Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 438

524US2

Unit: $U91

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 381 (1998)

393

Kennedy, J., concurring

proceed to hear those other claims, and the District Court
did not err in doing so.

For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals
is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Kennedy, concurring.
In joining the opinion of the Court, I write to observe we
have neither reached nor considered the argument that, by
giving its express consent to removal of the case from state
court, Wisconsin waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Insofar as the record shows, this issue was not raised in the
proceedings below; and it was not part of the briefs ﬁled here
or the arguments made to the Court. The question should
be considered, however, in some later case.

Removal requires the consent of all of the defendants.
See, e. g., Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Martin, 178 U. S. 245,
248 (1900); 14A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 3731, p. 504 (2d ed. 1985). Here
the State consented to removal but then registered a prompt
objection to the jurisdiction of the United States District
Court over the claim against it. By electing to remove, the
State created the difﬁcult problem confronted in the Court
of Appeals and now here. This is the situation in which law
usually says a party must accept the consequences of its own
acts.
It would seem simple enough to rule that once a State
consents to removal, it may not turn around and say the
Eleventh Amendment bars the jurisdiction of the federal
court. Consent to removal, it can be argued, is a waiver of
the Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Given the latitude accorded the States in raising the immu-
nity at a late stage, however, a rule of waiver may not be all
that obvious. The Court has said the Eleventh Amendment
bar may be asserted for the ﬁrst time on appeal, so a State
which is sued in federal court does not waive the Eleventh
Amendment simply by appearing and defending on the mer-