Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-877_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 8

Cite as:  589 U. S. ____ (2020) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

501 U. S., at 779. 

But  not  entirely.  This  Court  has  permitted  a  federal
court to entertain a suit against a nonconsenting State on
two  conditions.  First,  Congress  must  have  enacted  “un-
equivocal  statutory  language”  abrogating  the  States’  im-
munity from the suit.  Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S., at 56 (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted); see Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 
U. S. 223, 228 (1989) (requiring Congress to “mak[e] its in-
tention unmistakably clear”).  And second, some constitu-
tional  provision  must  allow  Congress  to  have  thus  en-
croached  on  the  States’  sovereignty.  Not  even  the  most 
crystalline  abrogation  can  take  effect  unless  it  is  “a  valid
exercise of constitutional authority.”  Kimel v. Florida Bd. 
of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 78 (2000).

No  one  here  disputes  that  Congress  used  clear  enough 
language to abrogate the States’ immunity from copyright
infringement suits.  As described above, the CRCA provides 
that States “shall not be immune” from those actions in fed-
eral court.  §511(a); see supra, at 2–3.  And the Act specifies
that  a  State  stands  in  the  identical  position  as  a  private 
defendant—exposed to liability and remedies “in the same
manner and to the same extent.”  §501(a); see §511(b).  So 
there is no doubt what Congress meant to accomplish.  In-
deed, this Court held in Florida Prepaid that the essentially 
verbatim  provisions  of  the  Patent  Remedy  Act  “could  not 
have  [made]  any  clearer”  Congress’s  intent  to  remove  the
States’ immunity.  527 U. S., at 635. 

The contested question is whether Congress had author-
ity to take that step.  Allen maintains that it did, under ei-
ther of two constitutional provisions.  He first points to the 
clause  in  Article  I  empowering  Congress  to  provide  copy-
right protection.  If that fails, he invokes Section 5 of the 
Fourteenth Amendment, which authorizes Congress to “en-
force”  the  commands  of  the  Due  Process  Clause.  Neither 
contention can succeed.  The slate on which we write today 
is  anything  but  clean.  Florida  Prepaid,  along  with  other