Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman
(1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars federal courts from ordering state officials to conform their conduct to state law, even when a state-law claim is brought into federal court under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.
Facts:
- Terri Lee Halderman was a resident of Pennhurst State School and Hospital, a Pennsylvania state-run institution for individuals with mental retardation.
- An investigation and subsequent litigation revealed that conditions at Pennhurst were unsanitary, dangerous, and inadequate for providing care or habilitation.
- Residents were frequently subjected to physical restraints, abuse from staff, and drugging for staff convenience rather than therapeutic purposes.
- The institution failed to provide minimally adequate habilitation, leading to the deterioration of residents' physical, intellectual, and emotional skills.
- Halderman and a class of residents alleged that these conditions, overseen by Pennsylvania state and county officials, violated their rights under federal statutes, the U.S. Constitution, and the Pennsylvania Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966 (MH/MR Act).
Procedural Posture:
- Terri Lee Halderman, representing a class of residents, sued Pennhurst officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of federal and state law.
- The District Court found violations on multiple federal and state grounds and issued a comprehensive injunction ordering the closure of Pennhurst and the transfer of residents to community facilities.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the District Court's order but based its decision solely on a federal statute, the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the Third Circuit, holding that the federal statute did not create enforceable rights, and remanded the case.
- On remand, the Third Circuit again affirmed the District Court's order, this time relying exclusively on Pennsylvania's Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966.
- The Third Circuit held that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar a federal court from ordering prospective injunctive relief against state officials on the basis of a pendent state-law claim.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari for a second time to review this judgment.
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 Eleventh Amendment prohibit a federal court from ordering state officials to conform their conduct to state law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from ordering state officials to conform their conduct to state law. The principle of sovereign immunity, embodied in the Eleventh Amendment, is a constitutional limitation on the federal judicial power. The exception established in Ex parte Young, which permits suits against state officials for violations of federal law, is a narrow one based on the need to vindicate the supremacy of federal law. This rationale is wholly absent when a plaintiff alleges that a state official has violated state law. A federal court instructing state officials on how to comply with their own state's laws constitutes a profound intrusion on state sovereignty that conflicts with the principles of federalism underlying the Eleventh Amendment. The judge-made doctrine of pendent jurisdiction cannot override this explicit constitutional limitation on federal court authority.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
No, the Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit a federal court from ordering state officials to conform their conduct to state law. This dissent reiterates the view that the Eleventh Amendment's text only bars federal suits against states by citizens of other states. The precedent of Hans v. Louisiana established only a non-constitutional, common-law immunity from suits by a state's own citizens. Even if such immunity applies, it does not extend to state officials whose conduct was explicitly prohibited by state law, as argued in Justice Stevens's dissent.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No, the Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit a federal court from ordering state officials to conform their conduct to state law. This holding is an unprecedented misapplication of sovereign immunity, as the doctrine has never been interpreted to protect officials who engage in conduct forbidden by their own sovereign. The theory of Ex parte Young is that an official acting unlawfully is 'stripped' of his official character and is not acting on behalf of the state. This principle applies equally to violations of state law and federal law, because a state cannot authorize its officials to violate its own laws. By violating state statutes, the officials were acting ultra vires, and a suit to enjoin them is not a suit against the state. The majority's decision repudiates over a century of precedent and undermines the principle of judicial restraint by forcing federal courts to decide constitutional questions even when adequate state-law grounds for a decision exist.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the scope of federal court jurisdiction over claims against state actors. By holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars pendent state-law claims for injunctive relief against state officials, the Court forces plaintiffs to bifurcate their litigation, bringing federal claims in federal court and state claims in state court. This creates inefficiencies and may deter valid lawsuits. The ruling strengthens the principle of state sovereign immunity, prioritizing federalism concerns over judicial economy and the ability of federal courts to provide comprehensive remedies for official misconduct. It also limits the application of the Siler doctrine, which encourages federal courts to avoid constitutional questions by deciding cases on available state-law grounds.
