Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

12 

TORRES v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

Opinion of the Court 

States  waived  their  immunity  under  Congress’  Article  I 
power  “[t]o  raise  and  support  Armies”  and  “provide  and 
maintain a Navy.”  §8, cls. 12–13. 

III 
Neither  Texas  nor  the  dissent  persuades  us  otherwise.
Texas asserts that “Congress cannot abrogate state sover-
eign  immunity  through  the  exercise  of  Article  I  powers.”
Brief for Respondent 33.  But, as explained, “congressional
abrogation  is  not  the  only  means  of  subjecting  States  to
suit. . . . States can also be sued if they have consented to 
suit in the plan of the Convention.”  PennEast, 594 U. S., at 
___ (slip op., at 15).  We recognize that waiver today, as we 
have before in PennEast and Katz. 

The dissent (but not Texas) adds that Congress needed to 
speak  more  clearly  to  subject  Texas  to  suit  because 
USERRA  could  be  read  to  incorporate  state  law,  perhaps
including Texas’ immunity laws.  See post, at 5–7 (opinion 
of  THOMAS, J.).    But  USERRA’s  text  is  clear:  Congress
sought to authorize suits against state employers.  The very
provision to which the dissent cites is entitled “Enforcement
of rights with respect to a State or private employer.”  38 
U. S. C. §4323.  USERRA elsewhere expressly “supersedes
any State law . . . that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any 
manner  any  right  or  benefit  provided  by  this  chapter,  in-
cluding the establishment of additional prerequisites to the 
exercise of any such right or the receipt of any such benefit.” 
§4302(b).  Congress’  clarification  that  suits  proceed  “in  a
State court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the 
laws of the State” merely addresses the fact that USERRA 
suits must be brought in state (rather than federal) court.
§4323(b)(2).  Under  Supremacy  Clause  principles,  Texas 
courts  may  not  enforce  contrary  state  laws  to  block  these 
suits.  Cf. Testa v. Katt, 330 U. S. 386, 390–394 (1947). 

Texas and the dissent go on to suggest that the fact that
an area of law “is under the exclusive control of the Federal