-
Many civil rights statutes have attempted to authorize
damages against the states by abrogating states' sovereign
immunity. Beginning in the mid-1990s, however, the
Supreme Court expanded the doctrine of sovereign
immunity, based not on the text of the Constitution but
rather on “fundamental postulates implicit in the
constitutional design."
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 728-29 (1999).
-
The Court invalidated the abrogation of sovereign immunity
in several civil rights statutes. Nevertheless, as explained below,
the Court upheld the abrogation of sovereign immunity in
later cases involving other statutory provisions.
-
See Rochelle Bobroff, Scorched Earth and Fertile Ground:
The Landscape of Suits Against the States to Enforce the ADA,
41 Clearinghouse Review 298 (Sept.–Oct. 2007).
See also Harper Jean Tobin, The Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008: A Case Study of the Need for
Better Congressional Responses to Federalism Jurisprudence,
35 J. of Legis. 113 (2009).
- Moreover, an alternative approach authorizing damages
which is utilized in the Rehabilitation Act -- tying the
waiver of sovereign immunity to the receipt of federal funds
-- has to date been very successful in many federal courts
of appeals.
Rochelle Bobroff & Harper Jean Tobin, Strings Attached:
The Power of the Federal Purse Waives State Sovereign
Immunity for the Rehabilitation Act,
42 Clearinghouse Review 16 (May-June 2008).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/701
-
DOCTRINE
SOVERIEGN
IMMUNITY
-
“fundamental postulates
implicit in the
constitutional design."
-
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101;
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400;
Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e;
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);
Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(2).
-
Most of these laws either contain an express provision
allowing suits against states or have been interpreted
to allow for such suits.
, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7.
- To remedy violations of these federal laws, an aggrieved
individual may seek relief from states and/or state officials.
-
BLACK'S
-
ABROGATE
- ABROGATE
abrogate (ab-r<<schwa>>-gayt), vb. To abolish (a law or custom) by formal or authoritative
action; to annul or repeal. Cf. OBROGATE. — abrogation,n.
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 18
-
SUBROGATE
- SUBROGATE
subrogate (s<<schwa>>b-r<<schwa>>-gayt), vb. To substitute (a person) for another
regarding a legal right or claim. [Cases: Subrogation 1.C.J.S. Subrogation §§ 2–15, 19, 91.]
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 4476
-
A.J.
-
...NOW WRAP YOUR MIND AROUND THAT...
-
This mind map was created 03.06.2012
by Lisa Stinocher O'Hanlon
using XMind software.
http://www.xmind.net/share/hennalady/
http://angryjeweler.wix.com/write
-
8.1 enforcing federal rights against states and state officials
- http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/46
- SOVERIEGN IMMUNITY
EXTENDS TO
STATE AGENCIES
-
In determining whether an agency is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity,
the courts consider various factors, including
1. whether payment of a judgment resulting from
the suit would come from the state treasury,
2. the status of the agency under state law, and
3. the agency’s degree of autonomy.
-
Savage v. Glendale Union High School, 343 F.3d 1036, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2003);
Belanger v. Madera Unified School District, 963 F.2d 248 (9th Cir. 1992),
cert. denied, 507 U.S. 919 (1993).
Although the criteria for determining what entities are entitled to claim
Eleventh Amendment immunity may vary among circuits, the most important
factor, at least in close cases, is whether, considering the source of the entity’s
funding, the payment of the judgment would come from the state.
Febres v. Camden Board of Education, 445 F.3d 227, 229 (3d Cir. 2006).
-
State immunity rules apply to
claims under state law.
See, e.g., Theobald v. Board of
County Commissioners,
332 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2003).
-
Provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), which generally tolls
the statute of limitations on supplemental claims
dismissed in federal court, does not apply to state
claims against a state or state agency dismissed on
Eleventh Amendment grounds.
Raygor, 534 U.S. at 546.
- STATES DO NOT HAVE
IMMUNITY AGAINST THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
- This applies even if the federal government is
seeking recovery of damages on behalf of a
individual, and damages in a suit by the
individual would be barred by the Eleventh
Amendment.
United States v. Mississippi Department
of Public Safety, 321 F.3d 495, 499 (5th Cir. 2003).
- FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CAN SUE ON BEHALF OF
INDIVIDUALS; STATES
CANNOT
- STATES ARE NOT
IMMUNE FROM SUIT
BY OTHER STATES
- The Eleventh Amendment does not, however
immunize local governments from private suits.
Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle,
429 U.S. 274 (1977); see also Monell v. New York v.
City Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978)..
-
Ex parte Young
209 U.S. 123 (1908);
-
Private parties can sue state officials
in their official capacity
to enforce federal laws and regulations,
-
BUT
ONLY
FOR
-
PROSPECTIVE INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
- must be an ongoing violation of federal law to
support prospective relief.
Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (1985).
- relief may include notice to the plaintiff class
of the availability of remedies under state law.
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974).
- DECLATORY RELIEF
- No damages
are recoverable
in Ex parte Young suits,
but prospective relief
may require the
incidental expenditure
of state funds.
-
State officials may be sued for damages in their
individual capacity for violations of federal
constitutional or statutory rights committed
in the course of official duties but are entitled
to claim qualified immunity.
- The Fourth Circuit held in Lizzi v. Alexander, 255 F.3d 128, 137-38 (4th Cir. 2001)
cert. denied sub nom. Lizzi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
534 U.S. 1081, reh’g denied, 535 U.S. 952 (2002),
that individual capacity suits against state officials arising out of official acts
may be limited to suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and not to liability arising under
other federal statutes, even though the statute specifically makes the state
official liable. Without explanation, the court held that such suits are in fact
against the state. Presumably, the court expected the state to indemnify the
official for any liability. The Second Circuit held, however, that an individual
capacity suit seeking an amount of damages far exceeding the defendant’s
ability to pay does not transform the suit into one against the state even
when the state voluntarily chooses to reimburse the official.
Huang v. Johnson, 274 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 2001).
For a discussion of qualified immunity, see Chapter 8.2 of this MANUAL.
-
QUALIFIED
IMMUNITY
-
Qualified immunity bars recovery insofar as the
official’s conduct “did not violate clearly established
statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known.”
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)
(emphasis added). See Robert Capistrano
Using Section 1983 to Raise Constitutional
Claims in Garden-Variety Cases,
38 Clearinghouse Review 734, 741 (Mar.-Apr. 2005).
-
States and state officials may not be sued
in federal court for violations of state law
committed in their official capacity regardless
of the relief sought.
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman,
465 U.S. 89, 106, 121 (1984).
-
BUT
-
Federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction to
hear state law claims against state officials sued
in their individual capacity if the federal claims
arise from the same subject matter and provide
the federal court with jurisdiction.
- 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Section 1367(a)
however, does not extend supplemental
jurisdiction to state claims against
non-consenting state defendants.
Raygor v. Regents of the University of
Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533, 542 (2002).
- Tolling does apply to
counties which do not
have Eleventh
Amendment immunity.
Jinks v. Richland County,
538 U.S. 456 (2003).
-
States waive their sovereign
immunity under the Rehabilitation
Act by accepting federal funds,
regardless of the time period involved.
- A state entity may even
be founf to have waived
immunity based
upon acceptance of federal
funds from private individuals.
-
YOUNG MAY BE
APPLIED:
- Suits may be brought directly under a federal statute containing an explicit or implicit private cause of action
implied private rights of action, see Chapter 5.2 of this MANUAL.
- Suits may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates a federal cause of action
for violation of “rights” secured by the federal laws and the Constitution.
42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Chapter 5.1.A of this MANUAL.
- In some cases such as those involving claims of federal preemption, a suit is simply brought
under the federal question jurisdiction of the federal courts.
- The violation of federal law must be ongoing to warrant injunctive
or declaratory relief. The Court explained that "[r]emedies designed
to end a continuing violation of federal law are necessary to
vindicate the federal interest in assuring the supremacy of that law."
-
Retroactive monetary relief is not permitted under Ex parte Young. Prospective relief
is available, even if it requires the state to make large expenditures.
