Constitutional Law I Spring 2004Con Law I Eleventh Amendment Oct. 18, 2004.
-
Upload
chloe-ella-robinson -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Constitutional Law I Spring 2004Con Law I Eleventh Amendment Oct. 18, 2004.
Spring 2004 Con Law I
Constitutional Law I
Eleventh Amendment
Oct. 18, 2004
2
Meaning of Sovereign Immunity
The Sovereign (king, State, officers) is not bound by the law Hard to maintain in post-1776 America
Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege Rule of substantive lawThe Sovereign is not subject to suit in its own courts without its consent Rule of jurisdiction
3
BackgroundChisholm v. Georgia (1793) Georgia reneges on a revolutionary war debt Chisholm sues; GA asserts sovereign immunity Art. III, § 2: “The judicial power shall
extend to … all controversies between a State and citizens of another State…” Does this language merely confer jurisdiction; Does it enact a rule of law overriding immunity
defenses states might otherwise have? S.Ct. adopts 2d interpretation: no SI in fed ct.
4
Enactment of 11th Amendment
Text “The judicial power of the United States shall
not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”
Sovereign Immunity How does 11th Amd correct Chisholm?
Withdraws federal jurisdiction in certain cases; or Creates a rule of law – sovereign immunity
If the latter, does the 11th merely restore or does it create state sovereignty?
5
Withdrawal of Federal JdxDiversity Suits 11th amd divests federal courts of jdx
over states (as defendant)
The judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity… between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”
6
Withdrawal of Federal JdxDiversity Suits 11th amd divests federal courts of jdx over
states (as defendant)Federal Question cases Hans v. Louisianna (1890)
11th Amd. to be liberally construed Withdraws federal jurisdiction against state
defendants in all cases, including federal question cases.
Compare Sedgwick proposal (for 11th amd): "No state shall be liable to be made a party
defendant, in any of the judicial courts established … under the authority of the United States …"
7
Federal Supremacy after 11th Am
Effect of 11th on federal supremacy If states can't be sued in fed. court on federal
claims, how is const'n enforced against them? Suit in state court
Myth of parity Review by USSC
Stripping doctrine Suits against state officers (Ex Parte Young)
A state officer violating federal law cannot be acting on behalf of the state, so cannot assert state SI
Only applies to injunctive relief Damages come from state treasury
8
ExceptionsStripping Doctrine (Ex Parte Young)
Inapplicable to local government (Mt. Healthy)Inapplicable in Supreme Court (ME v. Thiboutot)
Inapplicable in suits by federal gov’t (US v. MS or other states (CO v. NM)
Explicit State Waiver (Atascadero) By statute (e.g., Prop 57 bonds) By invoking federal jurisdiction (Clark v. Barnard) By removing case to federal court (Lapides)
At least where state waives immunity in state court
9
10
ExceptionsCongressional Abrogation Theory: in ratifying the constitution,
states relinquished power – hence sovereignty. When congress acts within its enumerated power, states have no sovereignty.
Not all federal laws abrogate SI – only those that say they do
11
Congressional AbrogationPower to Abrogate 14th Amd. Section 5 (post-dates 11th
amd) Section 8 (pre-dates 11th amd)Explicit abrogation Congress must make clear that law
extends to states (Gregory v. Ashcroft) and that enforcement suits may be brought against state in federal court
12
Abrogation under Section 5
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976) 14th amd is a limitation on state power
States have no sovereign right to act contrary § 5 empowers congress to enforce those
limits States have no sovereign right to defy
enforcements 11th Amd (whatever it means) is limited
by subsequent enactment of 14th Amd Gen'l rule of construction: in case of conflicting
provisions, the later in time controls
13
Abrogation under Section 8
Pennsylvania v. Union Gas (1989) 11th Amd did not create sovereign immunity;
it restored that which existed before Chisholm Whatever sovereign immunity states enjoyed
prior to ratification, they ceded it coextensive with grants of substantive power to congress. This "background principle" of State sovereign
immunity was necessarily limited by § 8 grants of power to congress
Any enactment within congress' § 8 powers is capable of overriding state sovereign immunity
14
Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996)
Indian Gamin Reg. Act requires states to negotiate with Indian tribes re. Gaming Act allows tribes to sue States in federal
court if they fail to negotiate in good faith Act passed under Indian commerce clauseAbrogation Does act "unequivocally
express" congress' "intent to abrogate [state] immunity"?
Can congress do so?
