Document: 535 U.S. 613 LAPIDESv.BOARD OF REGENTS UNIVERSITY SYSTEM GEORGIA ET AL. No. 01-298. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued February 25, 2002. Decided May 13, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Petitioner, a professor in Georgia state university system, filed statecourt suit against respondents — system's board regents (hereinafter or State) and officials their personal capacities as agents alleging that had violated tort law 42 U. S. C. § 1983 when they placed sexual harassment allegations his personnel files. The defendants removed case to Federal District then sought dismissal. Conceding statute waived Georgia's sovereign immunity from state-law suits court, State claimed Eleventh Amendment federal court. held such it In reversing, Circuit found that, because was unclear whether attorney general legal authority waive immunity, retained right assert even after removal. Held: A waives its removes court Pp. 617-624. (a) Because this does not present valid claim Georgia, see Will v. Michigan Dept. Police, 491 58, 66, answer question presented is limited context claims where has state-court proceedings. Although absent claim, might remand those remain pending which discretion decide first instance. Thus, moot. 617-618. (b) This established principle State's voluntary appearance amounts waiver Clark Barnard, 108 436, 447; Gardner New Jersey, 329 565, 574; Gunter Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 200 273, 284, often cited with approval cases embodying principle, see, e. g., College Savings Bank Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 666, 681, n. 3. Here, brought involuntarily into defendant but voluntarily thus invoking court's jurisdiction. Unless abandon requiring there something special about removal case, should apply. 618-620. (c) Contrary respondents' arguments, no reason principle. enunciated Gunter, Gardner, did turn on nature relief sound applied money damages this. And more recent clear indication intent Bank, S., at 675-681, distinguished kind constructive waivers repudiated effected by litigation conduct, id., Nor have pointed feature would justify taking out rule. That benign motive for obtain litigating advantages itself provide sued interlocutory appeal provisions available cannot make critical difference. Motives are difficult evaluate, while jurisdictional rules be clear. adopting position permit States achieve unfair tactical advantages, if others, Wisconsin Corrections Schacht, 524 381, 393-394, rationale applying strong here elsewhere. Respondents also argue entitled authorize because, Ford Motor Co. Department Treasury Ind., 323 459, regained showing lack litigated it. however, invoked jurisdiction, been made federal-court defendant. consistently general, authorized bring More importantly, large part rule governing invocations jurisdiction rested upon inconsistency unfairness contrary create. finds through general's invocation avoids unfairness, Ford, denies despite state-authorized decision opposite. For these reasons, Clark, represent sounder line authority, inconsistent basic cases, overruled insofar otherwise Respondents' remaining arguments unconvincing. 620-624. 251 F. 3d 1372, reversed. BREYER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. 1 David J. Bederman argued cause petitioner. With him briefs were Michael Bowers Patrick W. McKee. 2 Irving L. Gornstein amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney McCallum, Deputy Clement, Mark B. Stern, Alisa Klein. 3 Devon Orland, respondents. her Thurbert E. Baker, General, Kathleen Pacious, John Jones Patricia Downing, Senior Attorneys General. 4 Julie Caruthers Parsley, Texas, Texas et al. amici affirmance. Cornyn, Jeffrey Boyd, Lisa Eskow, respective follows: Bill Pryor Alabama, Bruce M. Botelho Alaska, Ken Salazar Colorado, Jane Brady Delaware, Robert A. Butterworth Florida, James Ryan Illinois, Steve Carter Indiana, Thomas Miller Iowa, Carla Stovall Kansas, Richard P. Ieyoub Louisiana, Joseph Curran, Jr., Maryland, Reilly Massachusetts, Jennifer Granholm Michigan, Mike Moore Mississippi, Don Stenberg Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa Nevada, Samson Roy Cooper North Carolina, Wayne Stenehjem Dakota, Betty D. Montgomery Ohio, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Fisher Pennsylvania, Paul G. Summers Tennessee, Shurtleff Utah, William H. Sorrell Vermont, Jerry Kilgore Virginia.* 5 JUSTICE BREYER 6 grants citizens other States, Const., Amdt. 11, own well, Hans 134 (1890). before us act removing lawsuit immunity. We hold does. 7 * Lapides, employed He respondents, Board Regents University System acting both State. Lapides' alleged Lapides doing so law, Tort Claims Act, Ga. Code Ann. 50-21-23 (1994), Civil Rights Act 1871, Rev. Stat. 1979, (1994 ed., Supp. V). 8 All joined Court, 28 1441, Those individuals whom doctrine "qualified immunity" barred federal-law them. agreed. State, conceding virtue Amendment, remained immune See 11 (limiting scope "Judicial power States" (emphasis added)). But agree. Rather, view, Atascadero Hospital Scanlon, 473 234, 238 (1985) (State may immunity). 