This court has long recognized an exception to sovereign immunity where a party seeks injunctive relief against the state or a public official acting outside the scope of lawful authority. See Chilivis v. Nat. Distrib. Co., 239 Ga. 651, 654 ( 238 S.E.2d 431) (1977) (citing cases); Irwin v. Crawford, 210 Ga. 222, 224 ( 78 S.E.2d 609) (1953) ("if the actions of [public corporations, boards or commissions] are illegal or contrary to law, the courts will intervene in order to prevent [an action] illegal or contrary to law"). To avoid the harsh results sovereign immunity would impose, the court has often employed the legal fiction that such a suit is not a suit against the state, but against an errant official, even though the purpose of the suit is to control state action through state employees.

This is so because a governmental entity cannot cloak itself in sovereign immunity while performing illegal acts to the detriment of its citizens. See id.; see also Chilivis v. Nat. Distrib. Co., 239 Ga. 651, 654(1), 238 S.E.2d 431 (1977) (sovereign immunity not applicable to injunctive relief claim alleging action beyond scope of official power). The Center's petition clearly alleges that the CRD has issued letters of permission for activities that, under OCGA § 12–5–237, require a permit.

See Hennessy v. Webb, 245 Ga. 329 , 330 (264 SE2d 878 ) (1980). And in suits for injunctive and declaratory relief from official acts that were alleged to be unconstitutional, we continued to adhere to Dennison and its progeny See Chilivis v. Nat. Distributing Co., 239 Ga. 651 , 654 (1) (238 SE2d 431 ) (1977). The doctrine of sovereign immunity retained its constitutional status in the Constitution of 1983, which provided at its adoption that “[sjovereign immunity extends to the state and all of its departments and agencies.”

Additionally, the two cases relied upon by IBM v. Evans that do not predate the 1974 amendment did not consider the effect of the amendment or discuss the constitutional text. See Chilivis v. Natl. Distrib. Co., 239 Ga. 651(1), 238 S.E.2d 431 (1977) (not addressing the constitutional language and relying on pre–1974 cases); Evans v. Just Open Govt., 242 Ga. 834, 843–44, 251 S.E.2d 546 (1979) (Hill, J., concurring specially) (omitting discussion of the constitutional text). For all of these reasons, our holding in IBM v. Evans is unsound.

[Cits.]" Chilivis v. Nat. Distributing Co., 239 Ga. 651, 654 (1) ( 238 S.E.2d 431) (1977). The majority resolves the main issue in this appeal based on its limited analysis of IBM Corp., a case in which the injured party, IBM, sued the State to enjoin it from awarding a competitor a computer system contract, claiming the State had acted beyond its lawful authority in selecting the recipient of the contract.

5. Sovereign immunity is not applicable where an action is sought to prevent the commission of a wrongful act by an officer acting under color of authority and beyond the scope of official power. Chilivis v. National Distributing Co., 239 Ga. 651, 654 ( 238 S.E.2d 431) (1977). Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

An allegation that the State has violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights is not, in itself, sufficient to avoid the State's sovereign immunity. See Cobb County v. Ga. Transmission Corp., 276 Ga. 367, 367(1), 578 S.E.2d 852 (2003) (considering whether petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief asserting county ordinance was unconstitutional); DeKalb County v. Townsend Associates, 243 Ga. 80, 82(4)(b), 252 S.E.2d 498 (1979) (action against county for declaratory judgment, injunction, and mandamus); Chilivis v. Nat. Distrib. Co., 239 Ga. 651, 654(1), 238 S.E.2d 431 (1977) (finding action for declaratory judgment and injunction not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity)..265 Ga. 215, 453 S.E.2d 706 (1995).

Neither of these statutes authorizes wholesalers to sell to any retailer licensed in the state, or authorizes retailers to purchase from any wholesaler licensed in the state. Chilivis v. Nat. Distrib. Co. , 239 Ga. 651 ( 238 S.E.2d 431) (1977).City of Buchanan v. Pope , 222 Ga. App. 716, 717 ( 476 S.E.2d 53) (1996).

[Cits.]" Chilivis v. Nat. Distrib. Co., 239 Ga. 651, 654 (1) ( 238 S.E.2d 431) (1977). Thus, whether the GPA acted with illegal racial animus and denied Premo equal protection are material disputed questions of fact.

Indeed, those authorities suggest that all it takes to trigger the doctrine is to establish, by a process of statutory interpretation, that the defendants' conduct was unauthorized. See, e.g., Chilivis v. National Distributing Co., 239 Ga. 651, 654-55, 238 S.E.2d 431 (1977) (sovereign immunity did not shield state revenue commissioner acting without statutory authority to settle private contract dispute); Senn Park Nursing Center v. Miller, 104 Ill.2d 169, 188, 470 N.E.2d 1029 (1984) (sovereign immunity not shield where director of public aid changed Medicaid reimbursement procedure without complying with statutory prerequisites); Fortin v. Morton, 101 N.H. 477, 479, 147 A.2d 644 (1958) (sovereign immunity shielded commissioner of public works and highways where restricting access to highway was within statutory authority); Lewis v. White, 287 N.C. 625, 632-44, 216 S.E.2d 134 (1975) (sovereign immunity was bar: [1] to claim that museum building commission exceeded statutory authority by conducting meetings in secrecy, where nothing in statutes supported contention that all action was void if meeting was not open to public; [2] to claim that commission exceeded authority by not consulting building authority, where statutory powers of building authority di