Opinion ID: 6978959
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limited Exceptions

Text: In keeping with the broad and fundamental nature of state sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court has circumscribed necessary exceptions to the states’' Eleventh Amendment guarantee of immunity. It has conceded that the states may explicitly waive their immunity and subject themselves to suit in federal court without violating the Eleventh Amendment. See Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. at 238, 105 S.Ct. 3142 (“[I]f a State waives its immunity and consents to suit in federal court, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the action.”). A state’s immunity will be deemed waived, however, “only where stated ‘by the most the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’ ” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (quoting Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151, 171, 29 S.Ct. 458, 53 L.Ed. 742 (1909)); see also Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 305-06, 110 S.Ct. 1868, 109 L.Ed.2d 264 (1990) (“solicitude for States’ sovereign immunity” is basis for requirement that States’ intent to waive immunity be clearly expressed). Suits by individuals against state officers to enjoin future violations of federal law are also permitted, under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), even when compliance with the injunction might lead to the incidental expenditure of substantial state funds. See, e.g., Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 349, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (upholding order to send members of plaintiffs class notice of entitlement to administrative relief even though this could lead to monetary claims against the state since order was “more properly viewed as ancillary to the prospective relief already ordered by the court”); Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 288-90, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977) (upholding school desegregation decree requiring state to pay half of costs associated with remedial educational programs for children subjected to past segregation); see also Patrick J. Barrett, Case Comment, Edward T. Young Still Living the Good Life: Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Idaho, 73 Notre Dame L.Rev. 1077 (1998) (arguing that Supreme Court’s recent decision in Coeur dAlene Tribe does not curtail the ability of private plaintiffs to seek prospective relief from state officials in federal court under the doctrine of Ex paHe Young). The injunction exception does not encompass suits against state officers in then official capacities for retroactive relief to be payed from the state treasury since such litigations resemble suits for money damages against the state itself. See Edelman, 415 U.S. at 663, 94 S.Ct. 1347 (“[T]he rule has evolved that a suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.”); Ford Motor Co. v. Department of the Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 464, 65 S.Ct. 347, 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945) (“[W]hen the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and is entitled to invoke its sovereign immunity from suit even though individual officials are nominal defendants.”). Any attempted abrogation by Congress of the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity is subject to two strict requirements. See, e.g., Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996); College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Post-secondary Educ. Expense Bd., 148 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed.Cir.1998). First, Congress must unequivocally express its intent to abrogate the immunity, a requirement which arises from “the Eleventh Amendment’s role as an essential component of our constitutional structure.” Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223, 228, 109 S.Ct. 2397, 105 L.Ed.2d 181 (1989). See id. at 230, 109 S.Ct. 2397 (“[Ejvidence of congressional intent [to abrogate] must be both unequivocal and textual.”); Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 246, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985) (“A general authorization for suit in federal court is not the kind of unequivocal statutory language sufficient to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment.”). Second, Congress’ abrogation of sovereign immunity must be “pursuant to a valid exercise of power” under section five of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. 44, 55, 65-66, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252. The Fourteenth Amendment warrants this distinction, the Seminole Tribe Court explained, because it was adopted “well after the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment and the ratification of the Constitution [and it] operated to alter the pre-existing balance between the state and federal power achieved by Article III and the Eleventh Amendment.” Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. 44, 65-66, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252; see also College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 148 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed.Cir.1998) (“When the states adopted the Fourteenth Amendment and consented to cede a portion of their authority to the federal government, it was within their contemplation that they limited their Eleventh Amendment immunity.”)