Court Opinion

ID: 9601931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:50:46.121389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:00.035449
License: Public Domain

RABINO WITZ, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority’s summary reversal of the superior court’s decision, because I take issue with the majority’s interpretation of Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979). Although the approach of the majority here is in accordance with Justice Brennan’s concurring opinion in that case, characterizing Justice Rehnquist’s opinion as holding that a state cannot be a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983, Justice Rehnquist’s opinion in fact carefully avoids that issue, instead holding that Congress did not, in enacting § 1983, utilize its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the States’ immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Thus, Quern’s holding only becomes relevant when the Eleventh Amendment issue is raised, which is not the case here; this suit is in state, not federal, court. Under Justice Rehnquist’s approach, the states are free to render themselves amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983; under Justice Brennan’s approach, this is not the case. I think Justice Rehnquist’s approach, besides being entitled to more weight as a majority ruling, is also more compatible with the Court’s dictum in Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 3058, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114, 1116 (1978), to the effect that Alabama would be able to *1383waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit were it not for a state constitutional provision to the contrary.
I am bolstered in this conclusion by the reasoning in the recent case of Marrapese v. State of Rhode Island, 500 F.Supp. 1207 (D.R.I.1980), which noted this very conflict and adopted the Rehnquist approach in holding that Rhode Island had statutorily rendered itself amenable to a § 1983 suit in federal court. The opinion notes:
Justice Rehnquist’s opinion, while emphatic in reasserting the Court’s belief that Congress had not intended to abrogate the states’ immunity through § 1983, see 440 U.S. at 345, [99 S.Ct.. at 1147] conspicuously avoided any statement that the term ‘person’ did not include ‘state.’ Stated precisely, Quern concluded only that the Congress which enacted § 1983 did not intend to force the states to answer in federal court for their constitutional violations. Of itself, this holding does not mandate the further conclusion that the 42d Congress did not intend to allow the states to answer in federal court for their constitutional violations if they consented to do so. The álternate interpretation of Quern, then, would recognize that the word ‘person,’ when considered in light of the Dictionary Act and the legislative history of § 1983, is broad enough to encompass the state as a ‘body politic and corporate.’ Limiting the practical effect of this construction would be the caveat that the statute leaves untouched Eleventh Amendment immunity, so that a state is not compellable to respond to § 1983 claims in federal court.

Faced, then, with two possible interpretations — neither of which is particularly satisfactory — this Court accepts the one that gives greatest latitude to § 1983⅛ broad remedial purpose. It concludes that the states are ‘persons’ potentially liable for constitutional deprivations inflicted through official custom and policy, but that because Congress has not exercised its § 5 powers to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, each state must consent to the imposition of such liability. This interpretation allows victims of unconstitutional activity the largest possibility for redress, while exacting little cost in terms of federalism. Because there is no forced waiver, each state maintains ultimate control over its own potential liability. Moreover, this interpretation is consistent with earlier cases in which the Supreme Court seems to have assumed that a state could consent to § 1983 liability. Therefore, this Court holds that Rhode Island is a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983.
500 F.Supp. at 1211-12 (footnotes and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
The issue before this court is not as difficult as Marrapese, since we deal here with a suit against the state in state court, not in federal court. I think that the Eleventh Amendment has no bearing on this issue, and thus the ruling of Quern does not control. If Rhode Island is a “person” within the meaning of § 1983, Alaska is no less a person. Alaska’s own statutory provision regarding amenability to suit is the pertinent consideration here. I would remand for consideration of whether AS 09.50.250 allows this suit to go forward in the superi- or court.