- InBoard of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, which barred recovery of damages against states
under Title I of the American with Disabilities Act, the Court expressly approved use of Ex Parte Young to
enforce Title I through injunctive relief against states engaging in employment discrimination:
Our holding here that Congress did not validly abrogate the State’s sovereign immunity
from suit by private individuals for money damages under Title I does not mean that
persons with disabilities have no federal recourse against discrimination. Title I of the
ADA still prescribes standards applicable to the States. Those standards can be enforced
by the United States in actions for money damages, as well as by private individuals in
actions for injunctive relief under Ex parte Young.
-
Supreme Court explained that “a court need only conduct
a ‘straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint
alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks
relief properly characterized as prospective.’”
. Verizon Maryland, Incorporated v.
Public Service Commission, 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002).
-
While Verizon was a business case, the Supreme Court later
reiterated the applicability of Ex parte Young in the context
of a challenge to a consent decree in a Medicaid case. In 2004,
the Court ruled that Ex parte Young suits that are resolved in a
consent decree may be enforced by federal courts.
The consent decree “must spring from, and serve to resolve, a
dispute within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; must come
within the general scope of the case made by the pleadings; and
must further the objectives of the law upon which the complaint
was based.” The Court also rejected the state’s argument that
before a federal court can issue an order requiring a state
defendant to take steps to comply with a consent decree, it must
first find an ongoing violation of federal law.
Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 441-42 (2004). The Court did not
reach the question of whether a state waived its immunity by
entering into a consent decree approved by the trial court.
- “[T]he inquiry into whether
suit lies under Ex parte Young
does not include an analysis
of the merits of the claim.”
- If the district court certifies in writing that the immunity appeal
is frivolous, proceedings in the district court against all defendants,
including those claiming immunity, may continue while the
interlocutory appeal is pending.
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 310-11 (1996);
Rivera-Torres v. Ortiz Velez, 341 F.3d 86, 94 (1st Cir. 2003).
- Setting issues of sovereign immunity aside, if a state opens
its courts to suits against the state on state law claims, it
cannot assert a lack of jurisdiction to hear comparable claims
against the state brought under federal law./116/
In Howlett v. Rose, the Supreme Court held that a state court
cannot apply a state law sovereign immunity defense to defeat
jurisdiction against a federal claim under Section 1983, because
state law permitted similar claims under state law./117/ T
he Court’s decision in Alden that the state cannot be sued in
state court, even on federal claims, without its consent, does
not undermine the Court’s holding in Howlett, because Alden
was based on state sovereign immunity, not the authority of
state courts to refuse to hear federal claims./118/
116. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 367-75 (1990).
117. Howlett, 496 U.S. 356.
118. Alden, 527 U.S. at 758.
-
SECTION
-
1. OVERVIEW
-
Many federal programs, including cash assistance,
medical insurance, food stamps, and housing, are
implemented through grants to the states. The
states are responsible for the administration of
these programs and are required to operate them
in compliance with federal law.
-
Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516, 520 (2007);
see Dalton v. Little Rock Family Planning Services, 516 U.S. 474, 476 (1996).
- Beneficiaries may have a claim in federal court if a state violates a
federal directive in the administration or denial of benefits.
- Congress has enacted a series of laws prohibiting discrimination
based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, and age.
- Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101;
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400;
Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e;
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);
Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(2).
- Most of these laws either contain an express provision
allowing suits against states or have been interpreted
to allow for such suits.
, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7.
- To remedy violations of these federal laws, an aggrieved
individual may seek relief from states and/or state officials.
-
SECTION
-
8.1.A. Enforcing Federal Rights Against States
-
SUPREMACY CLAUSE
- State laws or actions violating
federal law are invalid.
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines,
463 U.S. 85, 96 n.14 (1983).
See Chapter 5.2.c. of this MANUAL.
- CONFLICT
- YET - Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution
provides states with immunity from private suits.
U.S. Const. amend. XI.
- In 1974, the Supreme Court held in a case involving welfare rights
that injunctive and declaratory relief against state officials does not
violate the Eleventh Amendment, but that it does prohibit retroactive
monetary damages.
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974).
- Subsequent cases have reaffirmed the availability of
injunctive relief against state officials for violations
of safety net and civil rights statutes.
See Rochelle Bobroff, Ex Parte Young as a Tool to
Enforce Safety Net and Civil Rights Statutes,
40 Univ. of Toledo L. Rev. 819 (2009).
-
SECTION
-
8.1.B Overview of the Eleventh Amendment
-
ELEVENTH
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.” U.S. Const. amend. XI.
