U.S. Supreme Court Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 3
Dall. 378 378 (1798) Hollingsworth v.
Virginia 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 Syllabus The amendment of the Constitution of the United States by which
the judicial power of the United States was declared not to extend
to any suit commenced or prosecuted by a citizen or citizens of
another state or by foreign subjects against a state prevented the
exercise of jurisdiction in any case past or future.

															The decision of the court, in the case of Chisholm v.
Georgia , 2 U. S. 419 ,
produced a proposition in Congress for amending the Constitution of
the United States according to the following terms:

															"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed
to extend to any suit in law and equity commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States by citizens of another state or by
citizens or subjects of any foreign state."

															The proposition being now adopted by the constitutional number
of states, Lee, Attorney General, submitted this question to the
Court whether the amendment did or did not supersede all suits
depending, as well as prevent the institution of new suits against
any one of the United States by citizens of another state. Page 3 U. S. 382 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.

Summary:
The case of Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798) centered around an amendment to the US Constitution that restricted the judicial power of the United States in certain suits involving a state and citizens of another state or foreign subjects. The amendment was a response to the Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, which allowed for such suits.

The question before the Court in Hollingsworth was whether this amendment superseded all ongoing suits and prevented the initiation of new ones against a state by out-of-state citizens.

The Court unanimously held that, with the amendment's adoption, there could be no jurisdiction exercised in any case, past or future, where a state was sued by citizens of another state or foreign subjects. This decision effectively overruled Chisholm v. Georgia and established sovereign immunity for states against certain types of lawsuits.