Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

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

5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

II 
In answering that question, the Court discounts two im-
portant points.  First, it creates a constitutional problem by 
adopting a questionable interpretation of USERRA that as-
sumes  Congress  intended  to  legislate  with  indifference  to 
States’ state-law immunity.  Second, the Court cannot es-
cape the fact that Alden already answered the question pre-
sented  and  held  that  the  States  did  not  surrender  their 
state-court immunity when ratifying Article I of the Consti-
tution. 

A 
When it was originally enacted, USERRA authorized cov-
ered employees to sue States in federal district court.  See 
38 U. S. C. §4323(b) (1994 ed.).  In 1996, this Court decided 
Seminole Tribe, holding that  Congress could not abrogate
state sovereign immunity in federal courts using its Article 
I powers.  See 517 U. S., at 72–73.  In response to Seminole 
Tribe, Congress amended USERRA in 1998, and the statute 
now provides: “In the case of an action against a State (as
an employer) by a person, the action may be brought in a 
State court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the 
laws of the State.” §4323(b)(2) (emphasis added). 
  USERRA’s requirement that employee damages actions 
be “in accordance with the laws of the State” would seem to 
include a State’s “laws” that render it immune from suit in 
the State’s own courts, as well as any “laws” that expressly 
waive  such  immunity.  See,  e.g.,  Tex.  Govt.  Code  Ann. 
§311.034 (West 2013); Prairie View A & M Univ. v. Chatha, 
381 S. W. 3d 500, 512 (Tex. 2012).  In other words, there is 
nothing  in  the  text  of  USERRA  necessarily  implying  that 
Congress  intended  to  require  nonconsenting  States  to  de-
fend themselves in their own courts.1  The Court, however, 
—————— 

1 To be sure, if USERRA  authorizes suits  in state courts only “in ac-
cordance  with  the  laws  of  the  State,”  the  ability  to  bring  such  actions 
would vary by State—some States would consent to suit, others would