Welch v. Texas Department of Highways & Public Transportation
483 U.S. 468, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2893, 97 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For Congress to abrogate a state's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, it must express its intention to do so in unmistakably clear language within the text of the statute itself.
Facts:
- The Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation, a state agency, operated a free public ferry between Point Bolivar and Galveston, Texas.
- Jean Welch was an employee of the State Highway Department.
- Welch worked on the ferry dock in Galveston.
- While performing her duties on the ferry dock, Welch sustained an injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Jean Welch filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation and the State of Texas.
- The District Court dismissed the action, ruling it was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
- Welch, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit initially reversed the District Court's dismissal.
- The Fifth Circuit then granted a rehearing en banc and, upon rehearing, affirmed the District Court's original judgment dismissing the case.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
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 bar a state employee from suing the State in federal court under the Jones Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes. The Eleventh Amendment bars a state employee from suing the state in federal court under the Jones Act because Congress has not expressed its intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity in unmistakably clear statutory language. The Court held that the Eleventh Amendment's principle of sovereign immunity prevents a citizen from suing their own state in federal court, a doctrine established in Hans v. Louisiana. While Congress can abrogate this immunity when legislating, it must make its intention to do so 'unmistakably clear in the language of the statute,' a standard set in Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon. The general language of the Jones Act, which applies to '[a]ny seaman,' is not a sufficiently clear and unequivocal statement to override the states' constitutional immunity. To the extent that Parden v. Terminal Railway, which found an implied waiver of immunity, is inconsistent with this clear statement requirement, it is overruled.
Concurring - Justice White
Agrees with the judgment. Justice White wrote separately to note that the Court's decision does not disturb the prior holding from Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n that the Jones Act substantively applies to seamen employed by the states, even if the Eleventh Amendment bars them from bringing the suit in federal court.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes. The suit is barred. Regardless of whether Hans v. Louisiana was correctly decided, it has been the assumed law for nearly a century. Congress enacted statutes like the Jones Act and the FELA with the background assumption that states were immune from suit by individuals. Therefore, these statutes should be interpreted as not applying to states, because Congress, operating under the assumption of state immunity, would not have intended them to create a cause of action against states. This statutory interpretation avoids the constitutional question and leads to the same result, including the overruling of Parden.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
No. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar this suit for four independent reasons. First, the Amendment's text applies only to suits 'in law or equity,' not to 'Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction' like this one. Second, the Amendment's plain language only bars suits against a state by citizens of another state, not by the state's own citizens, making Hans v. Louisiana wrongly decided. Third, the Amendment was only intended to limit federal jurisdiction in diversity cases, not federal-question or admiralty cases. Fourth, even if the Amendment were applicable, Congress validly abrogated state immunity in the FELA and Jones Act; the 'unmistakably clear language' requirement is a flawed, judicially created doctrine, and Parden was correctly decided.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthened the Eleventh Amendment's protection of state sovereign immunity by solidifying the 'unmistakably clear statement' rule as the definitive test for congressional abrogation. By overruling Parden v. Terminal Railway, the Court eliminated the theory of constructive waiver, under which a state could be deemed to have consented to suit by participating in a federally regulated commercial activity. This decision makes it substantially more difficult for Congress to subject states to suit in federal court, requiring explicit and unambiguous statutory language to do so and shifting the default rule heavily in favor of state immunity.
