"The Judicial Power of the U.S.

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