Opinion ID: 3011524
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Background to the Eleventh Amendment

Text: We begin with an overview of Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence. That amendment has been interpreted to make states generally immune from suit by private parties in federal court. See Board of Tr. of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 121 S. Ct. 955, 962 (2001); College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 669-70 (1999); Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 267 (1997); Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996); Lavia, 224 F.3d at 195. This immunity extends to state agencies and departments. See C.H., ex rel. Z.H. v. Oliva, 226 F.3d 198, 201 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc). Eleventh Amendment immunity is subject to three exceptions: 1) congressional abrogation, 2) state waiver, and 3) suits against individual state officers for prospective relief to end an ongoing violation of federal law. First, Congress may, in some limited circumstances, abrogate sovereign immunity and authorize suits against states. If a statute has been passed pursuant to congressional power under S 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the provisions of that amendment, Congress can abrogate a state's sovereign immunity. See Garrett, 121 S. Ct. at 962; College Savings , 527 U.S. at 670; U.S. Const. amend. XIV, S 5 (1868).3 Congress may not, however, abrogate state sovereign immunity when a statute is passed pursuant to its Article I powers, such as the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, S 8, cl. 3. See Garrett, 121 S. Ct. 962; Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 72-73 (holding that the Eleventh Amendment limits the federal judicial power and Article I cannot be used to circumvent the constitutional limits placed on the courts). The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was clearly a _________________________________________________________________ 3. A federal statute does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity where the statute, although purportedly passed pursuant to S 5, is not appropriate S 5 legislation because it goes beyond the scope of what the Fourteenth Amendment itself protects. See Garrett, 121 S. Ct. at 962; id. at 967-68 (holding that nonconsenting states could not be sued under Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which accorded more protection to disabled persons than did the Equal Protection Clause). 14 congressional exercise of its Commerce Clause power. Congress did not, and could not, abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity in providing for federal court review in S 252(e)(6). Abrogation is not implicated here. Second, a state may waive sovereign immunity by consenting to suit. See College Savings, 527 U.S. at 670 (citing Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436, 447-48 (1883)). The waiver by the state must be voluntary and our test for determining voluntariness is a stringent one. See College Savings, 527 U.S. at 675 (citing Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985)). The state either must voluntarily invoke our jurisdiction by bringing suit (not the case here) or must make a  `clear declaration' that it intends to submit itself to our jurisdiction. See College Savings, 527 U.S. at 676 (citing Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U.S. 47, 54 (1944)). The decision to waive immunity must be an altogether voluntary one, and, as with any other waiver of a constitutional right, there must be an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. College Savings , 527 U.S. at 68182. The difficult question we now face is how do we infer waiver from a state's actions. To answer this question, we must turn to the Supreme Court's recent decision in College Savings. There, the Court held that a suit against a state agency under the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act, alleging that the state agency had made false and misleading advertising statements, was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See College Savings, 527 U.S. at 691. The Court held that the state's sovereign immunity was not validly abrogated by the Act and not voluntarily waived by the state's mere participation in an activity in interstate commerce, such as providing student loan services and advertising those services. See id. The Court, in rejecting waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in College Savings, overturned the constructive waiver doctrine formerly established in Parden v. Terminal R. of Alabama State Docks Dept., 377 U.S. 184 (1964). See College Savings, 527 U.S. at 680 (Whatever may remain of our decision in Parden is expressly overruled.); id. (We think that the constructive-waiver experiment of Parden 15 was ill conceived, and see no merit in attempting to salvage any remnant of it.). Parden involved the operation by a state of a railroad in interstate commerce. In Parden, the Court had held that, if the state had notice when it entered a field which was subject to congressional oversight or regulation that it would be subject to suit in federal court, then the state was deemed to have waived immunity and consented to suit. Parden, 377 U.S. at 192 (concluding that state, when it began operation of a railroad in interstate commerce, 20 years after the enactment of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, necessarily consented to such suit as was authorized by the Act). Since College Savings, a state's mere participation in a federally regulated activity no longer may be understood as a constructive waiver of state sovereign immunity and consent to suit in federal court. Congress no longer may statutorily coerce a state into relinquishing its sovereign immunity on threat of the state being excluded from participating in an otherwise lawful and permissible activity. See College Savings, 527 U.S. at 687; see also id. at 683 (Recognizing a congressional power to exact constructive waivers of sovereign immunity through the exercise of Article I powers would also, as a practical matter, permit Congress to circumvent the antiabrogation holding of Seminole Tribe.). But the College Savings Court distinguished and left intact conditional types of constructive waiver as previously established in two cases. In Petty v. Missouri Bridge Comm'n, 359 U.S. 275, 277-78 (1959), two states entered into an interstate compact, approved by Congress, that contained a sue-or-be-sued clause. The Court held that the states assumed the conditions, such as consent to suit, that Congress attached to the compact by accepting the conditions and acting on the compact containing those