Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 34

12 

TORRES v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

to  legislate  in  respect  to  Indian  tribes,”  United  States  v. 
Lara, 541 U. S. 193, 200 (2004).  Although Seminole Tribe 
recognized  that  States  had  been  “divested  of  virtually  all
authority  over  Indian  commerce  and  Indian  tribes,”  517
U. S., at 62, the Court nonetheless held that “state sover-
eign immunity . . . is not so ephemeral as to dissipate when 
the subject of the suit is an area . . . that is under the exclu-
sive  control  of  the  Federal  Government,”  id.,  at  72.  That 
“the  Constitution  vests  in  Congress  complete  lawmaking
authority  over  a  particular  area,”  we  explained,  does  not 
implicitly  authorize  Congress  to  abrogate  immunity  with
respect to that power.  Ibid.5 

Nor is the answer different when the exclusive federal ex-
ercise of a particular power is reinforced by an explicit di-
vestment of state authority under Article I, §10.  Our prec-
edents  teach  that  whenever  a  power 
is  “exercised 
exclusively by Congress, the subject is as completely taken
from  the  State  Legislatures,  as  if  they  had  been  expressly 
forbidden to act on it.”  Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 
122,  193  (1819)  (Marshall,  C. J.,  for  the  Court)  (emphasis
added).  Whether or not a prohibition on state power also 
appears  in  Article  I,  §10,  is  irrelevant  when  deciding
whether  the  Constitution  has  granted  Congress  power  to
subject nonconsenting States to private suits.

Second, even if express textual divestment of state power 
were  relevant,  Torres  and  the  Court  incorrectly  conclude
that the specific divestments listed in Article I, §10, “pro-
vide strong evidence” supporting “a complete delegation of
authority to the Federal Government to provide for the com-
mon defense.”  Ante, at 7.  States obviously have no author-
ity to take certain actions specified in Article I, §10.  They 

—————— 

5 It  is  true  that  Seminole  Tribe  purportedly  addressed  congressional 
abrogation  of  sovereign  immunity,  rather  than  plan-of-the-Convention 
waiver.  But its logic applies equally to the latter context, especially given 
the murky line that our precedents draw between the two concepts.  See 
supra, at 4.