Con Law

Transcript

In this lesson, we’ll examine state sovereign immunity, which limits federal court jurisdiction over the states.

I. General Rule of Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Suppose there’s a federal law called the Safe Surgery Act, which requires all hospitals to use updated surgical equipment. The law created a private right of action for anyone harmed by a hospital’s noncompliance with the act. A plaintiff suing under the act may obtain damages and an injunction against future use of the noncompliant equipment.

A veteran underwent surgery at a state-owned hospital. Some of the hospital’s equipment violated the Safe Surgery Act, and as a result, the veteran experienced surgical complications. The veteran sued the state in federal court under the act, seeking money damages for her injuries. The state moved to dismiss the case under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The concept of sovereign immunity provides, in part, that a state is immune from being sued by private parties without that state’s consent. In the Constitution, this immunity is reflected in the Eleventh Amendment, which provides that federal judicial power doesn’t extend to any suit “against one of the United States by Citizens of another State[VIL1] .” In other words, the amendment bars certain federal court suits brought by private citizens against the states.

The courts have interpreted the Eleventh Amendment a bit differently than its plain language suggests. On its face, the amendment prohibits suits against a state by citizens of another state. But the United States Supreme Court has extended this prohibition to include suits against a state by its own citizens, as well[2].

In addition, the amendment reflects the dual sovereignties of the federal and state governments. One of the amendment’s main functions is to insulate the states from damages suits in the federal courts, which helps to prevent federal interference with state finances.

Here, the veteran is attempting to sue a state in federal court to recover money damages. Therefore, the veteran’s claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and the court should dismiss the case.

It’s tempting to think that the veteran could just take her case to state court instead. But the Eleventh Amendment is implicated there, too. Because the Eleventh Amendment also bars private-party suits asserting a federal cause of action against a state in the state’s own courts, if the veteran refiled her case in state court, that court likewise would have to dismiss the case under the Eleventh Amendment.  

II. Limitations on the Eleventh Amendment

Now that we’ve covered the Eleventh Amendment’s basic rule, let’s discuss its limitations.

A. Waiver

First, a state may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity, for example, by expressly consenting to be sued in federal court. In our example there’s no waiver, but the state could waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity if it chose.

B. Suits against State Officials

Second, the Eleventh Amendment doesn’t bar suits that seek declaratory or injunctive relief against state officials, in their official capacities[3], for violations of federal rights. The traditional justification for this rule is that state officials who violate federal rights are acting outside their authority and, therefore, are subject to suit. However, private plaintiffs may not recover money damages in these cases.

Here, the Safe Surgery Act outlines a federal right and provides for injunctive relief. Therefore, the veteran could sue the state official in charge of the hospital and seek an injunction against the hospital’s continued use of the noncomplying equipment.  

The Eleventh Amendment also doesn’t bar damages suits against state officials in their personal capacities for deprivation of federal rights. However, these cases might be subject to qualified immunities found elsewhere in the law.

C. Suits against Local Governments

Another Eleventh Amendment limitation is that its protections apply to the states themselves but not to their political subdivisions. Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment doesn’t bar suits against local governments, such as counties, cities, and towns.

This limitation doesn’t help our veteran here, because she’s trying to sue the state. But if the hospital were owned by a county, for example, then the Eleventh Amendment wouldn’t bar a suit for damages.

D. Abrogation of Immunity

Finally, in some situations, Congress may abrogate, or nullify, a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Let’s say that in passing the Safe Surgery Act, Congress made legislative findings that women systematically received substandard care in state-run hospitals. Congress found this problem to be pervasive and extremely harmful across most states. Accordingly, the act included a section prohibiting sex discrimination in surgical care. The act authorized damages suits for discrimination, and it expressly provided that these suits wouldn’t be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Imagine that the veteran sued the state in federal court for damages under the act’s antidiscrimination provisions.

Was Congress within its power in authorizing damages actions and abrogating the states’ sovereign immunity for cases involving sex discrimination in surgical care?

Congress has the power to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity in a narrow set of circumstances.

First, Congress must be legislating under the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce civil rights.

Second, Congress must clearly express its intent to abrogate state immunity.

Third, the remedy provided by Congress must be both congruent and proportional to the harm addressed. The Supreme Court hasn’t clearly defined congruence and proportionality, but the terms generally mean that the statutory remedy must in some sense match the scope or severity of the problem the legislation addresses.

Now, the veteran’s case has a chance of success. The act’s antidiscrimination provisions are an exercise of Congress’s Fourteenth Amendment power to prohibit sex discrimination. [4] Congress clearly stated its intent to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity under the act. And the requirements of congruence and proportionality are likely met, as well. Congress found that sex discrimination by the states in hospital care was a large-scale problem. Therefore, the remedy of damages suits is a congruent and proportional response to this widespread harm. Accordingly, Congress could lawfully abrogate the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity under the act, and the federal courts may hear the veteran’s case.