conditions. See id. at 281-82. In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 208-09 (1987), the Court upheld a federal law, passed pursuant to the Spending Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, S 8, cl. 1, that conditioned a state's receipt of federal highway funds on the establishment of a minimum drinking age of 21 in the state; the Court found that the condition on the funds was clearly stated and that 16 acceptance of the funds entailed agreement to those conditions. The College Savings Court described these cases as fundamentally different from Parden-type forced constructive waivers because both the grant of consent to form an interstate compact and the disbursement of federal monies are congressionally bestowed gifts or gratuities, which Congress is under no obligation to make, which a state is not otherwise entitled to receive, and to which Congress can attach whatever conditions it chooses. See College Savings, 527 U.S. at 686-87. A waiver in return for receiving a benefit which a state could not otherwise enjoy is very different from a situation, such as in College Savings or Parden, where a state's refusal to consent to the condition of being sued would result in a congressionally imposed sanction, i.e., the exclusion of the state from activities in which it otherwise was legally permitted to engage. A fair reading of College Savings suggests that Congress may, pursuant to its regulatory power under the Commerce Clause, require a state to waive immunity in order to engage in an activity in which the state may not engage absent congressional approval, or in order to receive a benefit to which the state is not entitled absent a grant or gift from Congress. Four of our sister circuits have adopted this understanding of College Savings, recognizing that gift or gratuity waivers are permissible under a law passed pursuant to Article I powers, provided that Congress made its intent to require a waiver of immunity clear and unambiguous. See Bell Atl. Md., Inc. v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., 240 F.3d 279, 292 (4th Cir.) (recognizing congressional power to impose gift waiver, so long as its intent to do so is clear), cert. granted in part, 121 S. Ct. 2548 (2001); Bellsouth, supra, 238 F.3d at 645 (5th Cir.) ([A]fter College Savings, Congress may still obtain a non-verbal voluntary waiver of a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity if the waiver can be inferred from the state's conduct in accepting a gratuity after being given clear and unambiguous statutory notice that it was conditioned on waiver of immunity.); MCI, supra, 222 F.3d at 339-40 (7th Cir.) (holding that College Savings set boundaries on 17 congressional attempts to obtain waivers from states but that it endorsed certain types of waivers, such as in Dole and Petty); id. at 344 (We believe that College Savings does not alter the principle that states may waive their immunity by accepting a benefit from Congress that has conditions attached to that acceptance.); MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah, 216 F.3d 929, 937 (10th Cir. 2000) (Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah) (reading College Savings as permitting constructive waivers that are voluntary, meaning waivers given in order to obtain a gift or gratuity that would be denied if the state refuses to consent to suit in federal court), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1167 (2001). Congress must be unmistakably clear and unambiguous in stating its intent to condition receipt of the gratuity on the state's consent to waive its sovereign immunity and to be sued in federal court. See Atascadero State Hosp., 473 U.S. at 247. This requirement that Congress speak with a clear voice ensures that the states exercise their choice knowingly and voluntarily, cognizant of the consequence (waiver of constitutional immunity) of participating in the permitted activity. See Pennhurst State Sch. and Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981) (Pennhurst I). The third exception to the Eleventh Amendment is the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), under which individual state officers can be sued in their individual capacities for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to end continuing or ongoing violations of federal law. In Young, the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment did not prohibit a federal court from enjoining a state attorney general from enforcing an unconstitutional state law. The theory behind Young is that a suit to halt the enforcement of a state law in conflict with the federal constitution is an action against the individual officer charged with that enforcement and ceases to be an action against the state to which sovereign immunity extends; the officer is stripped of his official or representative character and becomes subject to the consequences of his individual conduct. See Young, 209 U.S. at 159-60; see also Pennhurst State Sch. and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 103 (1984) (Pennhurst II) (stating 18 that, under the theory of Young, an action for prospective relief against the state officer was not an action against the state because the allegation of a violation of federal law would strip the officer of his official authority). The relief sought must be prospective, declaratory, or injunctive relief governing an officer's future conduct and cannot be retrospective, such as money damages. See Pennhurst II, 465 U.S. at 102-03. The Young doctrine is accepted as necessary to permit federal courts to vindicate federal rights and to hold state officials responsible to the supreme authority of the United States. See id. at 105. The doctrine applies both to violations of the United States Constitution and to violations of federal statutes. See Balgowan v. New Jersey, 115 F.3d 214, 218 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that suit for declaratory relief against state officer under Fair Labor Standards Act is permissible under Young); see also Allegheny County Sanitary Auth. v. U.S.E.P.A., 732 F.2d 1167, 1174 (3d Cir. 1984). However, Young does not apply if, although the action is nominally against individual officers, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and the suit in fact is against the state. See Pennhurst II, 465 U.S. at 101. Some confusion has arisen as to the scope and application of Young as a result of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Coeur d'Alene. There, an Indian tribe brought suit against Idaho state officers arguing that, under federal law, the Tribe should hold title to the banks, bed, and submerged lands of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the various navigable rivers