Template:Did you know nominations/Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt
edit- ... that U.S. states are immune from private suits against them in courts of other states without their consent per this recent Supreme Court ruling? Source: "The issue in Monday’s 5-to-4 ruling was one of limited impact: whether states have sovereign immunity from private lawsuits in the courts of other states. In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional right to such immunity, although states are free to extend it to one another and often do. But the court’s conservative majority overruled that decision" [1]
Created by MrClog (talk). Self-nominated at 18:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC).
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright or plagiarism issues. No QPQ is needed here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
