Module 12: Suits Challenging State Official Action: The Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs

A federal court can exercise pendent jurisdiction over state and federal claims if the federal and state claims are the type that would be expected to be heard at a single hearing and are "derive[d] from a common nucleus of operative fact." Pendent Jurisdiction or Supplemental Jurisdiction: doctrine of pendent jurisdiction court said for purposes of the constitution a case involves all claims to relief that arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts. Pendent jurisdiction by allowing federal and state claims preserves the attractiveness of the federal forum.

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

A state can be liable in suit to a private individual. Couple days later the 11th amendment was passed in response to Chisholm.

Hans v. Louisiana

A state may not be sued in federal court by one of its own citizens even if the cause of action arises under federal law.

Hutto v. Finney

An injunction may be issued to prohibit an act that is not, in and of itself, a violation of law where the act is interrelated to other actions that together constitute a violation of law.

11th amendment Constitutional or Common Law

Argument is what the 11th amendment did here was to restore the framers original understanding that the clause in article III that authorized the jurisdiction for suits between the state and citizens of another state that this provision did not extend to suits against an unconsenting state. The 11th amendment restored the framers original understanding. Prohibition against unconsenting states is derived from article III. Another way of interpreting Hans and the 11th amendment, professor Fields argues that the 11th amendment reinstates common law immunity from suits that states had prior to adoption of article III. under this view the Hans decision is just an application of common law principles of sovereign immunity. Under this view the 11th amendment does not create a constitutional bar to suit against a state by its own citizens. Means that common law rules can be overridden by statute and so state legislation can authorize a suit against a state by its own citizens. And congress can legislate to authorize suits against a state by its own citizens.

Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs

Congress may abrogate state sovereign immunity in federal court if it makes its intention to abrogate unmistakably clear in the language of the statute and acts pursuant to a valid exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida

Congress may not abrogate states' sovereign immunity protected by the Eleventh Amendment unless through an exercise of power derived from §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Court held that the Indian commerce clause does not give congress the power to abrogate the state sovereign immunity. The common law theory seems to have been rejected in the Seminole tribe case.

Alden v. Maine

Congress may not authorize suits against state governments in state courts, even on federal claims, without the state governments' consent. Role of the states is protected in two ways. First they reserve to the states a substantial portion of the nation's primary sovereignty. Second by creating a structure in which the national power is exerted directly on the people rather than through the machinery of state government. Under this principle the petitioners can win and proceed on the merits only if they can advance compelling evidence that the states were required to surrender their immunity as part of the constitutional compact.

Summary 11th amendment immunity

Couple of types of sovereign immunity that seem to be competing in cases like Hans, Union Gas, Seminole Tribe. That is that the 11th amendment itself reflects forum immunity an immunity in the federal court. It clearly does not speak to whether states can be sued in their own state courts. On federal causes of action,but governments often also assert substantive immunity saying that a particular cause of action cannot be brought against them irrespective of the forum. Whether it was a state or federal forum. Is there anything in the seminole tribe case that suggests that the P that lost here can't just replicate that federal action in the state courts. Could the state of Florida assert a substantive immunity in their own state courts? Chief justice quotes Hans and the federalist papers for the proposition that states as sovereign entities cannot be sued without their consent. Here they may be suggesting the 11th amendment reflects more than a mere forum immunity that is immunity in the federal court. It could involve substantive immunity that states can assert in their own courts.

Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank

Court further narrowed the scope of congress's power under s. 5 here the bank filed a federal court patent infringement suit. Sued a state entity relying on the patent remedy act which includes any state among those who can be sued. Which also specifically abrogates 11th amendment immunity. In a 5-4 decision the supreme court held that these provisions were unconstitutional. They say that admitting that patents are property the court said for congress to invoke s. 5 to abrogate it has to identify conduct transgressing the 14th amendments substantive provisions. And it has to tailor its legislative scheme to remedy and prevent such conduct. Here the court concluded that this standard had not been met. Congress had identified no pattern of patent infringement by the states let alone a pattern of constitutional violations. No evidence that unremedied patent infringement by states had become a national problem. In short the court says that the patent remedy act does not respond to a history of widespread and persisting deprivation of constitutional rights. Of the sort that congress has faced in enacting proper prophylactic section 5 legislation.

Hutto v. Finney

Court held that congress intended to make states liable for attorneys fees. Since S. 1983 enforces the 14th amendment congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity under the fitzpatrick case.

Quern v. Jordan

Following a finding of wrongdoing by a state, the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution does not prohibit federal courts from ordering notice to beneficiaries that they may be entitled to monetary relief.

Sovereign Immunity

Idea sovereign can't be sued without its consent is an old idea. Generally understood from the beginning of our country that state governments are protected by some type of sovereign immunity. Nature of that immunity was unclear. The constitution did not explicitly mention state sovereign immunity when it was adopted. Article III extended federal judicial power to suits between states and citizens of another state. The usual understanding of article III has been that article III was not meant to eliminate the preexisting doctrine of state immunity to suit.

City of Boerne v. Flores

In exercising its remedial and preventive power to enforce a constitutional right under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may enact only legislation that utilizes congruent and proportional means for to achieving that legislative purpose.

Green v. Mansour

Notice relief was barred because it was not ancillary to other prospective relief because there wasn't any other prospective relief. Couldn't issue an injunction because there was no continuing violation of federal law.

Ex Parte Young

Private actions may be brought in federal court against state officials, even though states have sovereign immunity. Without Young doctrine federal courts would often be powerless to prevent state violations of the constitution and federal law. Court ends up creating a legal fiction to avoid that result. Creates fiction that the suit against the officer is not really a suit against the state.

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce legislation that overrides states' Eleventh Amendment sovereignty for the purpose of enforcing the substantive rights of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Summary 11th amendment state official

So far we have looked at one way to get around the 11th amendment. Can sue the state official in federal court or prospective relief by naming the appropriate state officer as the defendant. Another way is that the state could waive its immunity and consent to suit in the federal court.

14th Amendment Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Edelman v. Jordan

The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits federal courts from awarding monetary damages to citizens against a state. The Supreme court held that a federal court may order future compliance with federal standard but the supreme court held that a federal court cannot compel payment of damages to compensate for the past violations. Court drew a distinction between prospective and retroactive relief.

Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from ordering state officials to comply with provisions of state law.

11th Amendment

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Milliken v. Bradley

When no evidence shows that school districts in a surrounding metropolitan area are segregated or promote segregation policies, a district court may not seek to remedy segregation in one particular city by imposing desegregation procedures on all city and metropolitan area districts. Milliken case shows there can be problems in trying to distinguish prospective and retroactive relief. In Trying to explain the difference the court has emphasized that ancillary relief against the state treasuries is not barred by the 11th amendment.