Lexplug logoLexplug

Howlett v. Rose

Supreme Court of United States
496 U.S. 356 (1990)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Supremacy Clause, a state court of general jurisdiction cannot refuse to entertain a federal cause of action, such as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by invoking a state-law sovereign immunity defense that federal law does not recognize for the defendant in question.


Facts:

  • A high school student, petitioner Howlett, had his car searched on school premises by an assistant principal.
  • Following the search, school officials suspended Howlett from regular classes for five days.
  • Howlett alleged that the search and subsequent suspension violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
  • The school board, a respondent, was a local governmental entity in Pinellas County, Florida.

Procedural Posture:

  • Petitioner Howlett filed a complaint against the School Board of Pinellas County and three school officials in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Florida, a state trial court.
  • The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over the § 1983 claims against the school board due to Florida's statutory waiver of sovereign immunity not extending to such claims.
  • The Circuit Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
  • Howlett, as appellant, appealed to the District Court of Appeal for the Second District of Florida, an intermediate appellate court.
  • The District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that the availability of sovereign immunity in a state court § 1983 action is a matter of state law.
  • The Florida Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied review.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Supremacy Clause prohibit a state court from refusing to hear a federal § 1983 claim against a local school board based on a state-law sovereign immunity defense, when the court has jurisdiction to hear similar state-law tort claims against the same type of defendant?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stevens

Yes. The Supremacy Clause prohibits a state court from using a state-law sovereign immunity defense to decline jurisdiction over a federal § 1983 claim when that defense is not recognized by federal law and the court hears analogous state-law claims. The Constitution and federal laws are the supreme law of the land and are as binding on state courts as state laws. A state court of competent jurisdiction has a duty to exercise that jurisdiction over a federal claim unless it has a 'valid excuse,' which must be a neutral rule of judicial administration. A state's substantive disagreement with federal law, manifested as a sovereign immunity defense that singles out federal claims or is inconsistent with federal liability standards, is not a valid excuse. Since federal law, as interpreted in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, establishes that municipalities and school boards are 'persons' subject to suit under § 1983, a state cannot override this federal determination by creating its own immunity. Because the Florida court entertains similar tort actions against school boards under state law, its refusal to hear a § 1983 claim constitutes discrimination against a federal cause of action in violation of the Supremacy Clause.



Analysis:

This decision powerfully reaffirms the principle that state courts are not merely forums of convenience for federal claims but are constitutionally obligated to enforce federal law under the Supremacy Clause. It significantly limits the ability of states to use their own procedural or substantive rules, particularly sovereign immunity doctrines, to shield state actors from liability under federal civil rights statutes. The ruling ensures that the availability of a remedy for federal rights violations does not depend on whether the case is filed in state or federal court, thereby promoting uniformity and preventing states from creating 'islands of immunity' from federal law.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Howlett v. Rose (1990) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Howlett v. Rose