A state is not a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, so a suit between a state and a citizen of another state is not between citizens of different states.
A corporation sought to remove a state tax suit to federal court, claiming the controversy arose under the United States Constitution and was between citizens of different states. The court considers whether federal jurisdiction exists when a state is a party to a suit. Because a state is not a citizen under the Judiciary Acts, a suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state does not constitute a controversy between citizens of different states. Since the complaint did not allege a claim arising under federal law, the court holds that the federal court lacks jurisdiction.
At page 487 Jurisdiction over suits between states and citizens45 citing casesA State is not [itself] a citizen. And, under the Judiciary 13 14 Acts of the United States, it is well settled that a suit between a State and a citizen or a 15 corporation of another State is not between citizens of different States.
- Blue Castle (Cayman) Ltd. v. Jones, No. 2:24-cv-00953 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2024).(A state is not a citizen.)
- Commonwealth of Kentucky Transp. Cabinet v. Brown, No. 3:24-cv-00026 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 28, 2024).([A] suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states, and [] the circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction of it, unless it arises under the…)
- State of Missouri v. Happy Fun Events, LLC, No. 4:21-cv-01387 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 12, 2022).(A state is not a citizen.)
- Puerto Rico Dep't of Pub. Saf., 9-1-1 Emergency Sys. Bureau v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 3d 400 (D.P.R. 2021).published(A State is not [itself] a citizen. And, under the Judiciary 13 14 Acts of the United States, it is well settled that a suit between a State and a citizen or a 15 corporation of another State is not between citizens of…)
- Brent Hesselink v. Am. Fam. Life Assurance Co. of Columbus, No. 8:20-cv-02051, 2020 WL 7768711 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2020).([A] suit between a 16 state and a citizen . . . of another state is not between citizens of different states, and [the 17 lower federal courts have] no jurisdiction of it [unless a federal question exists.])
- People v. Larose Indus. LLC, 386 F. Supp. 3d 214 (N.D.N.Y. 2019).published (A state is not a citizen)
- Agullard v. Principal Life Ins., 685 F. Supp. 2d 947 (D. Ariz. 2010).published ([A] suit between a State and citizen or a corporation of another State is not between citizens of *953 different States ....)
- Chisholm v. United of Omaha Life Ins., 514 F. Supp. 2d 318 (D. Conn. 2007).published ([I]t is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen ... of another state is not between citizens of different states....)
- Wilkerson v. Missouri Dept. of Mental Health, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (E.D. Mo. 2003).published (it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen ... of another state is not between citizens of different states)
- Batton v. Georgia Gulf, 261 F. Supp. 2d 575 (M.D. La. 2003).published (A state is not a citizen. And under the judiciary acts... a suit between a state and a ... corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states, and ... [a district] court of the United States has n…)
Show 35 more citing cases
- In re of 17,325 Liters of Liquor, 918 F. Supp. 51 (N.D.N.Y. 1996).published (A state is not a citizen. And ... a suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states_)
- Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860 (3d Cir. 1996). (It is well settled that a state is not a citizen within the meaning of the diversity statute.)
- State of Louisiana v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., 892 F. Supp. 145 (M.D. La. 1995).published (A state is not a citizen. And under the judiciary acts ... a suit between a state and a ... corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states, and ... [a district] court of the United States has…)
- Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff/counterclaim-Defendant/appellant v. California State Bd. of Equalization Richard Nevins, in His Off. Capacity as Chairman of the State Bd. of Equalization Conway H. Collis, in His Off. Capacity as a Member of the State Bd. of Equalization Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr., in His Off. Capacity as a Member of the State Bd. of Equalization William M. Bennett, in His Off. Capacity as a Member of the State Bd. of Equalization, Clive Miller, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellee. Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff/counterclaim-Defendant/appellee v. California State Bd. of Equalization, & Clive Miller, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellant. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1988).published (A State is not a citizen. And, under the Judiciary Acts of the United States, it is well settled that a suit between a State and a citizen or a corporation of another State is not between citizens of different States..…)
- Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1988).published (A State is not a citizen. And, under the Judiciary Acts of the United States, it is well settled that a suit between a State and a citizen or a corporation of another State is not between citizens of different States_)
- Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff/counterclaim-Defendant/appellant v. California State Bd. of Equalization Richard Nevins, in His Off. Capacity as Chairman of the State Bd. of Equalization Conway H. Collis, in His Off. Capacity as a Member of the State Bd. of Equalization Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr., in His Off. Capacity as a Member of the State Bd. of Equalization William M. Bennett, in His Off. Capacity as a Member of the State Bd. of Equalization, Clive Miller, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellee. Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff/counterclaim-Defendant/appellee v. California State Bd. of Equalization, & Clive Miller, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellant. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 849 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988).published (A State is not a citizen. And, under the Judiciary Acts of the United States, it is well settled that a suit between a State and a citizen or a corporation of another State is not between citizens of different States..…)
- Pennsylvania Game Comm'n v. Thomas E Proctor Heirs Trust, No. 22-1587 (3d Cir. July 31, 2026).publishedCable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894)).
