Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–603 
_________________ 

LE ROY TORRES, PETITIONER v. TEXAS 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF 
TEXAS, THIRTEENTH DISTRICT 

[June 29, 2022]

 JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. 
The Constitution vests in Congress the power “[t]o raise 
and  support  Armies”  and  “[t]o  provide  and  maintain  a 
Navy.”  Art. I, §8, cls. 1, 12–13.  Pursuant to that authority, 
Congress enacted a federal law that gives returning veter-
ans the right to reclaim their prior jobs with state employ-
ers and authorizes suit if those employers refuse to accom-
modate  them.  See  Uniformed  Services  Employment  and 
Reemployment  Rights  Act  of  1994  (USERRA),  38  U. S. C.
§4301  et  seq.    This  case  asks  whether  States  may  invoke
sovereign immunity as a legal defense to block such suits.

In our view, they cannot.  Upon entering the Union, the 
States implicitly agreed that their sovereignty would yield 
to  federal  policy  to  build  and  keep  a  national  military.
States  thus  gave  up  their  immunity  from  congressionally
authorized suits pursuant to the “ ‘plan of the Convention,’ ” 
as  part  of  “ ‘the  structure  of  the  original  Constitution  it-
self.’ ” PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 594 U. S. ___, 
___ (2021) (slip op., at 14) (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 
706, 728 (1999)).