Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

creditors insofar as concerns ‘Laws on the subject of Bank-
ruptcies’ or exempt them from the operation of such laws”). 
The Court should not casually consider the constitution-
ality  of  USERRA’s  supposed  subjection  of  nonconsenting 
States to damages actions in state court when it is not clear
the  statute  does  any  such  thing.    By  doing  so,  the  Court 
gives short shrift to the “well-established principle govern-
ing  the  prudent  exercise  of  this  Court’s  jurisdiction  that
normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question 
if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the
case.”  Northwest  Austin  Municipal  Util.  Dist.  No.  One  v. 
Holder, 557 U. S. 193, 205 (2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted). 

B 
Having  interpreted  USERRA  to  render  nonconsenting
States  amenable  to  suit,  the  Court  goes  on  to  distinguish 
Alden v. Maine without any plausible basis for doing so.  In 
truth, Alden directly controls this case. 

In Alden, a group of private plaintiffs sued the State of
Maine in state court, invoking a private cause of action cre-
ated  by  the  Fair  Labor  Standards  Act  (FLSA).    See  527 
U. S.,  at  711–712.  The  question  presented  was  “whether 
Congress has the power, under Article I, to subject noncon-
senting States to private suits in their own courts.”  Id., at 
730.  In a detailed opinion, the Court in Alden held—with-
out qualification—that the States had not consented in the 
plan of the Convention to any congressionally created pri-
vate damages actions in state court. 
  To  begin,  Alden  framed  its  inquiry  around  plan-of-the-
Convention waiver, not congressional abrogation: “In exer-
cising its Article I powers Congress may subject the States
to private suits in their own courts only if there is compel-
ling evidence that the States were required to surrender this 
power to Congress pursuant to the constitutional design”—