- Hall v. Jackson, No. 3:24-cv-03043 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 16, 2024).“[I]t is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen ... of another state is not between citizens of different states”
- B&B Mfg., Inc. v. United States Virgin Islands, No. 3:21-cv-00052 (D.V.I. July 26, 2024).(A State is not [itself] a citizen, And, under the judiciary acts of the United States, it is well established that a suit between a State and a citizen . . . is not between citizens of different States.)
- United Corp. v. USVI, No. 3:21-cv-00043 (D.V.I. July 26, 2024).(A State is not [itself] a citizen, And, under the judiciary acts of the United States, it is well established that a suit between a State and a citizen . . . is not between citizens of different States.)
- Impex Trading Int'l, Inc. v. USVI, No. 3:21-cv-00044 (D.V.I. July 26, 2024).(A State is not [itself] a citizen, And, under the judiciary acts of the United States, it is well established that a suit between a State and a citizen . . . is not between citizens of different States.)
- Bluewater Constr., Inc. v. The United States Virgin Islands, No. 3:21-cv-00040 (D.V.I. July 26, 2024).(A State is not [itself] a citizen, And, under the judiciary acts of the United States, it is well established that a suit between a State and a citizen . . . is not between citizens of different States.)
- Apex Constr. Co., Inc v. USVI, No. 3:21-cv-00039 (D.V.I. July 26, 2024).(A State is not [itself] a citizen, And, under the judiciary acts of the United States, it is well established that a suit between a State and a citizen . . . is not between citizens of different States.)
- MSI Bldg. Supplies, Inc. v. The United States Virgin Islands, No. 3:21-cv-00041 (D.V.I. July 26, 2024).(A State is not [itself] a citizen, And, under the judiciary acts of the United States, it is well established that a suit between a State and a citizen . . . is not between citizens of different States.)
- Childers v. Kaufman, No. 1:24-cv-00041 (D.N.M. May 31, 2024).Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
- Torres v. Dep't of Labor, No. 2:22-cv-00059 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 7, 2022).Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
- Arami Cheyenne Walker v. Bd. of Regents, Univ. of California, No. 2:22-cv-03279 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2022).Cable Co. v. State of Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894). 2 The question presented by this case is whether the Regents constitute an arm of the state.
- Fennick v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 2022-0192 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2022).publishedCir. 1987) (quoting Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894)).
- USA ex rel Mohajer, No. 1:17-cv-04176 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2021).And under the [laws] of the United States it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states.” Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487…
- Grace Ranch v. BP Am. Prod., No. 20-30224 (5th Cir. Feb. 26, 2021).publishedCable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
- Grace Ranch v. BP Am. Prod., 989 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 2021).publishedCable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
- West Virginia State Univ. Bd. of Governors v. The Dow Chem. Co., No. 2:17-cv-03558 (S.D. W. Va. June 1, 2020).Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717 (1973); Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894); Md. Stadium Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket, Inc., 407 F.3d 255 , 260 (4th Cir. 2005). “[P]ublic entities and political subdivisi…
- People of the State of Colorado, The v. Ziankovich, No. 1:19-cv-03087 (D. Colo. Dec. 19, 2019).(reversing with directions to remand to state court)
- Dep't of Fair Emp. v. Lucent Tech., Inc., No. 09-15057 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2011).publishedCable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
- Univ. v. A.W. Chesterton, No. 92-1034 (1st Cir. Aug. 27, 1993).publishedCable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
- Dahn v. Dist. of Columbia, 865 F.2d 1257 (4th Cir. 1988).unpublishedCary v. White, 457 U.S. 85, 87-88 (1982); Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
- James M. Shannon, as He is Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Telco Commc'ns, Inc. & Donald Quatrucci, 824 F.2d 150 (1st Cir. 1987).publishedState Highway Commission v. Utah Construction Co., 278 U.S. 194, 200 , 49 S.Ct. 104, 106 , 73 L.Ed. 262 (1929) (quoting Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482 , 15 S.Ct. 192 , 39 L.Ed. 231, 487 (1894)); see Ohio v. Wyandotte C…
- Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979).published Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 717 (1973); Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482, 487 (1894).
- Moor v. Cnty. of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693 (1973).published That proposition has been established at least since this Court’s decision in Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482, 487 (1894).
