Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

24 

TORRES v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

federal power must be “complete in itself,” the States sur-
rendered their sovereign immunity with respect to any fed-
eral  power that  is  “inextricably  intertwined”  with  judicial 
proceedings, like eminent domain; otherwise, sovereign im-
munity would excuse the States from the judicial proceed-
ing and the federal power would be incomplete. PennEast, 
594 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 16–17) (linking complete-
ness  of  eminent  domain  power  to  condemnation  proceed-
ings).  Yet, now, the Court abandons the only limiting prin-
ciple in PennEast’s test.10 

That  is  mistaken.    To  begin  with,  disaggregating  the 
“complete in itself ” standard from PennEast’s “inextricably
intertwined”  justification  renders  meaningless  the  idea  of 
“completeness” in the context of state sovereign immunity.
Consider the Court’s opinion here, which says that any fed-
eral power “complete in itself ” must be accompanied with a 
surrender of state sovereign immunity.  The Court does not 
define what it means for a federal power to be “complete in 
itself,” except that “ ‘the States consented to the exercise of 
that  power—in  its  entirety—in  the  plan  of  the  Conven-
tion.’ ”  Ante, at 6 (quoting PennEast, 594 U. S., at ___ (slip 
op.,  at  22)).    But  that  self-referential  definition  begs  the 
question.  If the Court tied the “completeness” of a federal 
power to an inherent connection with judicial proceedings, 
it  could  give  the  term  independent  meaning  and  make 
sense of PennEast’s actual analysis.

Worse  still,  today’s  decision  removes  the  one  important 
guardrail on the “completeness” inquiry that PennEast de-
scribed.  Absent that limit, the Court’s indefinite test will 
provide future courts cover to further erode the States’ sov-
ereign immunity. 

—————— 

10 My “quarrel” therefore does not “li[e] with PennEast,” ante, at 13, but 
with the Court’s decision today to convert PennEast’s “complete in itself ” 
language  into  an  all-encompassing  sovereign-immunity  test  that  is  di-
vorced from PennEast’s “inextricably intertwined” principle.