Court Opinion

ID: 9430232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:29:17.300064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:23.795088
License: Public Domain

Justice Blackmun,
with whom Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens join, dissenting.
I joined Justice Brennan’s dissent in Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 247 (1985), and I join his dissent in this case. I fully agree that the Court’s Eleventh Amendment approach, as demonstrated by the difference between the result in this case and that in Quern v. Jordan, 440 U. S. 332 (1979), is sterile, produces inconsistent decisions, and is in serious need of reconsideration. Cf. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 539, 546-547 (1985).
But I also would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case for the additional reason expressed in my dissent (joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens) in Atascadero, 473 U. S., at 302, namely, the waiver by Michigan, “as a willing recipient of federal funds,” id., at 304, of any Eleventh Amendment barrier that otherwise might exist. The State too easily avoids its responsibilities, and the Court by its decision today allows the State to go its way unimpeded and unburdened with any remedy for those who have been wronged during the period of Michigan’s noncompliance with federal law.