Lapides v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Ga.
152 L. Ed. 2d 806, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 3220, 535 U.S. 613 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit when it voluntarily removes a case from state court to federal court, at least with respect to state-law claims for which the state has already waived immunity in its own courts.
Facts:
- Paul Lapides was a professor employed by the Georgia state university system.
- Lapides alleged that university officials placed accusations of sexual harassment in his personnel files.
- He asserted claims against the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (Georgia) under both state law (Georgia Tort Claims Act) and federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1983).
- Under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, the State had explicitly waived its sovereign immunity from state-law tort suits in its own state courts.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Lapides filed a lawsuit against the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia and several university officials in a Georgia state court.
- All defendants, including the State of Georgia, jointly removed the case to the United States District Court.
- In the U.S. District Court, Georgia filed a motion to dismiss, asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- The District Court (trial court) denied Georgia's motion, ruling that the act of removal waived the State's immunity.
- Georgia (appellant) filed an interlocutory appeal of the immunity ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the State retained its immunity because state law did not clearly authorize its attorney general to waive it.
- Lapides (petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 a state waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court when it voluntarily removes a case from state to federal court?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes. A state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it voluntarily removes a case to federal court. It is anomalous and inconsistent for a State to both invoke federal jurisdiction by removing a case and then claim Eleventh Amendment immunity to deny that same jurisdiction. The Court's precedents, such as Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., establish that when a state voluntarily becomes a party to a cause and submits its rights for judicial determination, it cannot later invoke the Eleventh Amendment to escape the consequences of its voluntary act. Removal is a clear and voluntary invocation of a federal court's jurisdiction. The Court rejects Georgia's argument that its attorney general lacked the state-law authority to waive immunity, holding that the question of what constitutes a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity is a matter of federal law. This decision overrules Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Ind. to the extent that it is inconsistent with this principle.
Analysis:
This case establishes a clear, bright-line rule regarding waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity through litigation conduct. By holding that removal constitutes a waiver, the Court prevents states from gaining an unfair tactical advantage by selectively invoking and then disclaiming federal jurisdiction. The decision strengthens the principle that the determination of waiver is a question of federal law, preventing states from using their own statutes to negate the effects of their litigation actions in federal court. This ruling simplifies jurisdictional questions and promotes consistency in federal court proceedings involving state defendants.
