Legal Document

519 U.S. 425117 S.Ct. 900137 L.Ed.2d 55 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA, et al., Petitioners,v.John DOE etc. No. 95-1694. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 2, 1996. Decided Feb. 19, 1997. Syllabus * Respondent Doe, a New York citizen, sued University California and others, alleging, inter alia, that had agreed to employ him at laboratory it operates pursuant contract with federal Department Energy, wrongfully breached its agreement upon determining he could not obtain required security clearance. Relying on Circuit precedent holding is "an arm state,'' District concluded Eleventh Amendment barred Doe from maintaining his breach-of-contract action in court. In reversing, Ninth held liability for money judgments single most important factor whether an entity State, gave decisive weight terms University's Energy Department, under which liable any judgment rendered against performance contract. Held: The fact Federal Government has indemnify state instrumentality litigation costs, including adverse judgments, does divest agency immunity. Nothing this Court's opinions supports notion presence or absence third party's undertaking should determine kind be treated as State. Just arm-of-the-State inquiry, see, e.g., Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 30, 51-52, 115 394, _________, 130 245, entity's potential legal rather than ability inability require party reimburse it, discharge first instance, relevant underlying question. Accordingly, rejects Doe's principal contention-that apply because damages award would paid by therefore have no impact California's treasury. Because question certiorari was granted encompass alternative argument attacking cases declines address argument. Pp. ___. 65 F.3d 771, reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Charles A. Miller, petitioners. Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, DC, amicus curiae special leave Richard Gayer, San Francisco, CA, respondent. Justice STEVENS 1 narrow presented case costs litigation, divests We hold not. 2 Respondent, citizen York, brought suit Regents several individual defendants Northern California. Although alleged other claims, we are concerned only respondent's breach claim University. contends mathematical physicist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Government. According complaint, refused perform determined clearance (Department). state,''1 respondent 3 Appeals Assuming some, but all, functions entitled immunity,2 court addressed State when "acting managerial capacity'' Laboratory. 774 (1995). majority applied "a five-factor analysis,''3 emphasized "liability state.'' Ibid. made "clear California, Contract.'' 4 dissenting judge did take issue majority's emphasis importance defendant's judgment, reasoned proper analysis focus primary ultimate economic judgment. Noting undisputed "is obligation California,'' id., 777, discounted significance indemnitor's secondary, indirect, liability. For conclusion, relied suggesting may confer immunity who otherwise enjoy simply volunteering satisfy entity, Durning Citibank, N. A., 950 F.2d 1419, 1425, n. (1991), passing statute indemnifying officers liability, Blaylock Schwinden, 862 1352, 1353-1354 (1988). "The pays end; legally obligated pay being sought.'' F.3d, 777-778. 5 Courts agree dissent's financial liability,4 resolve conflict. II provides: 6 Judicial power shall construed extend law equity, commenced prosecuted one Citizens another Subjects Foreign State.'' 7 It long been settled reference actions "against States'' encompasses actually named defendant, also certain agents instrumentalities. Poindexter Greenhow, 114 270, 287, 903, 912, 29 L.Ed. 185 (1885); re Ayers, 123 443, 487, 8 164, 173, 31 216 (1887); Smith Reeves, 178 436, 438-439, 20 919, 920, 44 1140 (1900); Ford Motor Co. Treasury Ind., 323 459, 347, 89 389 (1945). Thus, "when essence recovery state, real, substantial interest invoke sovereign even though officials nominal defendants.'' Id., 464, S.Ct., 350. When deciding State's immunity, our inquired into relationship between making sometimes examined "the essential nature effect proceeding,'' ibid., see Kennecott Copper Corp. Tax Comm'n, 327 573, 576, 66 745, 746, 90 (1946), focused "nature created law''5 "be State,'' Mt. Healthy City Bd. Ed. Doyle, 429 274, 280, 97 568, 572, 50 471 (1977).6 9 Of course, official enforceable considerable evaluation sued. Corporation, 45-51, ___, 245 (1994); Edelman Jordan, 415 651, 663, 94 1347, 1355-1356, 39 662 (1974); Motor, U.S., 350-351. Hess, evaluated bistate compact joined create order properly denominated "arm'' either founding purposes Amendment. addition considering position unique creature within system, 39-42, claims proceeding, 42, particular attention "both practically'' neither obtained entity. 10 respondents seek detach moorings indicator creation convert inquiry formalistic But none reasoning lends support 11 arm-of-the-state respect question, relevant. Surely, if buy insurance protect itself tort pedestrians stumbling steps Capitol, cease "one States.'' 12 reject treasury protects risk indemnified party. III 13 As ground affirmance, invites us reexamine validity He argues look beyond treasury, examine extent elected government exercises "real, immediate control oversight'' over University, 62, 411 (O'CONNOR, dissenting), well character function rise litigation. argument, decline it. 14 15 so ordered. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. See Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 26 282, 499. App. Pet. Cert. A-22, A-24 A-28 (citing Thompson Los Angeles, 885 1439, 1442-1443 (1989), Jackson Hayakawa, 682 1344, 1350 (1982)). Congress abrogated patent infringement, Genentech, Inc. Eli Lilly 998 931, 940-941 (C.A.Fed.1993), cert. denied, 510 1140, 1126, 127 434 (1994), waived some cases, Holoholo, 512 F.Supp. 889, 901-902 (D.Haw.1981), conclusion "University enormous various capacities all functions.'' 775 occasion consider questions waiver abrogation case. Nor necessary decide there instrumentalities qualify "arms State'' others. five factors considered evaluating were: " [1] satisfied out funds, [2] performs central governmental functions, [3] sue sued, [4] property own name [5] corporate status entity.'' 774. Cronen Texas Dept. Human Services, 977 934, 938 (C.A.5 1992) (" [T]he source irrelevant agency''); Cannon Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School, 710 351, 357 (C.A.7 1983) ("No authority Cannon's [the Amendment] altered possibility damage met through proceeds funds''). Ultimately, same independent county instead meaning Amendment, law. can answered after provisions define agency's character. earlier decision "arm "citizen'' purpose court's diversity jurisdiction claim. Moor County Alameda, 693, 717-721, 93 1785, 1799-1802, 36 596 (1973). "detailed examination law'' defining counties, noting authorized levy taxes such judgments,'' "empowered general bonds,'' characteristics provide "persuasive indicia occupied counties relative California.'' 719-721, 1801.

Classification Label: 7