440 U.S. 410 (1979)
Nevada v. Hall addressed a critical question of interstate sovereign immunity—whether a state can be sued in the courts of another state without its consent.
Can one state be sued in the courts of another state without its consent?
The rule established was that states do not have sovereign immunity against being sued in the courts of another state without their consent.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a state does not have immunity from being sued in the courts of another state. States are sovereign in the context of federal law but do not enjoy absolute immunity across state lines under the Constitution.
Nevada v. Hall is critical for law students as it elucidates limits on the application of state sovereign immunity in an interstate context. This case underscores the constitutional balance between state autonomy and federalism, and its implications affect a range of legal fields including interstate commerce, state taxation, and jurisdictional disputes, making it a fundamental study in both constitutional law and conflicts of law.