Opinion ID: 222221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Suing on Behalf of the United States

Text: Jachetta next argues that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar his action against Alaska because he is suing on behalf of the United States. Because the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits by the United States government against a state, see Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313, 329, 54 S.Ct. 745, 78 L.Ed. 1282 (1934), Jachetta contends the Eleventh Amendment cannot bar his action, which assert[s] the government's pecuniary interest. Jachetta has waived his argument both because he developed it for the first time in his reply brief, see Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam), and because he did not present it to the district court, see Smith, 194 F.3d at 1052. In any event, his argument is unpersuasive. Not only has Jachetta failed to cite anything authorizing him to assert the government's interests against the State of Alaska, but the authority we have found actually undermines his case. Indeed, the Supreme Court has expressed doubt that sovereign exemption can be delegated  even if one limits the permissibility of delegation ... to persons on whose behalf the United States itself might sue. Blatchford, 501 U.S. at 785, 111 S.Ct. 2578. That is so, the Court explained, because [t]he consent, `inherent in the convention,' to suit by the United States  at the instance and under the control of responsible federal officers  is not consent to suit by anyone whom the United States might select; and even consent to suit by the United States for a particular person's benefit is not consent to suit by that person himself. Id.