Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–603 
_________________ 

LE ROY TORRES, PETITIONER v. TEXAS 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF 
TEXAS, THIRTEENTH DISTRICT 

[June 29, 2022] 

JUSTICE  THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  ALITO,  JUSTICE 

GORSUCH, and JUSTICE BARRETT join, dissenting. 

More than two decades ago, this Court found it “difficult
to conceive that the Constitution would have been adopted 
if  it  had  been  understood  to  strip  the  States  of  immunity 
from suit in their own courts and cede to the Federal Gov-
ernment a power to subject nonconsenting States to private 
suits  in  these  fora.”  Alden  v.  Maine,  527  U. S.  706,  743 
(1999).  Accordingly, we held—without qualification—that
“the  powers  delegated  to  Congress  under  Article  I  of  the 
United States Constitution do not include the power to sub-
ject  nonconsenting  States  to  private  suits  for  damages  in
state courts.”  Id., at 712 (emphasis added). 

No longer.  Today, by adopting contrived interpretations 
of Alden and the recent decision in PennEast Pipeline Co. v. 
New  Jersey,  594  U. S.  ___  (2021),  the  Court  holds  that  at 
least two (and perhaps more) Article I “war powers” do, in 
fact, include “the power to subject nonconsenting States to
private suits for damages in state courts,” Alden, 527 U. S., 
at 712, and that Congress has exercised that power by en-
acting the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemploy-
ment  Rights  Act  of  1994  (USERRA),  38  U. S. C.  §4301  et 
seq.  Alden  should  have  squarely  foreclosed  that  holding.
As  the  Court  there  already  explained,  constitutional  text,