No, you cannot sue a state for money in these cases. The Constitution gives states a special protection called 'sovereign immunity,' which is like a shield that keeps them from getting sued. Congress can only take this shield away if it has strong proof that states have a history of actually breaking the Constitution. For disability discrimination, the Constitution only says states can't be completely irrational. Congress didn't show enough evidence that states were widely acting irrationally. Also, the ADA's rules, like making 'reasonable accommodations,' ask states to do much more than the Constitution requires, so the law is overkill.

I agree with the majority. Just because society is becoming more aware of prejudice doesn't mean states themselves were violating the Constitution. To let people sue a state for money, Congress needs to prove the state government itself was breaking constitutional rules on purpose. If this was a huge problem, there would be tons of court cases about it, and there aren't. A state not passing the best possible laws isn't the same as it violating the Constitution.

Yes, people should be able to sue the state. The Court is being way too tough on Congress. Congress looked at hundreds of stories showing that states were treating disabled people unfairly. That's more than enough reason for Congress to pass this law. The Constitution gives Congress the power to enforce equal protection, and requiring employers to make 'reasonable' changes is a perfectly sensible way to stop discrimination. The Court shouldn't be second-guessing Congress's work like this.

No, people can't sue states for money under the ADA. The ADA asks for more than the Constitution requires, and Congress didn't show that states were unfairly treating disabled people in jobs enough to allow these kinds of lawsuits.

Justice Kennedy agrees with the main decision. He says that just because some people are prejudiced against the disabled doesn't mean the states are breaking the Constitution's rules. Congress didn't show enough proof that states were doing something wrong to disabled workers.

Justice Breyer disagrees. He thinks Congress had good reasons to make the ADA the way it did to stop states from treating disabled workers unfairly. He says the Court's decision makes it too hard for Congress to protect people's rights.

"The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting States may not be sued by private individuals in federal court."

—the Supreme Court held that "the legislative record of the ADA... simply fails to show that Congress did in fact identify a pattern of irrational state discrimination in employment against the disabled."

The Supreme Court has determined that Congress failed to make the necessary findings under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the states' sovereign immunity, and the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in Title I of the ADA was invalid.

—holding invalid the attempted abrogation by Congress of the States' Eleventh Amendment right with respect to actions for damages under Title I of the ADA

Under the Supreme Court's Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence, "Congress may abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it both unequivocally intends to do so and act [s] pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority."

Under a rational basis review, the party challenging a classification under the Equal Protection Clause normally has the burden "to negative `any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.'"

The United States Supreme Court has held that suits brought by State employees [4] seeking money damages against a State for violations of Title I of the ADA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Therefore, Section 32 makes "no sense in light of how [it] treat [s] other groups similarly situated in relevant respects," and consequently, "encouraging stable environments for procreating" does not provide a rational basis for Section 32.

Congress may only abrogate a state's sovereign immunity pursuant to section five of Fourteenth Amendment.

We are aware that the US Supreme Court held, during the pendency of this appeal, that suits in federal court by state employees by reason of the State's failure to comply with title I of the ADA are barred by US Const. amend. XI.

No. Title I of the ADA does not validly abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits for money damages. While Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity in the ADA, it did not act pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. To be a valid exercise of Section 5 power, legislation must exhibit 'congruence and proportionality' between the constitutional injury to be remedied and the means adopted. First, the constitutional right at issue under the Equal Protection Clause only subjects disability classifications to rational-basis review, meaning states are not constitutionally required to make special accommodations for the disabled, only to act rationally. Second, the legislative record of the ADA fails to show that Congress identified a history and pattern of irrational, and thus unconstitutional, state discrimination in employment against the disabled. The few anecdotal incidents presented fall far short of establishing a required pattern. Third, the rights and remedies created by the ADA are not congruent and proportional to any identified constitutional harm, as the ADA's reasonable accommodation requirement and disparate impact standard far exceed the constitutional minimum of rational-basis review. To uphold the Act's application would allow Congress to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence established in Cleburne.

No. An equal protection violation by the states has not been shown in this case. The predicate for subjecting an unconsenting state to private suits for money damages must be a federal statute enacted upon the documentation of a pattern of constitutional violations committed by the state in its official capacity. If states had been pervasively transgressing the Fourteenth Amendment, one would expect to find extensive litigation and judicial decisions documenting these violations, but such confirming judicial documentation does not exist. A new societal awareness and commitment to better treatment for the disabled does not, by itself, establish that a state's past policies or failures to act constituted purposeful constitutional violations. Therefore, the necessary predicate for abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity has not been established.

Yes. Congress reasonably could have concluded that the ADA's remedy is an appropriate way to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. The majority holds Congress to an improperly strict, judicially-created evidentiary standard. Congress compiled a vast legislative record, including hundreds of specific examples of discrimination by state governments, which was sufficient to find a widespread problem of unconstitutional discrimination. A legislature is not a court and can draw general conclusions from anecdotal evidence without the same burden of proof. Furthermore, the ADA's 'reasonable accommodation' requirement is a proportional and congruent remedy. Section 5 grants Congress the power to require more than the constitutional minimum, and the remedy rationally 'tends to enforce' the equal protection guarantee. By imposing its own restrictive review, the Court improperly invades a power the Constitution assigns to Congress and saps Section 5 of its independent force.

No, the Eleventh Amendment bars such suits because Congress did not validly abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity when enacting Title I of the ADA. The ADA's requirements exceed what is constitutionally required and are not congruent and proportional to any identified pattern of unconstitutional discrimination by the States against the disabled. The legislative record of the ADA fails to show that Congress identified a pattern of irrational state discrimination in employment against the disabled.

Justice Kennedy concurs with the majority opinion, emphasizing the distinction between societal prejudice and unconstitutional state action. There is insufficient evidence of a pattern of unconstitutional discrimination by the States to justify the ADA's abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Congress may abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it both unequivocally intends to do so and acts pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority, which was not sufficiently demonstrated in this case.

Justice Breyer dissents, arguing that Congress had sufficient evidence of unconstitutional discrimination by the States against the disabled to enact Title I of the ADA under its Section 5 enforcement power of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority's decision unduly restricts Congress' power to remedy and prevent unconstitutional discrimination. The Court should have applied a rational basis review, where the party challenging a classification under the Equal Protection Clause normally has the burden to negate any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.

Board of Trustees v. Garrett

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot