Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon

Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsEleventh AmendmentState Sovereign ImmunityCongressional AbrogationWaiverEleventh Amendmentstate sovereign immunityRehabilitation Act

Facts

Douglas James Scanlon, who had diabetes mellitus and no sight in one eye, alleged that Atascadero State Hospital denied him employment as a graduate student assistant recreational therapist solely because of his physical handicaps. He sued the hospital and the California Department of Mental Health in federal court, seeking compensatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and state law. The defendants argued that the Eleventh Amendment barred the suit. California had received federal financial assistance under the Rehabilitation Act, and respondent argued that this either abrogated or waived immunity.

Issue

May a private litigant sue a State or state agency in federal court for retroactive monetary relief under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, either because Congress abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity, because the State waived immunity under state law, or because the State consented by accepting federal funds under the Act?

Rule

A State is subject to suit in federal court notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment only if it unequivocally waives its immunity or if Congress, acting with authority to do so, expresses an unmistakably clear intent in the statutory language itself to abrogate that immunity. A general authorization to sue "any recipient of Federal assistance" is insufficient to abrogate state immunity, and acceptance of federal funds does not amount to consent to federal-court suit absent a clear condition requiring such waiver.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel sues the Oregon Department of Public Health in federal district court in Portland for money damages under a federal antidiscrimination statute. She argues Oregon waived immunity because the Oregon Constitution provides, "Claims against the State may be brought in such courts and in such manner as the legislature directs," and Oregon statutes authorize tort and contract suits against the State in Oregon courts.

Is the suit barred by the Eleventh Amendment?

Explanation. The suit is barred. The majority required a stringent showing for waiver: a State's general waiver of sovereign immunity is not enough to waive Eleventh Amendment immunity. Because a State's immunity concerns not only whether it may be sued, but where, the waiver must specifically indicate the State's intention to subject itself to suit in federal court.