Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): State of Georgia under USERRA is only permissible to the extent the state has explicitly waived its sovereign immunity. Having considered the applicable US-ERRA principles, we turn our attention to Tennessee’s sovereign immunity. II. Tennessee’s SOVEREIGN Immunity Tennessee’s sovereign immunity arises from its constitution. Article I, section 17, of the Tennessee Constitution provides that “suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct.” Based upon this constitutional provision, no civil action against the State may be sustained absent express authorization from the Tennessee General Assembly. Greenhill v. Carpenter, 718 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tenn.Ct.App.1986); see also Chumbley v. State, 183 Tenn. 467, 192 S.W.2d 1007 (1946) (<HOLDING>). This principle of law has also been 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the test of admissibility of an incriminating statement under article i section 9 of the tennessee constitution is whether it was freely and voluntarily made (B) holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state (C) holding that the tennessee plan as it relates to state appellatecourt judges does not violate the state constitution (D) holding execution of mentally retarded individuals fails to achieve legitimate penalogical objectives for punishment as required by the eighth amendment to the united states constitution and article i  16 of the tennessee constitution (E) holding that a suit against the state of tennessee is barred by tennessee constitution article i section 17 when it is not brought in such manner as the legislature has directed
Output (English): holding execution of mentally retarded individuals fails to achieve legitimate penalogical objectives for punishment as required by the eighth amendment to the united states constitution and article i  16 of the tennessee constitution