Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

TORRES v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

Opinion of the Court 

546 U. S., at 369–372.  But we read PennEast as resting on
a  broader  point:  The  Federal  Government’s  eminent  do-
main power is complete, such that no State may frustrate
its exercise by claiming immunity to forestall the transfer
of  property.    And  that  conclusion  applies  equally  to  Con-
gress’ powers to raise and maintain the military. 

Texas further argues that Congress cannot subject it to
suit under USERRA because there is no founding-era his-
tory of similar litigation against States.  See Brief for Re-
spondent 25.  But PennEast did not require any such his-
tory,  as  the  dissent  acknowledges.    594  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip 
op., at 19) (citing Texas, 143 U. S., at 646); see post, at 14, 
n. 6.  Again, in PennEast, we considered the inferences that 
flow from our constitutional structure and asked whether 
States may, consistent with that structure, claim immunity
to frustrate federal objectives.  And again, answering that
question here, we find that the States waived their immun-
ity under Article I, §8, cls. 12 and 13. 

Texas’ contrary view would permit States to thwart na-
tional military readiness.  We need not stray from the stat-
ute at hand to see the danger of this approach.  If a State— 
or even 25 States—decided to protest a war by refusing to
employ returning servicemembers, Congress, on Texas’ tell-
ing, would be powerless to authorize private reinstatement 
suits against those States.  The potentially debilitating ef-
fect on national security would not matter.

We think it does matter for a simple reason.  Text, his-
tory,  and  precedent  show  that  the  States,  in  coming  to-
gether to form a Union, agreed to sacrifice their sovereign
immunity for the good of the common defense. 

* 

* 
We consequently reverse the judgment of the Texas Court
of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings not 
inconsistent with this opinion. 

* 

It is so ordered.