Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 · Constitutional Law
federalismsovereign immunityEleventh Amendmentstate courtsstate sovereign immunityArticle Istate-court suitsnonconsenting States
Facts
In 1992, a group of Maine probation officers sued the State of Maine, their employer, alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeking compensation and liquidated damages. After their federal suit was dismissed in light of Seminole Tribe, they refiled the same claim in Maine's courts. Maine asserted sovereign immunity, and its courts dismissed the suit. The United States intervened to defend the FLSA provisions purporting to authorize private actions against States in their own courts.
Issue
Does Congress, acting under Article I, have power to subject a nonconsenting State to a private suit for damages in that State's own courts? If not, did Maine nevertheless consent to FLSA suits for overtime pay and liquidated damages?
Rule
The powers delegated to Congress under Article I do not include the power to subject nonconsenting States to private suits for damages in state courts. State sovereign immunity is a fundamental aspect of state sovereignty preserved by the Constitution's structure and history, except where surrendered in the plan of the Convention, by subsequent constitutional amendment, or by the State's consent.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Congress enacts the Fair Scheduling Act under the Commerce Clause, requiring public employers to provide premium pay for canceled shifts. The statute expressly authorizes any employee to sue a State for damages in that State’s own courts. Nora Kim, an employee of the State of Ohio, files such a damages action in an Ohio court, and Ohio objects that it has not consented to suit.
Should the Ohio court permit Nora’s damages action to proceed?
Explanation. The majority held that Article I does not give Congress power to subject a nonconsenting State to private suits for damages in the State’s own courts. The Supremacy Clause does not change that result, because only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are supreme, and a statute that abrogates this immunity under Article I is not valid for that purpose. The immunity is structural, not confined to the text of the Eleventh Amendment. (Derived from Alden v. Maine (1999).)