- Bars suits in federal court against
states by citizens of other countries
and citizens of other states, also
prohibits suits by citizens against
their own state.
- Private parties may not sue a state or state agency
by name in federal court unless Congress validly
abrogates state sovereign immunity or the state
waives its immunity
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman,
465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984).
- MAY NOT SUE
- UNLESS
- CONGRESS ABROGATES
SOVERIEGN IMMUNITY
- STATE WAIVES
HIS IMMUNITY
-
SECTION
-
8.1.C. Abrogation of State Sovereign Immunity by Congress
-
Congress has power to abrogate state sovereign immunity
when it does so unequivocally and pursuant to a grant of
constitutional authority.
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 73-74 (2000)
(holding that congressional intent to abrogate state sovereign
immunity is clearly expressed when a statute, by its plain terms,
applies to state actors).
- States may be sued in federal court in their own name for violations
of relevant statutes to which the abrogation applies, and plaintiffs
may recover damages from states if the underlying statute so provides.
-
Supreme Court held that Congress had no power to
abrogate immunity under the Commerce Clause and
added that it lacked such power under any other
Article I provision.
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996).
Court acknowledged, however, that Congress did have
the power to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity
of states under the legislative enabling clause of
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Court held that remedies under Section 5 had to be
narrowly tailored in order to validly abrogate immunity.
City of Boerne v. Flowers, 521 U.S. 507, 520 (1997)
(requiring section 5 legislation to exhibit a “congruence
and proportionality between the injury to be prevented
or remedied and the means adopted to that end”).
Erwin Chemerinsky, Court Revisits Sovereign Immunity
in Discrimination Cases, 42 Trial 70, 70 (March 2006).
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett,
531 U.S. 356 (2001) (Americans with Disabilities Act);
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents,
528 U.S. 62 (2000) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act).
- In Tennessee v. Lane, the Court introduced an
“as applied” test and held that state governments
may be sued for violating Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act as it applies to claims involving
the fundamental right of access to the courts.
The Court held that the legislative record included
ample evidence to justify the Americans with
Disabilities Act's remedies, including damages.
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 522-23 (2004)
(stating that the infringement of basic constitutional
guarantees is “subject to more searching judicial
review”). Lower courts have applied Lane in other
contexts as well. For example, the Fourth and Eleventh
Circuits have extended Lane to cases involving access
to education.See Constantine v. Rectors and Visitors
of George Mason University, 411 F.3d 474, 490
(4th Cir. 2005);Association for Disabled Americans,
Incorporated v. Florida International University,
405 F.3d 954, 959 (11th Cir. 2005).
-
SECTION
-
8.1.D. Waiver of Immunity
-
STATES WAIVE IMMUNITY
BY THREE WAYS:
- 8.1.D.1. State Legislation Waiving Immunity
- In evaluating state statutes that purport to waive sovereign immunity, courts
often view such statutes skeptically. For example, in King v. State, the Nebraska
Supreme Court pronounced that “[a] waiver of sovereign immunity will only be
found where stated by the most express language or by such overwhelming
implications from the text as will leave no room for any other reasonable construction.”
56. King v. State, 614 N.W.2d 341, 347 (Neb. 2000).
- 8.1.D.2. Federally Mandated Waiver of Immunity Under Congressional Spending Power
- Congress may impose conditions on states in exchange
for the provision of federal funds
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) (upholding
requirement that states raise the minimum drinking age
to 21 as a condition on the receipt of federal highway
funds); Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448.
- APPLIES
TO SUIITS
- under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (discrimination based on race and ethnicity),
- the Age Discrimination in Federally Assisted Programs Act of 1975,
- Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (gender discrimination in education),
- Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 (discrimination based on disability).
- Congress may require that the states waive their sovereign
immunity as a condition of receiving federal funds.
Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651, 1657-58 (2011).
- Congress "craft[ed] an unambiguous waiver of the States
Eleventh Amendment immunity" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7
Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 200 (1996).
- Section 2000d-7 applies to the states as a waiver of
immunity arising from a state accepting federal funds
- If sovereign immunity is waived under statutes enacted as part of
the spending power, a private plaintiff may sue the state or state
agency as a named defendant and may recover damages to the
extent that they are allowed by the underlying statute; the private
plaintiff also may obtain injunctive and other relief.
