Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 26

4 

TORRES v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

parties to whom the Federal Government has delegated its
eminent  domain  power.  Taken  together,  Katz  and  Penn-
East  centered  on  whether  or  not  the  plan  of  the  Conven-
tion—i.e.,  the  Constitution  itself—required  States  to  sur-
render  their  sovereign  immunity.  See  Katz,  546  U. S.,  at 
379; PennEast, 594 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15). 

These  cases  contrast  with  those  that  involve  congres-
sional  “abrogation”  of  state  sovereign  immunity.    Abroga-
tion rests on some “statement Congress ha[s] made on the
subject  of  state  sovereign  immunity.”  Katz,  546  U. S.,  at 
378–379.  Specifically, we have held that Congress must en-
act “unequivocal statutory language” abrogating States’ im-
munity.  Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 56 
(1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).  That said, the 
line between “plan-of-the-Convention waiver” and “congres-
sional abrogation” is a murky one.  Both inquiries ask the
same basic question: whether Congress has authorized suit
against a nonconsenting State pursuant to “a valid exercise 
of  constitutional  authority.”  Kimel  v.  Florida  Bd.  of  Re-
gents, 528 U. S. 62, 78 (2000); see also Katz, 546 U. S., at 
379  (asking  whether  Congress’  decision  to  bind  States  to
discharge orders in bankruptcy proceedings is “within the 
scope  of  its  power  to  enact  ‘Laws  on  the  subject  of  Bank-
ruptcies’ ”).  And both inquiries center on “history, practice, 
precedent,  and  the  structure  of  the  Constitution,”  Alden, 
527 U. S., at 741, to determine whether the Constitution ei-
ther grants authority to Congress to abrogate immunity or
strips States of their immunity on its own. 

The parties agree that this case involves only plan-of-the-
Convention  waiver.  Thus,  the  question  presented  is
whether,  in  ratifying  the  Constitution,  the  States  surren-
dered  their  immunity  in  their  own  courts  against  private 
damages actions authorized by Congress’ war powers.