Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 10

6 

TORRES v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

Opinion of the Court 

of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 (1996); Florida Prepaid Post-
secondary  Ed.  Expense  Bd.  v.  College  Savings  Bank,  527 
U. S. 627 (1999).  Two Terms ago, we even described Katz’s 
analysis as “good for one clause only,” suggesting we would 
not find further waivers under Article I.  Allen v. Cooper, 
589 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 9) (hyphens omitted). 
  Last Term, in PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 594 
U. S. ___, we considered whether Congress could, pursuant 
to its eminent domain power, authorize private parties to 
sue  States  to  enforce  federally  approved  condemnations 
necessary to build interstate pipelines.  We held that “when 
the States entered the federal system, they renounced their
right  to  the  ‘highest  dominion  in  the[ir]  lands,’ ”  meaning 
they  agreed  their  “eminent  domain  power  would  yield  to 
that of the Federal Government.”  Id., at ___–___ (slip op., 
at 15–16) (quoting Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. 
Co.,  135  U. S.  641,  656  (1890)).    Congress  could  therefore
authorize private actions against States. 

PennEast  defined  the  test  for  structural  waiver  as 
whether  the  federal  power  at  issue  is  “complete  in  itself, 
and the States consented to the exercise of that power—in
its entirety—in the plan of the Convention.”  594 U. S., at 
___ (slip op., at 22) (internal quotation marks and citation 
omitted).  Where that is so, the States implicitly agreed that 
their sovereignty “would yield to that of the Federal Gov-
ernment ‘so far as is necessary to the enjoyment of the pow-
ers conferred upon it by the Constitution.’ ”  Id., at ___ (slip 
op., at 16) (quoting Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 367, 372 
(1876)).  By committing not to “thwart” or frustrate federal 
policy, the States accepted upon ratification that their “con-
sent,” including to suit, could “never be a condition prece-
dent  to”  Congress’  chosen  exercise  of  its  authority.    594 
U. S.,  at  ___,  ___  (slip  op.,  at  8,  10)  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted).  The States simply “have no immunity left 
to waive or abrogate.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 22).