Constitutional Law - Eleventh Amendment's Restrictions on Congress's Powers to Regulate the States
Hester Prynne sues the State of Scarletter in federal court for non-payment of state welfare funds. Will the court hear her case?
No. Her suit will be prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment, which forbids damages actions in federal courts against states, based on past conduct, where the damages will be payable from state funds, absent state consent to the suit or express congressional authorization for the lawsuit. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974); E Ch.16-VI; CH §2.10.
Under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Congress authorized employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid family leave to care for family members who suffer from serious health conditions. Congress passed the FMLA because it had extensive evidence of gender discrimination by the states in the administration of employee leave benefits and desired to remedy that discrimination with the requirements of the FMLA. Dibbs, an employee of the State Department of Human Resources, sued the State after it denied his request for family leave. Is the lawsuit barred by the Eleventh Amendment?
No. In passing the FMLA, Congress relied on its §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. In Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003), the Court ruled that Congress abrogated the states' sovereign immunity in the FMLA because the legislation was a congruent and proportional solution to the problem of gender discrimination.
Does the Eleventh Amendment bar the federal government from suing a state?
No. The Eleventh Amendment essentially forbids federal court actions against states for money damages, based on the state's past conduct, where the money damages will be payable from state funds. (Even in this situation, it doesn't apply if the state consented or if Congress authorized the suit.) Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974); E Ch.16-VI; CH p. 195. The following kinds of suits are not forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment: 1. Suits by the federal government or other states against a state; 2. Suits in which injunctive/declarative relief is sought against state officials for federal law violations; 3. Suits by anyone against subdivisions of states (e.g., cities and counties); 4. Suits looking for prospective relief instead of damages for past conduct; 5. Suits in which the claim is that a state official violated federal law (constitutional or otherwise), not state law; 6. Suits brought against a state in state court (although a parallel principle of state immunity may protect a state if sued in its own courts on a federal right); 7. Damages sought against state officials personally (it's damages payable by the state that are barred); and 8. Suits under federal statutes enacted under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (which gives Congress the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment). E Ch.16-VI; CH §2.10.
Congress passes the Gambling Act, which provides that any state that allows non-Native American gambling must negotiate with any Native American tribes in the state to give them an opportunity to conduct comparable gaming operations. The Gambling Act authorizes lawsuits by the Native American tribes in federal courts if the states fail to negotiate with the tribes in good faith. Native American Tribe sues the State of Chance in federal court alleging that the State did not negotiate in good faith. Can the federal court hear the lawsuit?
No. These facts are based on the case of Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), in which the Court held that Congress could not use its Article I powers to abrogate the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity. Seminole Tribe was a 5-4 decision that started the Court's line of cases limiting Congress' ability to abrogate state sovereign immunity. E Ch. 16-VI(A)(5).
Congress passes the Superfund Extension Act of 2009, which bars certain types of pollution, and says that violators may be sued for money damages in federal court by "any affected individual." The Act expressly says that states are subject to its provisions. Harry Homeowner brings a damage suit against the State of Old Jersey in federal court, alleging that an airfield owned and operated by the state has dumped jet fuel onto the adjacent property (owned by Harry) in violation of the Act. Assuming that the state has in fact violated the Act, may Harry recover?
No. What Congress tried to do in making the Act applicable to the states as defendants was to cause the Eleventh Amendment not to apply. But except for statutes enacted by Congress pursuant to its special powers to enforce the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, or the Bankruptcy Clause of Art. I, §8, Congress has no power to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Fla., 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (when Congress acts under the Commerce power, it cannot abrogate the Eleventh Amendment). The Act here cannot be justified under any of these post-Civil War Amendments, and would instead have to be supported by the Commerce power. Therefore, the states still have their Eleventh Amendment immunity despite what Congress says. Because Harry is trying to hold a state liable for money damages in federal court, the Eleventh Amendment applies, giving the state immunity from his suit. E Ch.16-VI(A)(5).
Willie Paul brings an action in federal court for damages against a state highway patrolman who allegedly violated his Fourth Amendment rights by conducting an illegal search of the clothes in his hotel room. The patrolman claims this suit is invalid because of the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits a citizen from suing a state without the state's permission. What result?
