Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999)
Alden v. Maine is a cornerstone of modern sovereign immunity doctrine and federalism.
Whether Congress, acting under its Article I powers (here, the Commerce Clause through the FLSA), may authorize private suits for damages against a nonconsenting State in the State's own courts.
Congress may not, pursuant to its Article I powers, subject a nonconsenting State to private suits for damages in either federal or state courts. State sovereign immunity is a fundamental, structural component of the constitutional order retained by the States in the plan of the Convention and is not limited to the text of the Eleventh Amendment. Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity only when it acts pursuant to valid enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, or a State may consent to suit or waive its immunity. Suits by the United States, by other States, or Ex parte Young actions for prospective relief against state officers remain available.
No. Congress lacks authority under Article I to authorize private suits for damages against nonconsenting States in state courts. The judgment of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court was affirmed.
Alden cements a broad, structural understanding of state sovereign immunity that applies across forums, not just in federal court. Together with Hans and Seminole Tribe, it substantially narrows the availability of private damages suits against States to enforce federal statutes enacted under Article I. For law students, Alden clarifies that abrogation requires Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 authority or state consent, and that the Supremacy Clause does not itself override sovereign immunity. Practically, Alden channels enforcement of many federal mandates into suits by the United States, Ex parte Young prospective relief, or state-law avenues, reshaping litigation strategy in public employment, labor, and regulatory contexts.