Issues
Two main issues were presented to the Court:
- Whether the Eleventh Amendment was validly adopted, given that it had not been submitted to the President for approval or veto.
- Whether the Eleventh Amendment applied retroactively to cases that had already begun before its ratification.
Decision
The Court ruled unanimously that the Eleventh Amendment had been constitutionally adopted and that it applied to both past and future cases. The Court held that the President has no formal role in the proposal or adoption of constitutional amendments. The Court's full opinion stated:
"The Court, on the day succeeding the argument, delivered an unanimous opinion, that the amendment being constitutionally adopted, there could not be exercised any jurisdiction, in any case, past or future, in which a state was sued by the citizens of another state, or by citizens, or subjects, of any foreign state."
During oral argument, Justice Samuel Chase remarked that the President "has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution." The Court's reasoning relied on Article V of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall propose amendments whenever two-thirds of both houses deem it necessary, without any role for the President.
Significance
Hollingsworth v. Virginia established the principle that the President's veto power, as set forth in the Presentment Clause of Article I, does not apply to constitutional amendments. This principle was later reaffirmed in dicta in INS v. Chadha (1983).
The case is also notable as one of the earliest instances of judicial review by the Supreme Court. Some scholars have suggested that the Court's retroactive application of the Eleventh Amendment effectively invalidated part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which would make Hollingsworth one of the first cases in which the Court struck down a federal law as unconstitutional. However, this interpretation is debated, and some authorities maintain that Marbury v. Madison (1803) was the first such case.
Later Discussion
In 2005, legal scholar Seth B. Tillman published an article in the Texas Law Review arguing that the scope of Hollingsworth may have been narrower than commonly understood. Tillman suggested that the Court's decision might have been based on the specific facts of the case—namely, that the proposed amendment had been delivered to President George Washington, who declined to sign it—rather than establishing a broad rule that the President has no role in the amendment process. Tillman did not argue that the case was wrongly decided, but rather that its holding may have been more limited than later courts have interpreted it.
Despite scholarly debate, Hollingsworth v. Virginia remains good law and is firmly entrenched in American constitutional jurisprudence.