15
Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996)
Majority: Section 8 powers were limited by 11th Amd Congress cannot abrogate when acting per § 8 Penn. V. Union Gas overruled
Stevens dissent: Congress cannot provide
enforce-ment against states of most federal rights
16
Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996)
Souter dissent: Did states enjoy SI in own courts before 1789? If so, did that immunity carry over to federal
courts after ratification? No historical record, at least wrt federal question
cases, suggesting "a general understanding that the States would have no immunity in such cases"
Even if state otherwise have SI in federal cases, can congress abrogate it? What is the federalism difference between suits
under self-executing provisions of the constitution, & Suits explicitly authorized by Congress?
17
18
Florida Prepaid v. College SB (1999)
College SB patent infringed by state agency Patent laws passed pursuant to patent clause Fed courts have exclusive jdx in patent cases Patent Remedy Act allows suits against statesCan congress abrogate SI per Patent Clause No different than other § 8 powersCan congress abrogate SI per § 5 powers Yes, so long as law is "appropriate"
Congruence & proportionality test of Boerne
This case not
covered Fall 04
19
Florida Prepaid v. College SB (1999)
Congruence & proportionality for § 5 laws1. What constitutional violation is at stake?
State infringement of patent (federal property right) If done w/o compensation, it violates "due process"
2. Is the remedy provided by congress congruent to this constitutional wrong? Act allows suit without first seeking comp. from state
3. Viewed as a prophylactic measure, is it propor-tional to likelihood & magnitude of the wrong? Apparently not since no pattern of widespread abuse Prophylactic laws appropriate only for "widespread
and persisting deprivation of constitutional rights"
New require-ment for § 5 enact-ments
This case not
covered Fall 04
20
Florida Prepaid v. College SB (1999)
Congruence & proportionality for § 5 laws Conclusion: Since the Patent Remedy Act is
neither remedial nor prophylactic, It is not responsive to unconstitutional behavior § 5 must be a contrived basis for the law; it is
really based on § 8.Stevens dissent: Court creates loophold in patent law; states
have total freedom to infringe private property Patents issued to, and infringement by, states is not a
trivial issue
This case not
covered Fall 04
21
Kimel v. Fla Bd. of Regents (2000)
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) Prohibits age discrimination by employers
Including states With exceptions (e.g., BFOQ)
Passed pursuant to congress' § 8 & § 5 powers The former cannot abrogate state sovereignty The latter can, but only if Congruent & Proportional
to a 14th Amd violationBoerne Test: Congruent: remedy must track § 1 violation Proportional: preventative measures must
be in relation to risk of § 1 harm
22
Kimel v. Fla Bd. of Regents (2000)
Boerne Test:1. Identify the constitutional violation
Irrational age discrimination; almost never found since age can be used as a proxy for everything else
2. Congruence ADEA is not congruent because it forbids perfectly
lawful discrimination by state and local gov'ts3. Proportionality
As a prophylactic measure to prevent unconst. age discrimination, ADEA is way out of proportion Unconst. age discrimination is an inconsequential problem; Therefore, this is not an appropriateappropriate legislative response
23
Univ of Alabama v. Garrett (2001)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title I Prohibits discrimination by employers (states)Boerne Test:1. Identify the constitutional violation
Discrimination against disabled subject to RB test States need not accommodate disabled (if rational)
2. Congruence ADA not congruent since it forbids lawful state action
3. Proportionality No overwhelming evidence of irrational state discrim.
Irrational discrim. by cities not relevant since no SI § 5 law must be proportional to unconst StateState action
24
Univ of Alabama v. Garrett (2001)
Boerne Test:3. Proportionality
Congress cannot legislate against isolated or occasional unconstitutional state actions
There must be widespread pattern of illegality before it is "appropriate" for congress to legislate against it.
And the pattern must be found by Congress itself, not some agency or independent task force
Cumulative impact of Garrett et al. Congress cannot create new rights Congress cannot expand scope of
existing rights, beyond S.Ct. rule
25
Tennessee v. Lane (2004)ADA Title II prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals by a “public entity” Tennessee state courthouses not accessible Congressional findings:
•disabled are discrete and insular minority
•history of purpose-ful discrimination
•unfair stereotype assumptions
same as Supreme Court’s
“indicia of suspect class”
for equal protection
26
Tennessee v. Lane (2004)Abrogation of 11th Amendment Immunity Clear statement required
“States shall not be immune” Valid enactment (14th amd § 5) requiredBoerne test: Identify const’l rights at stake
irrational discrimination against disabled due process access to judicial system (courts) criminal procedure rights (6th am. confrontation)
congruence and proportionality
27
Tennessee v. Lane (2004)Congruence: Statutory remedy must match const’l rights
Aimed at due process violations (strict scrutiny)Proportionality: Risk and scope of const’l violation must justify
prophylactic (preventative) measures High risk: “pattern of unconstitutional treatment” –
up to 76% of public services were inaccesable Scope/breadth: Title II does not over-respond to
const’l violations. Only reasonable accommodations are required.
