Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
506 U.S. 139 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court order denying a state or state entity's claim to Eleventh Amendment immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because the amendment confers an immunity from suit, not merely a defense to liability, which is effectively lost if a case proceeds to trial.
Facts:
- The Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) is an autonomous government instrumentality of Puerto Rico.
- In 1985, PRASA entered into a consent decree with the federal Environmental Protection Agency to upgrade its wastewater treatment plants.
- PRASA then contracted with Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., a private engineering firm from Delaware, to assist with the upgrades.
- In 1990, PRASA withheld payments on the contract, alleging that Metcalf & Eddy had overcharged for its services.
- Metcalf & Eddy sued PRASA in federal court, alleging breach of contract and damage to its business reputation.
Procedural Posture:
- Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. sued the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
- PRASA filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, asserting immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment as an 'arm of the State.'
- The District Court, a trial court, denied PRASA's motion to dismiss.
- PRASA, as appellant, filed an immediate appeal of the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the trial court's order was not a 'final decision' subject to immediate appeal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on this issue.
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 district court order denying a state or state entity's claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity fall within the collateral order doctrine, making it immediately appealable before a final judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes, a district court order denying a claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity is an immediately appealable collateral order. The Eleventh Amendment confers an immunity from suit itself, not merely a defense to liability. This immunity, which protects a state's sovereign dignity, is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial. The denial of such immunity meets the three conditions of the collateral order doctrine established in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.: it (1) conclusively determines the disputed question of whether the state must be sued, (2) resolves an important constitutional issue separate from the merits of the underlying action, and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment, because the benefit of avoiding the trial process would have already been lost.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No, an order denying Eleventh Amendment immunity should not be immediately appealable. The Eleventh Amendment is a jurisdictional bar that determines where a state may be sued, not whether it is liable, unlike the qualified immunity for officials which protects them from the burdens of litigation itself. The rationale for allowing immediate appeals of qualified immunity claims—to prevent chilling official conduct—does not apply here. Sacrificing the important judicial interests served by the final judgment rule out of concern for a state's abstract 'dignitary interest' is an 'embarrassingly insufficient' justification for permitting piecemeal litigation.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the denial of an Eleventh Amendment immunity claim should be immediately appealable. Although the Court's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment is overly broad, the Amendment does provide immunity from suit in a narrow class of cases. Because the right not to be subjected to the judicial process is a significant interest where it applies, a district court's denial of that right is 'too important to be denied review' until after a final judgment. Therefore, regardless of the merits of the specific immunity claim, the order denying it warrants immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the nature of Eleventh Amendment immunity as a true immunity from the burdens of litigation, not just a defense against ultimate liability. By equating it with qualified and absolute immunity for the purposes of interlocutory appeal, the Court provides states with a potent procedural tool to halt federal lawsuits at the earliest stage. This strengthens state sovereignty by allowing for immediate appellate review of immunity denials, thereby protecting states from the costs and 'indignity' of the federal trial process itself and ensuring uniformity on this issue across federal circuits.
Unlock the full brief for Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.