"The Judicial Power of the U.S.
shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity
Eleventh Amendment Framework
Before the 11th Amendment, a state could be sued by a citizen of another state in federal court. [Chisholm v. Georgia
(1793)- Ct held Georgia amenable to suit by citizen of South Carolina.]
The 11th amendment was enacted due to uproar post Chisholm & prevents a state from being sued by private citizens in
-Deisgned to keep individuals from keeping money out of the treasury - so doesn't apply to injunctive suits.
Hans v. Louisiana [1890] -
11th amendment expanded to States may sue other states in federal court;
3) Citizens may sue individual state officers in
prevent citizens from suing
federal court 4) Citizens may sue if the state
their own state.
State immunity from suit in fed court
extends to immunity from suit in state
courts as well - Alden v. Maine.
- Congress can't require state cts to
hear suits by individuals seeking $
damages for violations of a fed
statute when state cts refused to on
basis of SSI rules that did not
themselves discriminate against
national claims.
- State cannot be sued in its own
court under FLSA - such would
"ultimately commandeer the entire
political machinery of a state against
its will."
-BUT - SSI derives not from 11th but
federal structure of Constitution itself.
Sec. 5 allows Congress to abrogate SSI but
ONLY if state violates Sec. 1 of 14th &
remedy is congruent and proportional -to
injury itself court looks at scope of remedy &
scope of violation - BOERNE STANDARD.
- Congress must show state has engaged in
pattern of discrimination violating 14th so
that remedy imposed is C&P to that
discrimination.
-Rights & remedies created by ADA lacked
C&P to any EP violations states may have
been guilty of - required states spend hard $
to modify existing facilities - duty far beyond
what could possibily be required to address
whatever small EP violation state may be
guilty of. [disabled not suspect class]
-ADA may be good policy but Congress can't
impose on state govts because would
effectively rewrite 14A in way not interpreted
by SC - can't do because of Marbury.
[Board of Trustees v. Garett 2001]
BUT - Rehnquist said ADA wasn't
unconstitutional as applied to state
govts, just couldn't allow state govts to
be sued by individuals for violations;
fed govt COULD sue states to enforce
the law & suits against individual govt
officers for injunctive relief
permissable but damages actions
against state govts barred.
-Claim receiving heighted scrutiny due to type of discrimination or
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state or by citizens
federal court for money damages.
Exceptions to the 11th amendment -
1) U.S. can sue states in federal court; 2)
has specifically consented.
SSI can't be displaced by
powers granted to Congress
by Constitution in 1789 - CC
can't be basis for
congressional abrogation of
SSI. [may use civil war
amendment powers as
basis; allowing private
victims to sue discriminating
state for damages, after
1789 so it's fine] - Art. I
powers can't be used.
Congress must
unequivocally express intent
to abrogate SSI & it must be
valid exercise of CW
amendment powers.
Seminole v. Florida
State can be sued & fed govt
does win sometimes. Fam
leave provision of Fam &
Med Leave Act within scope
of Sec. 5 powers, & can be
used to sue state govts.
Absence of family leave
policies discriminated against
women, distinguished that
Garett involved rational basis
review, gender disc triggers
more scruinty under EP.
- Bc standard for
demonstrating
Constituionality of gender
based classfication harder to
meet than rational basis,
easier for Congress to show
pattern of violation. [Nevada
Dept HR v. Hibbs].
Dissent - powerful evidence of
discriminatory treatment
throughout society in general
including by private individuals &
local govts implicates state govts
as well for state agencies form part
of same larger society - no reason
to believe they're immune from
pattern of purposeful unequal
treatment Congress found
prevelant.
presence of fundamental right - Congress has broad authority to
or subjects of a foreign state."
legislate.
-Claim receiving only rational basis review, even elaborate
legislative record [like Garrett] unlikely enough to allow suit against
state govt - Congress must find persasive unconstitutional state
conduct.
