<Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards . The specific problem is: Big unwikified block (possible copy and paste) Please help improve this section if you can . (June 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> </Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards . The specific problem is: Big unwikified block (possible copy and paste) Please help improve this section if you can . (June 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> <P> In the United States, courts having original jurisdiction are referred to as trial courts . In certain types of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction concurrently with lower courts . The original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is governed by Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1251 . Most commonly, original jurisdiction cases involve suits between states as parties, usually over territorial or water rights disputes . </P> <P> The United States Constitution defines Original Jurisdiction thusly: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction . In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make . United States Constitution Article III, § cl. 2 . The Federalist Papers of Hamilton clearly reveal that the purpose of Original Jurisdiction before the SCOTUS was to address cases either involving (1) Ambassadors, with no mention of limiting the cases to Ambassadors of other Nations and / or cases including (2) one of the States of the union including instances where individual citizens were involved . As organic law, statues are secondary to the U.S. Constitution, the intended meaning of which can be found in the discussions of those who were responsible for formulating the Constitution and its Amendments . These reasons seem sufficient to satisfy a candid mind, that the want of such a power would have been a great defect in the plan . Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union . The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party . Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns . All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation . Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them . In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal . Though it may rather be a digression from the immediate subject of this paper, I shall take occasion to mention here a supposition which has excited some alarm upon very mistaken grounds . It has been suggested that an assignment of the public securities of one State to the citizens of another, would enable them to prosecute that State in the federal courts for the amount of those securities; a suggestion which the following considerations prove to be without foundation . It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual WITHOUT ITS CONSENT . This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union . Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the States, and the danger intimated must be merely ideal . The circumstances which are necessary to produce an alienation of State sovereignty were discussed in considering the article of taxation, and need not be repeated here . A recurrence to the principles there established will satisfy us, that there is no color to pretend that the State governments would, by the adoption of that plan, be divested of the privilege of paying their own debts in their own way, free from every constraint but that which flows from the obligations of good faith . The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force . They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will . To what purpose would it be to authorize suits against States for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be enforced? It is evident, it could not be done without waging war against the contracting State; and to ascribe to the federal courts, by mere implication, and in destruction of a pre-existing right of the State governments, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarrantable . (The Federalist Papers: No. 81) However, the U.S. Congress and the SCOTUS have established that the 14th Amendment, passed subsequent to the 11th Amendment, so limits the 11th . Respondents do not have immunity from Original Jurisdiction suit before this Court . "The Eleventh Amendment does not bar...the principle of state sovereignty...limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment,...the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which themselves embody significant limitations on state authority ."... "The prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment are directed to the States, and they are to a degree restrictions of State power....Congress is empowered to enforce, and to enforce against State action, however put forth, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial . Such enforcement is no invasion of State sovereignty . Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 446 96 S. Ct. 2666, 49 L. Ed . 2d 614 (1976) </P>

Which cases does the us supreme court have original jurisdiction over
find me the text answering this question