If it did, the Act might be viewed as an attempt to “rewrite the 14th Amd;” i.e., create new rights
28
Tennessee v. Lane (2004)Dissent (Rehnquist on Congruence) Title II duty to accommodate not limited to
services/actions that trigger strict scrutiny Same as to much of the evidence before congress Apply rationality standard for physical barriers
Higher standard required for § 5 enactments when abrogating state sov. immunity No widespread pattern of State violations; most
cases cited by congress involved local gov’t, which doesn’t have 11th Amd immunity
But, County courts are “arms of the state” for 11th amd.
29
Tennessee v. Lane (2004)Dissent (Rehnquist on Proportionality)Title II applies to instances where failure to accommodate is lawful (e.g., hockey rinks) Scope/breadth: Title II is not overkill simply
because some applications (not before Court) might not pass.
FACIAL vs. AS-APPLIED unconstitutionality
30
Tennessee v. Lane (2004)Dissent (Rehnquist on Proportionality)Title II applies to instances where failure to accommodate is lawful (e.g., hockey rinks) Scope/breadth: Title II is not overkill simply
because some applications (not before Court) might not pass.
FACIAL vs. AS-APPLIED unconstitutionality
Rehnquist is wrong: There is no such thing as
FACIAL constitutionality
That a law might be unconsti-tutional AS-
APPLIED in some other case (not before the Ct) is
immaterial to this case
Dissent (Scalia on Boerne)Congrence/Proportion’y invites judicial activism
Replace with strict interpretation of “enforce” Dictionary definition (1868). No prophylactic laws; only remedial (ex. race
discrim)Why not same approach for text of 11th Amd?
31
Alden v. Maine (1999)Suit against Maine under FLSA Fed.Ct. lacks jdx per 11th Amd. 11th is more than a w/drawal of jdx; it evinces
a substantive rule of law (immunity defense) Federal substantive law applies in state courtSI as a constitutional rule Not based on 11th amd. per se Not based on any constitutional text Based on const’l understandings
32
Alden v. Maine (1999)Theory of state sovereign immunity States were sovereign, pre-constitution Upon ratification they relinquished sovereignty
only pursuant to the “plan of the convention” I.e., wherever they precluded their own action
e.g., Art. I, §10; Art. IV; 14th Amendment Not where they merely delegated power to congress
delegation of enumerated power was over individuals not over states; therefore
states relinquished sover’ty viz individuals (supremacy) delegation did not include relinquishment of immunity
Nice theory; but is it law?
33
FMC v. S. Carolina (2002)Claim: SC violates Shipping ActForum: Federal Agency (“Art. I court”) Agencies often adjudicate claims pertaining to
their specialized jdx Agencies can also file suit on behalf of
claimant e.g., US v. Morrison; NLRB
Neither 11th Amd. nor SI apply to suits against states by US
“Dual Sovereignty” in agency adjudications 11th Amd. does not apply by its own terms No history of SI – no federal agencies
34
FMC v. S. Carolina (2002)No text, no historical practice, then what? Ask the framers
“To decide whether SI applies here we must examine FMC adjudications to determine whether they are the type of proceedings from which the Framers would have thought the States possessed immunity when they agreed to enter the Union.”
“we cannot imagine that they would have found it acceptable to compel a State to answer complaints of private parties before an administrative tribunal”
By extension “FMC administrative proceedings bear a remarkably
strong resemblance to civil litigation in federal cts.”
35
FMC v. S. Carolina (2002)Deconstructing FMC proceedings Step 1: private citizen asks US to sue
Breyer: 1st amendment right to do so Step 2: US may file suit in federal court
SI doesn’t apply to suits against states by the US Bottom line Actions that challenge a state’s “dignity” are
barred, not by anything actually in the consti-tution, but by what 5 members of the court think the framers would have preferred. These 5 judges are the “strict constructionists” Other judges are “activist”