Opinion ID: 749433
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sua Sponte Consideration of Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Text: 15 Unlike most jurisdictional questions which must be considered by the court on its own motion if the parties fail to raise them, whether sua sponte consideration of a possible Eleventh Amendment bar is obligatory or discretionary has been subject to prolonged debate. Mascheroni v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 28 F.3d 1554, 1558 (10th Cir.1994). The Supreme Court appears not to have decided whether consideration of the Eleventh Amendment bar is required or optional. Compare Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 98, 104 S.Ct. at 906 (noting that the Eleventh Amendment affirm[s] that the fundamental principle of sovereign immunity limits the grant of judicial authority in Art[icle] III) with Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 515 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 2567 n. 19, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982) (stating that the Court has never held that [the Eleventh Amendment bar] is jurisdictional in the sense that it must be raised and decided by this Court in its own motion). 16 In Mascheroni, we outlined the circuit split between mandatory and permissive sua sponte consideration of the Eleventh Amendment bar. See 28 F.3d at 1558 (collecting authority). We also noted that this circuit in recent cases has not explicitly adopted either rule, but has in fact consider[ed] sua sponte whether the Eleventh Amendment barred its jurisdiction. Id. As we have previously raised the issue sua sponte, we will do so here.