- High. Comm. of Wyoming v. Utah Constr. Co., 278 U.S. 194 (1929).publishedAnd, under the Judiciary Acts of the United States, it is well settled that a suit between a State and a citizen or a corporation of another State is not between citizens of different States; and that the Circuit Court of the United States…
- Rushing, No. 0:25-cv-01957 (D. Minn. Mar. 4, 2026).(noting that “neither a state nor a state agency [can] be a party to a diversity action)
- Dubois, No. 2:22-cv-04606 (D.N.J. Nov. 3, 2025).See Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894); Arkansas v. Kan. & Tex. Coal Co., 183 U.S. 185, 188 (1901); N. Sec.
- Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Rosemount Mem'l Park Ass'n, 598 F.2d 1303 (3d Cir. 1979).published
- Olsen v. Doerfler, 225 F. Supp. 540 (E.D. Mich. 1963).published
- Atesom v. Guam Mem'l Hosp. Auth., No. 1:15-cv-00038 (D. Guam Mar. 2, 2016).“A State is not a citizen. And, under the Judiciary Acts of the United States, it is well settled that a suit between a State and a citizen or a 25 corporation of another State is not between citizens of different State…”
15 S. Ct. at 192 cited at this page2 citing cases
- Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. West Virginia Bd. of Regents, 737 F.2d 540 (6th Cir. 1984).publishedId. at 482, 483 , 15 S.Ct. at 192, 193 .
- Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. West Virginia Bd. of Regents, 527 F. Supp. 1366 (S.D. Ohio 1981).publishedId. at 482, 483 , 15 S.Ct. at 192, 193 .
39 L. Ed. at 232 cited at this page1 citing case
- Roberson v. Dale, 464 F. Supp. 680 (M.D.N.C. 1979).publishedIn a variant of their “alter-ego” argument, they also point to the Eleventh Amendment’s absolute bar to suits in federal courts “against one of the United States by citizens of another State . . . .” 12 It is well settled that a state is n…
15 S. Ct. at 194 cited at this page1 citing case
- Utah Const. Co. v. State High. Comm'n of Wyoming, 16 F.2d 322 (D. Wyo. 1926).publishedAs before stated, this action, so far as the jurisdiction of this court is concerned, is based upon the necessary amount being in controversy and the diversity of citizenship of the parties, but as stated in Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. A…
Other citing cases
- MacHie v. Chardonnet, 140 F. Supp. 3d 4 (D.D.C. 2015).published
- Kansas State Univ. v. Prince, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (D. Kan. 2009).published
v.
Alabama
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
By section 1 of the act of Congress of March 3, 1875, c. 137, as amended by the acts of March 3, 1887, c. 373, and August 13, 1888, c. 866, it is enacted that the Circuit Courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $2000, “ and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall -be made, under their authority; or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners ; or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different ■ States ; ” “ or a controversy between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States; or a controversy between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens or subjects.” And by section 2, the defendant’s right to remove a suit — whether arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, or. coming within any other class above enumerated — from a state court into the Circuit Court of- the United States, is restricted to suits “ of which the Circuit Courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction by the preceding section.” 25 Stat. 434.
[*487] The grounds upon which the present suit was removed from, a court of the State of Alabama into the Circuit Court of the United States were that the controversy therein arose under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that it was wholly between citizens of different States.
But the suit was one brought by the State to recover taxes and penalties imposed by its own revenue laws, the jurisdiction over which belongs to its own tribunals, except so far as Congress, in order to secure the supremacy of the national Constitution and laws, has provided for a removal into the courts of the United States. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265, 290 ; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 672. And the. complaint by which the suit was begun did not mention the Constitution or any law of the United States, or claim any right under either.
A State is not a citizen. And, under the Judiciary Acts of the United States, it is well settled that a suit between a State and a citizen or a corporation of another State is not between citizens of different States; and that the Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction of it, unless it arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449; Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430; Germania Ins. Co. v. Wisconsin, 119 U. S. 473.
It is equally well settled that under the provisions, above referred to, of the existing act of Congress, no suit can be removed by a defendant from a state court into the Circuit Court of the United States, as one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, unless the fact that it so arises appears by the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim; and that a deficiency in his statement, in this respect, cannot be supplied by allegations in the petition for removal, or in subsequent pleadings in the case. Tennessee v. Bank of Commerce, 152 U. S. 454; Chappell v. Waterworth, ante, 102.
The conclusion is inevitable, that the judgment of the Circuit Court .of the United States must be reversed, and the case remanded to that court, with directions to remand it to the state court; and that, the case having been wrongfully[*488] removed into the Circuit Court of the United States by the Postal Telegraph Cable Company, that company must pay the costs in that court, as well as in this court. Tennessee v. Bank of Commerce, above cited; Hanrick v. Hanrick, 153 U. S. 192.
Judgment reversed accordingly.