Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 441

524US2

Unit: $U91

[09-06-00 17:16:26] PAGES PGT: OPIN

396 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. SCHACHT

Kennedy, J., concurring

pulsion to appear in federal court and, like any other defend-
ant, has the unilateral right to block removal of the case, any
appearance the State makes in federal court may well be
regarded as voluntary in the same manner as the appear-
ances which gave rise to the waivers in Clark and Gardner.
Some Courts of Appeals, following this reasoning, have
recognized that consent to removal may constitute a waiver.
Newﬁeld House, Inc. v. Massachusetts Dept. of Pub. Welfare,
651 F. 2d 32, 36, n. 3 (CA1), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 1114 (1981);
see also Estate of Porter v. Illinois, 36 F. 3d 684, 691 (CA7
1994); Silver v. Baggiano, 804 F. 2d 1211, 1214 (CA11 1986);
Gwinn Area Community Schools v. Michigan, 741 F. 2d 840,
847 (CA6 1984). These cases have ﬁrst inquired, however,
whether state law authorized the attorneys representing the
State to waive the Eleventh Amendment on its behalf. Peti-
tioners cited this qualiﬁcation when we raised the issue at
oral argument in the instant case. This was also the Court’s
apparent concern in Ford Motor Co., in which it held:

“It is conceded by the respondents that if it is within
the power of the administrative and executive ofﬁcers of
Indiana to waive the state’s immunity, they have done
so in this proceeding. The issue thus becomes one of
their power under state law to do so. As this issue has
not been determined by state courts, this Court must
resort to the general policy of the state as expressed in
its Constitution, statutes and decisions. Article 4, § 24
of the Indiana Constitution provides:
“ ‘Provision may be made, by general law, for bringing
suit against the State, as to all liabilities originating
after the adoption of this Constitution; but no special act
authorizing such suit to be brought, or making compen-
sation to any person claiming damages against the State,
shall ever be passed.’
“We interpret this provision as indicating a policy pro-
hibiting state consent to suit in one particular case in