Opinion ID: 222221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alaska's Participation in the Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline

Text: Jachetta next argues that Alaska has waived its sovereign immunity by voluntarily choosing to participate in a federal project  the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Specifically, Jachetta claims that Alaska's consent to suit derives from 43 U.S.C. § 1652(e), which, according to Jachetta, conditions Alaska's participation in the construction of the pipeline on a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity. The statute does not support Jachetta's assertion. Section 1652(e) authorizes federal officers and agencies to amend or modify any right-of-way, permit, lease, or other authorization issued under [Title 43, Chapter 34] when necessary to protect the public interest. Jachetta fails to explain how this language unequivocally expresse[s] Congress's desire to condition Alaska's participation in the construction of the pipeline on its consent to suit in federal court. See Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 676, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, Jachetta argues that his case is similar to Islander East Pipeline Company, LLC v. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 482 F.3d 79 (2d Cir.2006), where the Second Circuit held that Connecticut's voluntary participation in a federally regulated scheme waived the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity. In Islander East, however, the Natural Gas Act of 1938 specifically provided for original and exclusive jurisdiction [in the court of appeals] over any civil action for the review of an order or action of a ... State administrative agency acting pursuant to Federal law to issue, condition, or deny any permit, license, concurrence, or approval. Id. at 85. In light of this provision, the state d[id] not dispute that by accepting a role as deputized regulator [in the federally regulated scheme], a state agrees to waive its immunity from suit. Id. at 90. By contrast, Jachetta fails to identify any similar statutory provision conditioning Alaska's participation in the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline on Alaska's waiver of its sovereign immunity. Accordingly, Alaska's participation in this federally regulated scheme does not waive its sovereign immunity. See Sossamon, 131 S.Ct. at 1661 (rejecting the argument that recipients of federal funding are on notice that they are subject to suits for monetary damages); Edelman, 415 U.S. at 673, 94 S.Ct. 1347 (The mere fact that a State participates in a program through which the Federal Government provides assistance for the operation by the State of a system of public aid is not sufficient to establish consent on the part of the State to be sued in the federal courts.).