Constitutional Law Spring 2008 Prof. Fischer by hJqV00Q4

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 19

									    Constitutional Law
      Spring 2008
      Prof. Fischer
Class 16: Limits on Congressional
 Power to Regulate – Sovereign
            Immunity
           Feb 13, 2008
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ.
Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank
           (1999) [C p. 231]
                • Patent infringement
                  action
                • Involved constitutionality
                  of abrogation provisions
                  in Patent Remedy Act
                • 5-4
                • Majority opinion written
                  by Rehnquist joined by
                  O’Connor, Scalia,
                  Kennedy, Thomas
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ.
Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank
           (1999) [C p. 231]
                • Dissenting opinion of
                  Stevens, joined by
                  Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
                • Unfair decision “even if
                  full respect is giving to the
                  Court’s recent cases.”
                • Criticizes Court’s
                  “aggressive sovereign
                  immunity jurisprudence.”
Kimel v. Florida Board of
Regents (2000) [C p. 235]
             • Consolidated lawsuit vs. state
               entities brought under Age
               Discrimination in Employment
               Act of 1967 by, inter alia,
               various professors (like the
               one on the left, Prof. Narz)
               (“ADEA”)
             • State successfully challenged
               abrogation provisions in ADEA
               as exceeding congressional
               power under § 5 of
               Amendment XIV
             • Majority opinion written by
               O’Connor (joined by Rehnquist
               and Scalia and, in part, by
               Kennedy and Thomas)
             • Thomas (joined by Kennedy)
               dissents on the issue of
               whether Congress has shown
               a clear intent to abrogate
Kimel v. Florida Board of
Regents (2000)[C p. 235]
             • Dissent (in part) of Justice
               Stevens, joined by Souter,
               Breyer, and Ginsburg (they all
               concurred as to whether
               Congress had shown a clear
               intent to abrogate)
             • Eleventh Amendment is only a
               diversity limit
             • Union Gas correctly decided;
               Seminole wrong
             • Criticical of judicial activism
             • Does not think the judicial
               branch should be the guardian
               of federalism
 Board of Trustees, University of
Alabama v. Garrett (2001) [C p. 239]
                  • Lawsuit for money damages
                    for employment discrimination
                    brought by employees of U. of
                    Alabama under Americans
                    with Disabilities Act
                  • Issue: did congress validly
                    abrogate state sovereign
                    immunity in Title I of the ADA?
                  • Majority opinion by Rehnquist
                    (joined by O’Connor, Scalia,
                    Kennedy, Thomas)
                  • No pattern of unconstitutional
                    violation
                  • Even if there were, ADA fails
                    Boerne congruence and
                    proportionality requirement
 Board of Trustees, University of
Alabama v. Garrett (2001) [C p. 239]
                  • Dissent by Breyer, joined
                    by Stevens, Souter,
                    Ginsburg
                  • Argues for judicial
                    deference to the rational
                    conclusion by congress
                    that the remedy was an
                    appropriate way to
                    enforce equal protection
                  • Ample evidence of
                    discriminatory treatment
                    of disabled by state and
                    local government
Nevada Dep’t of Human Resources
    v. Hibbs (2003) [C p. 246]
                • State employees sued for
                  money damages, injunctive,
                  and declaratory relief for
                  State’s failure to comply with
                  FMLA
                • Issue: could congress
                  abrogate state sovereign
                  immunity under § 5 of
                  Amendment XIV?
                • Majority opinion by Rehnquist,
                  joined by O’Connor, Ginsburg,
                  Souter, Breyer
                • Stevens and Souter (joined by
                  Ginsburg and Breyer)
                  concurred
Nevada Dep’t of Human Resources
    v. Hibbs (2003) [C p. 246]
                • Dissent of Kennedy, joined by
                  Scalia and Thomas
                • No pattern of unlawful conduct
                  shown in evidence that would
                  be enough to justify abrogation
                  of sovereign immunity
                • Even if gender is subject to
                  heightened scrutiny, that
                  doesn’t take away need to
                  identify history and pattern of
                  discrimination
Nevada Dep’t of Human Resources
    v. Hibbs (2003) [C p. 246]
                • Dissent of Scalia
Tennessee v. Lane (2004) [C p.
            251]
               • Case brought by disabled
                 Tennessee residents
                 alleging that TN violated
                 Title II of ADA by failing to
                 make courthouses
                 accessible to those who
                 use wheelchairs
               • Did Congress validly
                 abrogate state sovereign
                 immunity?
               • Majority opinion by
                 Stevens, joined by
                 O’Connor, Souter,
                 Ginsburg, Breyer
Tennessee v. Lane (2004) [C p.
            251]
               • Concurrence of
                 Ginsburg, joined by
                 Souter and Breyer
Tennessee v. Lane (2004) [C p.
            251]
               • Dissent of Rehnquist,
                 joined by Kennedy
                 and Thomas
Tennessee v. Lane (2004) [C p.
            251]
               • Dissent of Scalia
               • Proposes new test to
                 replace “congruence
                 and proportionality”
                 test except in cases
                 of race discrimination
                 (McCulloch standard)
United States v. Georgia (2006)
          [Supp. 44]
                • Unanimous
                • Scalia wrote majority
                  opinion
Alden v. Maine (1999) [C p. 258]
                • Majority opinion by
                  Justice Kennedy
                  (joined by Rehnquist,
                  Scalia, Thomas,
                  O’Connor]
                • Could Congress
                  abrogate state
                  sovereign immunity
                  pursuant to Art. I
                  powers in state
                  courts?
Alden v. Maine (1999) [C p. 258]
                • Dissent by Souter
                  (joined by Ginsburg,
                  Breyer, Stevens)
Federal Maritime Commission v. South
Carolina State Port Authority (2002) [C
                p. 268]
                    • Could nonconsenting
                      states be sued in
                      federal agency
                      proceedings?
                    • Majority opinion
                      written by Thomas
                      (joined by Rehnquist,
                      O’Connor, Kennedy,
                      Scalia)
Federal Maritime Commission v. South
Carolina State Port Authority (2002) [C
                p. 268]
                    • Dissenting opinion
                      written by Breyer,
                      joined by Stevens,
                      Souter, Ginsburg

								
To top