Congress cannot subject nonconsenting states to private damages suits in state courts

Law Reporter, Aug 1999

Congress cannot subject nonconsenting states to private damages suits in state courts.

Alden v. Maine, _ S. Ct. -, No. 98-436, 1999 WL 412617 (June 23,1999).

The U.S. Supreme Court held that Article I of the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to abrogate the states' immunity from private suits in state courts.

Here, probation officers sued their employer, the State of Maine, in federal court, alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. 201 etseq. The trial court dismissed, based on Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114 ( 1996), 39 ATLA L. Rep. 199 (June 1996)-which held that Congress cannot abrogate the states' sovereign immunity from suits brought in federal court-and the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Plaintiffs then filed the same action in state court. The trial court dismissed on the basis of sovereign immunity and the state high court affirmed.

Affirming, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the Constitution specifically recognizes the states as sovereign entities and immunity from private suits was considered central to sovereign dignity by those who designed and adopted our federal system. In light of the language and history of the Constitution, the Court concluded, state sovereign immunity exists today by constitutional design.

The Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that under the Supremacy Clause, federal legislation subjecting the states to suit overrides state sovereign immunity. The Supremacy Clause enshrines as the supreme law of the land only those federal laws that accord with the constitutional design, the Court said. Thus, federal law does not necessarily override state sovereign immunity. Instead, the Court reasoned, when a state asserts its immunity to a suit authorized by federal law, courts must determine whether the law is implemented in a manner consistent with the constitutional sovereignty of the states.

The Court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that Supreme Court precedent establishes that states must relinquish their immunity from private suits in their own courts. Distinguishing case law, the Court said that the precise issue presented here-whether Congress has authority under Article I to abrogate a state's immunity from suit in its own courts-is a question of first impression.

Answering that question in the negative, the Court found that the historical context of the Constitution, early congressional practice, and Supreme Court precedent indicate that states are immune from suit in their own courts.

Moreover, under the structure of the Constitution, federalism requires that Congress treat the states in a manner consistent with their status as sovereigns. The Court said private suits against nonconsenting states in their own courts would threaten the financial integrity of the states and impose substantial costs to the autonomy, decisionmaking ability, and sovereign capacity of the states. Thus, the Court concluded, Congress does not have the power to abrogate the states' immunity from private suit in their own courts.