Opinion ID: 2995965
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Florida Prepaid

Text: The Court next addressed the interplay of the Eleventh and Fourteenth Amendments in Florida Prepaid Post Secondary Education Examination Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999). In that case, the Court addressed an Eleventh Amendment challenge to the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (the “Patent Remedy Act”), which allowed patent holders to pursue No. 01-3448 13 infringement actions against the States. In assessing the validity of the congressional action, the Court reiterated the requirements of congruence and proportionality established in City of Boerne: We . . . held that for Congress to invoke § 5, it must identify conduct transgressing the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive provisions, and must tailor its legislative scheme to remedying or preventing such conduct. RFRA failed to meet this test because there was little support in the record for the concerns that animated the law. Id. at 639. Following this course, the Court first identified the Fourteenth Amendment “evil” or “wrong” that Congress intended to remedy “ ‘with reference to the historical experience . . . it reflects.’ ” Id. at 639-40 (quoting City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 525). In Florida Prepaid, as in City of Boerne, the Court was unable to identify a pattern of constitutional wrongs by the States against patent holders. The Court went on to state that, although the “lack of support in the legislative record is not determinative,” id. at 646, identifying and assessing “the wrong or evil is still a critical part of our § 5 calculus because ‘[s]trong measures appropriate to address one harm may be an unwarranted response to another, lesser one,’ ” id. (quoting City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 530). When there is little evidence of constitutional harm in the legislative record, the means of combatting the feared unconstitutional action must be tailored to address clear constitutional violations. Because the Patent Remedy Act offended this principle of proportionality, the Court held that it was not a valid exercise of Congress’ § 5 powers. 14 No. 01-3448