The suit would be allowed (although, of course, Willie Paul may not win it). Note that the Eleventh Amendment only forbids damages actions in federal court against states—it allows federal court actions against individual public officials of a state, if the claim is that the official violated the plaintiff's federal constitutional rights. Here, the patrolman stepped outside his official duty, so the suit will be allowed. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974); CH p. 205.
ANALYZING ELEVENTH AMENDMENT PROBLEMS
When you're analyzing a question in which a state is being sued in federal court, there's a potential Eleventh Amendment problem (in that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over certain kinds of suits against states). In fact patterns like these, ask the following questions: 1. Who is the plaintiff? Eleventh Amendment applies to: All private plaintiffs. Eleventh Amendment doesn't apply to: Another state or the federal government as plaintiff (even when it's suing to protect private persons). 2. Is the state a defendant? (The Eleventh Amendment applies only to cases against states.) Yes: State government, agencies of the state. No: Political subdivisions, municipal corporations, counties, school boards, or state officers sued in their personal capacity (unless the action requests the officer be ordered to pay funds from state treasury for wrongful acts of the state or return property in the state's possession, in which case the state is the real party in interest). 3. What relief is sought? Eleventh Amendment applies to: Damages, past debt, retroactive relief of any type. Eleventh Amendment doesn't apply to: Injunctive or declarative relief or suits against state officials if suit seeks to force them to conform their conduct to federal (not state) law. 4. Has the state waived immunity? Yes: Express (in legislation itself) or implied (willfully engaging in federally regulated activities that are not essential state functions). No: Participation in a federal program (e.g., accepting federal funds in the absence of an explicit congressional requirement that doing so constitutes a waiver). 5. Does a congressional grant of jurisdiction apply? Federal statutes based on congressional power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment (e.g., civil rights laws) are not subject to the Eleventh Amendment bar. E Ch.16-VI and Exam Tips; CH §2.10; CNR §2.6.
State Prisoner Tony is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair. State prison authorities confine him to a small cell that is so narrow that he cannot move his wheelchair around. They also refuse his requests for trips to the restroom so that he frequently has to sit in his own waste. Can Tony sue the State for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Yes. Although in earlier cases the Court had held that Congress could not use its §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment powers to abrogate state sovereign immunity in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Court held unanimously in U.S. v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006), that a paraplegic prisoner could sue the state under the ADA in these circumstances. The reasoning was that the prison's conduct violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, which is applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Because treating a prisoner with cruel and unusual punishment is a constitutional violation under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could validly abrogate the states' immunity.
Bard's Bookstores did a lot of business with Shakespeare State University, whose students always need books. Unfortunately Bard's was not so good at business and went bankrupt. Mr. Cats was appointed supervisor of the bankrupt estate. He sued Shakespeare in Bankruptcy Court, alleging that Bard's had illegally transferred money to Shakespeare before it entered bankruptcy. Shakespeare argued that the case should be dismissed because of state sovereign immunity. Should the Bankruptcy Court take jurisdiction of the lawsuit?
Yes. In Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006), a 5-4 decision by Justice Stevens, the Court ruled that Congress has the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, §8, cl. 4, which provides that Congress shall have the power to establish "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States."
Under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Congress has specified that no employer, public or private, may discriminate on the basis of age against an employee, no matter how old. The ADEA by its terms applies to all employers, public or private. The Act includes a provision allowing the person discriminated against to recover money damages in "any state or federal court of competent jurisdiction." Methuselah, who is 80, worked as an actuary for the State of Efficiency until last year, when he was fired solely on account of what his boss called "an age so advanced that no one that old could possibly be a competent worker." Meth has sued the state in the Efficiency state courts, seeking money damages under the federal statute for the lost job. Is there any constitutional barrier to Meth's recovery?
Yes. Under Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999), a constitutionally based "sovereign immunity" prevents the states from being required to entertain, in their own courts, a private damage suit based on violations of federal law. This immunity means that Congress can't do what it purported to do here—require Efficiency to allow itself to be sued for money damages in its own courts by a private party for a violation of the federal ADEA.