States can waive immunity [i.e. Fed Tort Act
Congress CAN waive sovereign immunity, but
waivers] but court strictly contrues waivers - waivers
ONLY using its Sec. 5 power & it MUST meet the Two views on proper interpretation of 11th -
must be clear [courts reluctant to abrogate SSI];
Boerne "congruence & proportionality" standard. 1. 11th creates constitutional restrict on the
issues of doubt resolved in favor of the state; must
Congress CANNOT abrogate state immunity
do so explicitly [court won't read waiver into jurisdiction of fed cts to hear suits against
using any other enumerated power. state govts.
ambiguous case].
-CURRENT LAW.
2. 11th merely prohibits fed cts from hearing
For Congress to abrogate SSI under Sec. 5, the act must be remedial in nature; must
For Congress to abrogate suits between states & citizens of other states
not define new constitutional substantive rights or create rights; & the means used
SSI under Sec. 5, it must - all state violations of Constitution or fed laws
must be proportionate to the end achieved - appropriate, plainly adapted, not
show a history or a could be heard in federal court.
overbroad, must show widespread & persisting state dperivation or likely deprivation,
pattern of unconsctional
narrowly tailor the remedy to the harm.
activity of the state - that
- No power to authorize damage remedy under ADEA for state employees - didn't
state infringed on a right
constitution "appropriate legislation" because violations at issue didn't satisfy EP
& that the state refused to
doctrine.
provide a remedy, giving - 14th amendment followed 11th & thus
- Requirements ADEA imposed on state govts disproportionate to any unconstituional
rise to a need for can modify it.
conduct that could conceivably be targeted by the act" - through "broad restriction on
remedial federal 10th amendment not an external check
use of age as discriminating factor, prohibits substantailly more state employment
legislation. No legislative on 14A powers bc the amendments
decisions & practices than would likely be held unconstitutional under rational basis
record showing states specifically passed to deny certain
standard."
engaged in powers to states & prevent certain
- Leg. History - Congress had virtually no reason to believe state/local govts
unconstitutional patent violations.
unconstitutionally discriminating against their employees on basis of age; failure to
[property] infringement. Sec. 5 - abrogation of any independent
uncover pattern shows Congress had no reason to think broad legislation needed.
[Florida v. Prepaid]. 10th constraint because 14th purpose is
[Kimel v. Florida, 2000]
to regulate states & limit power - sec. 1
by terms limits states authority.
11th amendment does apply to states
because it's a general protection given to
Does Congress have Sec. 5 power to authorize fed court damage suits against state?
states - & it restricts judicial power under
Really the same standard as Boerne - Is law a valid exercise of Sec. 5 powers? - if law isn't permissible,
Art. III.
litigation can't go on against state govt.
Sec. 5 is a hammer given to Congress to
rein states back in when they violate
2. If not, did fed statute equal protection or due process.
1. Is the state conduct P 3. If no to both, Congress only
creating private right of
complaining of an ACTUAL has Sec. 5 power to allow P to
action deal w/ area involving
violation by the state of P's sue state if -
either suspect classes or a
constitutional rights? - Found widespread Why does level of scrutiny matter?
fundamental right?
unconstitutional state conduct Perhaps areas with heightened scrutiny
in area in question. have historical violations making the
U.S. v. Georgia [suit by For rights or types of
- Congress chose findings sufficient, less need for
paraplegic prisoner] - SSI discrimination that receive
narrowly-tailored method for congressional documentation [race,
didn't bar suit bc alleged heightened scrutiny, Congress
combating conduct gender].
violations of rights under 8th has greater authority to permit
-Response is congruent & -Defenders of Garrett, etc. - appropriation
amendment, insofar as Title II suits against state govts than
proportional to pattern of protection of SSI, proper limit on Sec. 5
creats private COA for for claims receiving only
unconstitutional state actions. powers, SSI important aspect of Const.
daamges for conduct actually rational basis review - Court
protection of state govts.
violating the 14th amendment, more likely to find Congress'
[proper interpretation of 5 based on text,
Title II validly abrogates SSI. decision to allow damages
framers intent, need to preserve SC role
suit meets C&P requirement &
in determining meaning of Const]
is okay.
- Critics - SSI not inherent in Const
design or authrozied , undermines basic
const principle of govt accountability
-Decisions undue judicial activisim
[conservative justices less likely to want
no SSI]
Debate over separation of powers,
federalism, protection of individual rights
under Constitution.