and streams forming part of its waterway. See Coeur d'Alene, 521 U.S. at 264. A fiveJustice majority concluded that Young did not permit the action because the Tribe's suit, although brought against individual officers for prospective relief from an ongoing violation of federal law, was the functional equivalent of a quiet title action against the state, which, if successful, would divest the state of title and sovereign control over the waters and submerged lands. See id. at 283. Submerged land beneath navigable waters has a unique status in law and is infused with a public trust; state ownership of such lands has been considered an essential attribute of 19 sovereignty. See id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); id. at 287-88 (emphasizing the ties between the waters and submerged lands and the state's own dignity and sovereignty and the severance and diminishment of that sovereignty were prospective relief to be granted); id. at 296 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (Where a plaintiff seeks to divest the State of all regulatory power over submerged lands--in effect, to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction to quiet title to sovereign lands --it simply cannot be said that the suit is not a suit against the State.). The principal opinion in Coeur d'Alene, authored by Justice Kennedy, garnered five votes in its determination that the Tribe's action was equivalent to a quiet title action against the state itself and was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Justice Kennedy's opinion also suggested, however, that Young is not applicable to every case in which prospective relief is sought against an individual officer from an ongoing violation of federal law. See 521 U.S. at 270 (describing that view as adhering to anempty formalism and undermining the real limits imposed by the Eleventh Amendment). Rather, Justice Kennedy suggested that Young applies primarily in two instances: where there is no state forum available to vindicate federal rights, see id., and where the case calls for the interpretation of federal law. See id. at 274. Justice Kennedy urged that there always be a careful balancing and accommodation of federal and broad state interests when determining whether Young applies, applying a case-by-case balancing approach. See id. at 278. The portion of Justice Kennedy's opinion adopting this narrowed view of Young was joined only by the Chief Justice. In a separate opinion, Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, sharply criticized the replacement of a straightforward inquiry into whether a complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective with a vague balancing test that purports to account for a`broad' range of factors. Id. at 296 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); see id. at 291 (criticizing the principal opinion as unnecessarily narrowing 20 Young without warrant); id. at 296-97 (I would not narrow our Young doctrine.); see also id. at 297-98 (Souter, J., dissenting) (stating that Justice O'Connor had rejected the call for case-by-case balancing in applying Young and expressing great satisfaction that this view is the controlling one). Justice Kennedy's opinion in Coeur d'Alene cannot be read to establish the controlling standard for Young. Seven Justices rejected such a balancing and agreed that Young generally should apply when an action against a state officer alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks prospective relief. See id. at 296 (O'Connor, J., joined by Scalia and Thomas, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); id. at 298-99 (Souter, J., joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., dissenting). The Fifth Circuit has held that, because a majority of the Supreme Court would adhere to the more traditional application of Young, the Fifth Circuit would also continue to do so. See Bellsouth, 238 F.3d at 648-49 (quoting Earles v. State Bd. of Certified Pub. Accountants of Louisiana, 139 F.3d 1033, 1039 (5th Cir. 1998)). We agree and similarly hold that Young continues to permit actions against state officers for prospective relief from ongoing violations of federal law; no case-by-case balancing is necessary or proper. Coeur d'Alene did carve out one narrow exception to Young: An action cannot be maintained under Young in those unique and special circumstances in which the suit against the state officer affects a unique or essential attribute of state sovereignty, such that the action must be understood as one against the state. One example of such special, essential, or fundamental sovereignty is a state's title, control, possession, and ownership of water and land, which is equivalent to its control over funds of the state treasury. See Coeur d'Alene, 521 U.S. at 287; id. at 296-97 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). This exception is best understood as an application of the general rule that Young does not permit actions that, although nominally against state officials, in reality are against the state itself. See Pennhurst II, 465 U.S. at 102. 21 In addition, the Court in Seminole Tribe has carved out a second exception to Young. Young will not apply where Congress has created a detailed remedial scheme for the enforcement of a federal statutory right against a state. See Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 74. The statute at issue in Seminole Tribe was the Indian Gaming Regulation Act (IGRA), under which Congress established a limited set of remedies and detailed, elaborate procedures for obtaining those remedies. Pursuant to IGRA, the state was under an obligation to negotiate with a tribe in good faith and if a court found that the tribe had failed to do so, the sole remedy was for a court to order the state and the tribe to conclude a compact within 60 days. See id. If the parties did not complete the compact within that time, the sole sanction was that each party was to present a proposed compact to a mediator, who would choose the compact best embodying federal law. See id. If the state still failed to comply, the tribe was to notify the Secretary of the Interior, who would prescribe regulations. See id. at 74-75. This limited remedy contrasted with the full panoply of prospective judicial remedies available in an action against individual officers under Young, including contempt sanctions for violation of an injunction. See id. at 75. Where, as in IGRA, Congress has created such a detailed and limited remedial scheme in the statute itself, a federal court cannot obtain jurisdiction through Young over an action against state officers which seeks a remedy beyond that which Congress itself has made available against the state under federal law.