9 appealed Court's ruling. Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Authority Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 139, 144-145 (1993) (allowing appeal). Appeals 1372 (2001). was, least, possessed And, being so, 459 (1945). 10 certiorari. agreed "a waive[s] affirmative conduct ...." Pet. Cert. (i). It become we must limit our claims, respect explicitly only arises under 1983, seeks monetary damages, "person" asserted. 66 (1989). Compare Tr. Oral Arg. 57-58 (asserting complaint declaratory judgment claim), complaint, App. 9-19 (failing, implicitly explicitly, seek any relief). Hence need address situation underlying abrogated 12 absence viable well 1367(c)(3). Nonetheless, statelaw 1367(a), commits question, ordinarily matter discretion, Moor County Alameda, 411 693, 712 (1973). Hence, possess just described. light differences view among lower courts, shall do so. McLaughlin Trustees Colleges Colo., 215 1168, 1171 (CA10 2000) (removal regardless authority); Newfield House, Inc. Massachusetts Public Welfare, 651 2d 32, 36, (CA1 1981) (similar); Estate Porter ex rel. Nelson 36 684, 690-691 (CA7 1994) immunity); Silver Baggiano, 804 1211, 1214 (CA11 1986) Gwinn Area Community Schools 741 840, 846-847 (CA6 1984) (similar). II 13 provides construed extend ... commenced prosecuted one another (as interpreted) citizens. remains free See, Atascadero, supra, 238. now 14 seem anomalous (1) invoke thereby contending extends hand, (2) denying hand. Constitution permitted follow interests freely asserting same could generate seriously results. surprising than century ago indicated amounted 447 (1883) (State's "voluntary appearance" an intervenor inquiry). subsequently held, bankruptcy "waives respecting adjudication of" "claim" files 574 (1947). "where becomes party submits rights judicial determination, will bound escape result prohibitions Amendment." 284 (1906) added). long accepted statement valid, citing (1999) (citing Gardner); Employees Health Welfare Mo. Mo., 279, 294, (1973) (Marshall, concurring result) Clark); Petty Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm'n, 359 275, 276 (1959) Clark). 15 original remove 1446(a); Chicago, I. Martin, 178 245, 248 (1900) requires consent all defendants). unless stated, ought 16 points stand involve heart Amendment's concern. sought. damages. 17 adds decided required "clear" 675-681. conduct. Id., makes sense interpretation rests presumed recognition avoid inconsistency, anomaly, actual preference desire, might, all, favor selective use "immunity" advantages. 393 (1998) (KENNEDY, concurring). relevant "clarity" focus takes creates waiver. 18 feature, either argues benign. remove, order itself, codefendants, capacities, generous federal, state, Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 524-530 (authorizing adverse qualified determination), Turner Giles, 264 812, 813, 450 421, 424 (1994) appeals certified trial court). intended, beginning, return codefendants achieved victory. 19 motive, difference hopes. Hanover Star Milling Metcalf, 240 403, 426 (1916) (Holmes, To adopt others. 398 concurring); cf. ALI, Study Division Jurisdiction Between Courts 366-367 (1968) (discussing allowing who challenge jurisdiction). invocation" here, removal, 20 authorizing "[t]o civil actions tried court," 45-15-3(6) (1990); Art. 5, 3, ¶ 4, 1, 2, ¶¶ 9(e), (f), reprinted (Supp. 1996). unanimously interpreted roughly similar laws similarly, "no properly executive administrative officer state's immunity," 328 469, sustained defense raised time say, statutory Why, then, asks can regain way, court? 21 short involves involved private plaintiff here) 574-575; 285-289, 292; 447-448 (not inquiring authority). different participation involuntary. (1890); "commenced against" State). 22 important answer. problems 284. determination reflects belief neither wrote nor themselves (insofar courts) intend create unfairness. As analogous contexts, matters questions cf., Univ. Cal. Doe, 519 425, 429, (1997), particular set laws, rules, activities law. decision, reasons Member called Ford's reexamination. 394, 397 conclude authority. Finding consequently overrule 23 several none find convincing. enter without giving up previous effort waive. Fidelity Guaranty 309 (1940); Shaw, 495 Oklahoma Tax Comm'n Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe Okla., 498 505 (1991). specific text history focuses sovereignty vis-à-vis Government. each circumstances issue example, (i. e., States) protection courts courts), protect Indian tribe. 24 Finally, says conclusion prove confusing, guess what deemed accidental waivers. believe one, easily themselves. form sufficient objection (here law) forum. KENNEDY out, once "the know expect constitute waiver, easy enough presume bind (for purposes) removal." (concurring opinion). 25 action joining though, said, raising issues, nonetheless remanded determination. 26 27 ordered. Notes: Townsend Rich Ceres Marine Terminals,

Category: 9