Case Title: Heleba v. Allbee

Citation: 160 Vt. 283, 628 A.2d 1237

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
HELEBA_V_ALLBEE.90-054; 160 Vt. 283; 628 A.2d 1237


NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 90-054


Charles W. Heleba, John Hibbard,             Supreme Court
Harold L. Mills, Philip Pinkowski,
Sr., Lowell W. Seward, John L.               On Appeal from
Williams and R.H. Williams                   Rutland Superior Court

     v.

Ronald Allbee, Commissioner of               April Term, 1991
Agriculture; State of Vermont


Frank G. Mahady, J.

Peter H. Banse of Banse & McCoy, Manchester Center, for plaintiffs-
   appellants

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, William E. Griffin, Chief Assistant
   Attorney General, and William H. Rice, Assistant Attorney General,
   Montpelier, for defendants-appellees


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



     GIBSON, J.   Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the Dairy
Industry Income Stabilization Program (DIISP), 6 V.S.A {{ 2991-2998, con-
tending that (1) there is no rational basis for the program's exclusion of
farmers who are not members of a cooperative, and (2) such discrimination
violates their constitutionally protected freedom of association.
     The DIISP subsidizes dairy farmers who meet certain eligibility
requirements, including membership in a regional marketing cooperative.
Plaintiffs are dairy farmers who do not belong to a cooperative.  They
initiated this suit under 42 U.S.C. { 1983 against defendants Ronald Allbee,
Commissioner of Agriculture, and Emory Hebard, State Treasurer, in their
official and individual capacities.
     The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the suit in its entirety.  It ruled that, insofar as defendants
were sued in their individual capacities, they were entitled to qualified
immunity from the { 1983 claim and absolute immunity from the claim grounded
on the Vermont Constitution.  With respect to the claims against defendants
in their official capacities, the court concluded that the State of Vermont
was the real party in interest and was entitled to sovereign immunity.  On
appeal, plaintiffs contend that (1) the State has waived its sovereign
immunity, and (2) defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. (FN1) We
affirm with respect to defendants in their individual capacities but reverse
and remand for trial against defendants in their official capacities.
                                    I.
     Plaintiffs argue that the State waived its sovereign immunity when the
Legislature reserved a portion of the DIISP appropriation for payment of
plaintiffs' claims, should their suit be successful.  Defendants argue that
the waiver, if made, was revoked when the State subsequently spent the money
for other purposes.  Both parties mischaracterize the issue.
     The elements of, and the defenses to, a { 1983 action are defined by
federal law.  Howlett v. Rose, 110 S. Ct. 2430, 2442 (1990).   A state may
not create a cause of action under { 1983 against any entity that Congress
has not subjected to liability.  Id. at 2442-43.  Thus, if a state is not a
"person" as that term is used in { 1983, it cannot be subjected to suit,
whether it waives sovereign immunity or not.  See Will v. Michigan Dep't of
State Police,