Court Opinion

ID: 9430160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:29:06.560649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:23.443562
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
Because my decision to join Justice Brennan’s dissent is a departure from the opinion I expressed in Florida Dept. of Health v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U. S. 147, 151 (1981), a word of explanation is in order. As I then explained, notwithstanding my belief that Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974), was incorrectly decided, see 450 U. S., at 151, n. 2,1 then concluded that the doctrine of stare decisis required that Edelman be followed. Since then, however, the Court has not felt constrained by stare decisis in its expansion of the protective mantle of sovereign immunity— having repudiated at least 28 cases in its decision in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89, 165-166, n. 50 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting) — and additional study has made it abundantly clear that not only Edelman, but Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), as well, can properly be characterized as “egregiously incorrect.” 450 U. S., at 153. I am now persuaded that a fresh examination of the Court’s Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence will produce benefits that far outweigh “the consequences of further unraveling the doctrine of stare decisis” in this area of the law. Id., at 155.