Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (1st Cir.1983). The next hurdle is the one plaintiffs fail to clear: Does Congress have the power under the United States Constitution to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity? The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that Congress cannot invade Eleventh Amendment immunity except “pursuant to a valid exercise of power” conferred by the Constitution. Seminole Tribe, — U.S. at -, 116 S.Ct. at 1123. In determining the sources of power, the Supreme Court had previously found that Congress possessed the power to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity when legislating pursuant to § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause. See id.; see also Fitzpatrick, 427 U.S. 445, 96 S.Ct. 2666; Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (<HOLDING>). However, the Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to the patent clause of article i (B) recognizing that congress has specifically abrogated the eleventh amendment defense when legislating pursuant to  5 of the fourteenth amendment and its article i  8 plenary power over commerce but refusing to extend authority to abrogate to legislation enacted pursuant to the indian commerce clause the indian gaming regulatory act (C) holding that congress may abrogate a states immunity pursuant to its enforcement power under  5 of the fourteenth amendment (D) holding that congress did not properly abrogate states eleventh amendment immunity from suits under the patent act (E) holding that congress could abrogate the eleventh amendment pursuant to the commerce clause
Output (English): holding that congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to the patent clause of article i