Opinion ID: 25032
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Under what provision of the Constitution was the 1974 Act passed; and

Text: 72 b. Does that constitutional provision grant Congress the power to abrogate the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit? 73 For the reasons stated earlier in this dissent, I have no trouble at all concluding that the 1974 Act was passed pursuant to Congress' powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause. And in my view, the answer to the second subquestion is controlled by Seminole Tribe and must be no. Answers to these questions are strictly factual determinations to be made on the basis of the statutory text and the legislative history as of the time of passage or enactment of the Act in question. I make this point expressly because I disagree with the panel majority's reliance on our prior decision in Ussery, which relied on an Eighth Circuit case and stated: 74 Seminole Tribe requires us to make an objective inquiry, namely whether Congress could have enacted the legislation at issue pursuant to a constitutional provision granting it the power to abrogate. (Emphasis added.) 75 150 F.3d at 436 (quoting Crawford v. Davis, 109 F.3d 1281, 1283 (8th Cir. 1997). But this could of, would of, should of concept is totally inconsistent with the language of Seminole Tribe. The question posed in Seminole Tribe does not say could the Act in question have been passed pursuant to any constitutional provision granting Congress the power to abrogate? In Seminole Tribe, the Supreme Court determined that the Act in question (the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act) was passed pursuant to the constitutional provision authorizing Congress to regulate commerce with Indian tribes, but that Congress does not have the authority under the Constitution to make the State suable in federal court.... 116 S. Ct. at 1133. Furthermore, the Court in Seminole Tribe went on to state: 76 Nor are we free to rewrite the statutory scheme in order to approximate what we think Congress might have wanted had it known that § 2710(d)(7) was beyond its authority. If that effort is to be made, it should be made by Congress, and not by the federal courts. 77 Id. The majority opinion in Seminole Tribe does not get into any speculation as to whether § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment could have provided the constitutional authority for the abrogation of states' Eleventh Amendment immunity which Congress proposed in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I think that it is a mistake and an erroneous application of Supreme Court precedent for the majority to go through the convoluted, semantical speculations as set forth in their opinion to come up with their conclusion that § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment supports the abrogation of state immunity from private suits for money damages insofar as claims under 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) are concerned. Accordingly, I would vacate the portions of the judgment awarding damages under the Equal Pay Act.