Opinion ID: 198411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The appellate proceedings.

Text: 17 In its opening brief to this court, appellant Tourism Company recognized that Congress has the power to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity, but incorrectly stated that [t]here is no constitutional or statutory precept pertaining to a waiver of the Eleventh Amendment immunity in cases pertaining to the ADA. In a footnote, the Tourism Company asserted that [t]he courts that have considered whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 may contain an implicit abrogation of the Eleventh Amendment immunity have disfavored the contention. (Emphasis added.) There was no acknowledgment that the ADA contained an explicit abrogation provision and, obviously, no discussion of whether Congress had the power to enact it. 5 18 The provision was finally noted in the plaintiffs-appellees' six-page brief, where it was offered as a conclusive answer to the defendant's belated assertion that the Eleventh Amendment required the lawsuit to be dismissed. In short, up to this time, the Eleventh Amendment theme had developed two threads: first, the defendant's theory that the Amendment operates to bar suits against states and their instrumentalities, including the Tourism Company, and, second, the plaintiffs' theory that the ADA contains an explicit abrogation of the immunity, permitting the suit to go forward against the Tourism Company. 19 In its reply brief, for the first time in the case, the Tourism Company made direct reference to caselaw addressing whether Congress had the authority to enact the abrogation provision in the ADA. The discussion, however, consumed roughly one page and the three district court cases on point that were cited all supported defendant's assertion that [a]lready courts have held that Congress has no authority to create a special protection for disabled individuals under ADA through the Fourteenth Amendment. There was no reference to the nearly uniform line of circuit cases upholding the provision, no discussion of the differing views of the divided courts, and no consideration of the recent Supreme Court decision clarifying Congress's Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers, City of Boerne, 117 S.Ct. at 2162-72. At oral argument, counsel did finally acknowledge that the weight of authority was against his client. 20 In sum, the Tourism Company did not mention the abrogation provision until its reply brief, and at no time did it provide developed analysis of Congress's authority to abrogate. We are therefore presented not with the issue of whether the Tourism Company waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but rather of whether it waived its argument that the ADA's abrogation provision exceeded Congress's powers. Although the Eleventh Amendment defense itself cannot be waived, we decline in the circumstances of this case to extend this exception from ordinary waiver rules to reach arguments that Congress lacked Fourteenth Amendment authority to abrogate the immunity. We believe that, when comprehensive civil rights legislation includes an explicit waiver and dominant precedent almost uniformly upholds Congress's power to do so, the failure to challenge that authority may be deemed consent to federal jurisdiction. While a state's later effort to withdraw consent might in some circumstances prove compelling, we are particularly unwilling to indulge eleventh-hour maneuvering when this previously forsaken argument is raised without meaningful argumentation. 6 21 In sum, because the issue of the constitutionality of the ADA's statutory abrogation was raised belatedly and inadequately, we hold that it was doubly waived. See Nichols v. Cadle Co., 139 F.3d 59, 64 (lst Cir.1998) ( [T]he ... objection .... has been waived twice over, first by omitting to call it to the attention of the district judge ... and then by failing to include the point in the ... opening brief in this court.); United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (lst Cir.1990) (It is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do counsel's work....). 7 22