Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

TORRES v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, 
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT 

No. 20–603.  Argued March 29, 2022—Decided June 29, 2022 

Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o raise and 
support  Armies”  and  “[t]o  provide  and  maintain  a  Navy.”    §8,  cls.  1, 
12–13.  Pursuant to that authority, Congress enacted the Uniformed 
Services  Employment  and  Reemployment  Rights  Act  of  1994 
(USERRA), which gives returning servicemembers the right to reclaim 
their prior jobs with state employers and authorizes suit if those em-
ployers  refuse  to  accommodate  veterans’  service-related  disabilities. 
See 38 U. S. C. §4301 et seq. Petitioner Le Roy Torres enlisted in the 
Army Reserves in 1989.  In 2007, he was called to active duty and de-
ployed to Iraq.  While serving, Torres was exposed to toxic burn pits, a 
method of garbage disposal that sets open fire to all manner of trash, 
human waste, and military equipment.  Torres received an honorable 
discharge.  But he returned home with constrictive bronchitis, a res-
piratory condition that narrowed his airways and made breathing dif-
ficult.  These ailments, Torres says, left him unable to work his old job 
as  a  state  trooper.    Torres  asked  his  former  employer,  respondent 
Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas), to accommodate his condi-
tion by reemploying him in a different role.  Texas refused.  So Torres 
sued  Texas  in  state  court  to  enforce  his  rights  under  USERRA. 
§4313(a)(3).  Texas tried to dismiss the suit by invoking sovereign im-
munity.  The trial court denied the State’s motion.  An intermediate 
appellate court reversed, reasoning that, under this Court’s case law, 
Congress  could  not  authorize  private  suits  against  nonconsenting 
States pursuant to its Article I powers except under the Bankruptcy 
Clause, citing Central Va. Community College v. Katz, 546 U. S. 356. 
The Supreme Court of Texas denied discretionary review.  After the 
decision below, this Court issued PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 
594 U. S. ___.  PennEast held that the States waived their sovereign