Court Opinion

ID: 9494435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:37:57.883017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:24.909821
License: Public Domain

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Whether plaintiff may maintain this action against the Governor of California under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), is surely a close and difficult question. Judge O’Scannlain has written a fine opinion and I am almost persuaded — but not quite. I read Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997), as creating an exception to Ex parte Young where the suit implicates the state’s fundamental sovereign interests. 521 U.S. at 282-84, 287-88, 117 S.Ct. 2028. Here, Governor Davis exercised the state’s power of eminent domain in response to what was concededly a major emergency affecting the health, safety, welfare and comfort of the people of California. This emergency affected not merely the price of electrical power, but its very availability. For the first time in its history, the state was confronted with rolling blackouts which themselves caused serious disruptions; there was good reason to believe that far worse was in store.
Under authority vested in him by the state legislature, the Governor acted decisively to restore order in the electricity market and thus to avert further disruptions. Plaintiff here challenges one aspect of the Governor’s response; it asks the court to second-guess the actions of the Governor, taken for the purpose of averting what he reasonably believed to be an impending power catastrophe. A more pointed interference with the state’s essential sovereign interests by the federal courts is hard to imagine. If Coeur d’Al-ene does not cover this situation, then it must apply only where Indian tribes challenge the state’s title to submerged lands and nowhere else. Unlike the majority, I cannot read Coeur d’Alene quite so narrowly. Whether one follows the balancing approach of Justice Kennedy’s - principal opinion, or the categorical approach of Justice O’Connor’s concurrence, “it simply cannot be said that the suit [here] is not a suit against the State.” 521 U.S. at 296, 117 S.Ct. 2028 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
Because it is important not to let the case become moot by the passage of time, I will not belabor the point. I believe the lines are clearly drawn by Judge O’Scann-lain’s excellent opinion and my, hopefully, adequate dissent.