- Section 2000d-7, 70 Fed. Reg. 24314-22 (May 9, 2005) (final regulations)
(amending the regulations governing nondiscrimination on the basis of race,
color, national origin, handicap, sex, and age to conform to the Civil Rights
Restoration Act of 1987).
- 8.1.D.3. Waiver of Immunity by Litigation
- Supreme Court unanimously held that removal of a case by a
state from state court to a federal court constitutes a waiver
of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Lapides v. Board of Regents, 535 U.S. 613 (2002).
- Waiver by litigation was based on the need to “avoid inconsistency, anomaly, and unfairness,
and not upon a State’s actual preference or desire, which might, after all, favor selective use of
‘immunity’ to achieve litigation advantages.”
- The Court limited its holding, however, “to the context of state law claims, in respect
to which the state has explicitly waived immunity from state-court proceedings.”
- Lapides holds that the conduct of the litigation by the state attorney general may constitute
waiver even though the state constitution provides that immunity may be waived only by statute.
- See also Miller v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 421 F.3d 342, 348 (5th Cir. 2005)
(holding that state defendants “cannot accept the benefits of the [Rehabilitation Act] funds and
reject the inextricably intertwined condition of waiver by claiming post hoc that the delegation of
authority to accept the funds did not carry with it the authority to waive immunity.”).
-
SECTION
-
8.1.E. Prospective Injunctive Relief Under Ex Parte Young
-
In 1908, Ex parte Young established an
exception to states' sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment, holding
that when a state official violates the
federal constitution, the officer is “stripped
of his official or representative character and
is subjected in his person to the consequences
of his individual conduct.”
- Ex parte Young permits suits for prospective and injunctive relief against a state official,
usually the official in charge of the agency responsible for the violation, to enforce federal
rights. Ex parte Young suits should expressly designate the defendant official as being
sued in her official capacity. Neither the state nor a state agency can be named as the defendant.
- 8.1.E.1. Limitations and the Continuing Availability of a Remedy
- 8.1.E.2. Rejection of the Assault on Ex Parte Young
- The court went on to hold, “We reaffirm well-established precedent
holding that laws validly passed by Congress under its spending powers
are supreme law of the land.”/109/ Indeed, the Spending Clause of the
Constitution is just as enforceable as any other constitutional provision.
-
SECTION
-
8.1.F. Interlocutory Appeals
-
In federal court a state or state official claiming immunity has a right
to an interlocutory appeal if the district court rejects the immunity defense.
Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf and Eddy,
Incorporated, 506 U.S. 139, 141 (1993);Mitchell v. Forsyth,
472 U.S. 511, 525 (1985).
- If an appeal is filed, proceedings against the appealing defendants
come to a halt, and the district court has discretion to stay or limit
proceedings against other defendants.
-
SECTION
-
8.1.G. Interlocutory Appeals
-
Congress cannot authorize suits against states in state courts for violations of federal law without
the consent of the states, except when Congress acts pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment powers.
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 755-56 (1999)
- Court held that a state court need not enforce
federal laws absent congressional action under
the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court’s holding
in Alden does not preclude a state from doing so.
Accordingly, a careful examination of a state’s
statutes may reveal authority to enforce federal
claims against the state in state court.
-
SECTION
-
8.1.H. Administrative Proceedings
-
Supreme Court held that states enjoy sovereign immunity
from federal adjudicative administrative hearings initiated
and prosecuted by private parties, so that a federal agency
may not adjudicate a dispute between a private party and
a nonconsenting state.
Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports
Authority, 535 U.S. 743, 768 n.19 (2002).
- This may affect federal whistle-blower statutes that provide for administrative hearings.
However, the bar of sovereign immunity in that situation can be overcome if the federal
agency intervenes as a party in the proceeding. See Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management v. United States, 304 F.3d 31, 55 (1st Cir. 2002).
The First Circuit has also left open the possibility that Ex parte Young could be applied
to administrative proceedings where state officials were named as defendants in their
official capacity and the private plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection v. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 356 F.3d 226, 234 (2d Cir. 2004).