In the Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi case in 1933, the Supreme Court ruled that a foreign government could not sue a U.S. state without its consent due to sovereign immunity principles. The Principality of Monaco attempted to recover bonds issued by Mississippi in 1830s which were defaulted on during the financial panic of 1837 and never repaid. However, the court held that under Eleventh Amendment protections, states are immune from lawsuits brought against them by foreign governments just as they are protected from suits brought by citizens of other states or countries unless they consent to be sued.

In the dissenting opinion for Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, Justice Brandeis argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it involved a dispute between a foreign government and a U.S. state. He believed that such disputes were political in nature and thus outside the purview of judicial review. Moreover, he contended that even if the court did have jurisdiction, it should abstain from exercising it due to principles of comity among nations and respect for states' rights within federalism. He also disagreed with majority's interpretation of 11th Amendment immunity, arguing instead that sovereign immunity was an inherent aspect of sovereignty rather than something granted by Constitution or laws.