Sovereign Immunity Flashcards
Eleventh Amendment: State Sovereign Immunity
“The Judicial powers of the US shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the US by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
State Sovereign Immunity: General Rule
State are protected from suits in FEDERAL (and STATE) courts by PRIVATE PARTIES seeking DAMAGES unless states WAIVE immunity or Congress ABROGATES immunity.
Chisholm v. Georgia
State Sovereign Immunity: General Rule
Private citizen sued state in federal court and the court said OK.
(this case inspired passage of the 11th Amendment to prevent private citizens from being able to do this)
Hans v. Louisiana
State Sovereign Immunity: General Rule
11th Amendment technically says citizens of OTHER and FOREIGN states cannot sue a state in federal court, but 11th Amendment also prevents citizens from suing their own states based on broad view view of sovereign immunity.
- Brings up questions about whether SSI is a background principle in the constitution itself.
Ex parte Young
State Sovereign Immunity: General Rule
State officials can be sued in federal court for prospective injunctive relief ONLY
- Edleman v. Jordan (state officials cannot be sued in federal court for retroactive damages)
Congressional ability to ABROGATE
State Sovereign Immunity: General Rule
Congressional ability to ABROGATE allows private parties to sue states in certain circumstances.
- Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (Congress can abrogate under 14th Amendment, Section 5 because reconstruction amendments were designed to alter relationship between federal government and states); but see Seminole Tribe (no congressional abrogation under Commerce Clause, state must consent).
Alden v. Maine
Private party cannot sue state under FLSA (fed labor Standards Act) in federal court or in state court
- suits against the state in state court may NOT be brought - i.e. sovereign immunity also applies to state courts.
- query whether this means abrogation is allowed under any amendments post 11th Amendment
Applying Boerne test re : State Sovereign Immunity
- Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (rational basis for age discrimination so ADEA is not congruent and proportional to prohibited state regulation)
- > Trustees of Alabama v. Garrett (ADA reasonable accomodation same result as Kimel)
- Tennessee v. Lane (Congress can enforce private suit against state based on access to courts because that is a fundamental right under the 6th amendment (gets strict scutiny), not because of the disability claim which only gets rational basis.
Framework of Analysis: State Sovereign Immunity and Abbrogation
You are trying to sue a state, but the 11th Am bars your suit. Maybe Comgress can abbrogate state sovereign immunity. Aside from abrogation, you would also want to consider using Ex parte Young claim for prospective equitable relief.
- Is there clear congressional intent to abrogate? See Atascadaro State Hospital v. Scanlon (has Congress said abracadabra aka is there clear Congressional intent to abrogate?).
a. If no, then NO abrogation!
b. If yes, then move to question 2. - Is congressional abrogation a valid grant of constitutional authority?
a. Where is Congress getting its power?
i. Article I, Sec. 8 Commerce Clause, then NO abrogation. See Seminole Tribe. But see Central Virginia Community College v. Katz (Bankruptcy Clause allows abrogation).
ii. Sec. 5 of 14A, then MAYBE abrogation is okay pending on whether legislation is congruent and proportional. See Boerne test.
1. This is the same test as when you are asking whether Congress has the power to use its Sec. 5 powers for remedial purposes.
- > Congruent: how pervasive and widespread is the problem and what evidence do we have to prove that the problem is widespread?
i. See Board of Trustees of Alabama v. Garrett (disability discrimination is not that pervasive of a problem and lack of evidence that state irrationally discriminated against disabled people so no congressional ability to abrogate). But see Nevada v. Hibbs (FMLA OK because congruent to protect against sex discrimination problem).
ii. See College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid (Congressional attempt to protect patents against state infringement by legislating pursuant to Sec. 5 powers was unconstitutional because Congress had insufficient evidence that state infringement of patents was a national problem, therefore not congruent and proportional). *Also no ability abrogate under Patent Clause.
iii. Note: it is easier to meet congruent and proportional test with heightened scrutiny, and thus, easier to abrogate.
- > Proportional: is the remedy the proper fit to address the problem.
i. See Garrett (ADA reasonable accommodation is not proportional to remedy the problem because disabled people are not suspect class and only get rational basis review and this was not irrational discrimination, relying on Cleburne).
How to Avoid Eleventh Amendment Bars:
- Sue a state official instead of the state, assert violation of federal law, and ask for injunctive relief for federal violation.
- Sue a state officia instead of the state, ensure that the defendant is named in her “individual capacity” and try to get around common law immunity doctrines to recover damages.
- Sue under implied Cause of Action where Congress has effectively abrogated state sovereign immunity.
- Sue under federal statute that has implied Cause of Action where state has waived state sovereign immunity.
Suits Against State Actors:
General Rule #1
State officials CAN be sued in federal court, but only for PROSPECTIVE EQUITABLE (injunctive or declaratory) RELIEF, not retroactive damages. * Note that state officials can be state actors for 14th Amendment purposes but are stripped for 11th Amendment purposes.
a. Ex parte Young (the king can do no wrong, state officials are stripped of their official state capacity when violating the Constitution for 11th Am purposes.
i. Officials sued under this theory CANNOT assert qualified immunity because that only works when sued in their PERSONAL capacity.
b. Edelman v. Jordan (11th Am. state sovereign immunity bar applies only to suits seeking FUTURE relief such as injunctions, state sovereign immunity still applies when suits seek retroactive monetary damages such as restitution for past benefits rightly owed). Participation in federal program does not constitute SSI waiver.
ii. But see Milliken v. Bradley (remedy to desegregate schools the required schools to implement a series of programs to "wipe" out continuing conditions of inequality is prospective relief even though compensatory in nature).
1. States must use the money to desegregate schools, and that order to do so was OK - contingent upon prospective compliance.
Suits Against State Actors:
General Rule #2
State officials may NOT be sued in federal court on STATE LAW GROUNDS (even for prospective injunctive relief).
a. Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman (11th Am. bars federal court plaintiff's from asserting state law violations against state officials).
i. Note: the logic of Ex parte Young requires that state officials be stripped of their immunity when violating federal constitutional law b/c the Supremact Clause prevents states from enabling officials to violate federal law, but if the state official is acting on the basis of state law, then the Supremacy Clause does not apply.
- > In other words, SUING STATE OFFICIALS FOR VIOLATIONS OF STATE LAW RUNS AFOULD OF STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Federal system does not need to create an exception b/c no federal interest in enforcing state law.
ii. Generally, state sovereign immunity does NOT extend to LOCAL government EXCEPT when there is SO much state involvement in the municipalities' actions that relief sought is essentially against the state.
- > Relief against county and state officers barred by the 11th Am: county's money came from state so state funding of county program created 11th Amendment bar.
Suits Against State Actors:
General Rule #3
State officials CAN be sued in their INDIVIDUAL capacity under Section 1983 in federal court for damages
a. About plaintiff’s intent of how she wants to sue the official, not about whether the official was performing essential functions.
