Howlett v. Rose

Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Federal Courts

496 U.S. 356 (1990)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtsstate immunity defenses to federal claims§ 1983Supremacy Clausestate-court jurisdictionstate courtssovereign immunityschool boards

Facts

Petitioner, a former high school student, sued the School Board of Pinellas County and three school officials in Florida circuit court. He alleged that an assistant principal illegally searched his car on school premises and that he was wrongfully suspended for five days, violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and similar state constitutional provisions. The school board argued that the Florida waiver-of-sovereign-immunity statute did not extend to § 1983 claims, though it did not contest the board's potential liability if the officials' actions violated the Constitution. Florida courts dismissed the § 1983 claim against the school board based on state sovereign immunity doctrine.

Issue

May a Florida court refuse to entertain a § 1983 claim against a school board by invoking a state-law sovereign immunity defense when such a defense would not be available in federal court against a governmental entity that is a "person" under § 1983? More broadly, may a state court of general jurisdiction exclude one category of federal claims while hearing analogous state-law claims against the same defendants?

Rule

The elements of and defenses to a federal cause of action under § 1983 are defined by federal law. A state court of competent jurisdiction may not deny enforcement of a federal right absent a valid excuse, and an excuse is not valid if it is inconsistent with federal law or discriminates against federal causes of action; thus a State may not confer sovereign immunity on governmental entities that are "persons" under § 1983 or refuse jurisdiction over such claims while entertaining analogous state-law actions.

🔒

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 sued the Lakeview Transit Authority in an Ohio court of general jurisdiction, alleging that transit supervisors acting under color of state law violated her First Amendment rights. Ohio courts routinely hear state tort suits against transit authorities and also hear § 1983 suits against individual officers, but a state rule provides that local public entities retain sovereign immunity from federal civil-rights claims unless the legislature expressly waives it.

Should the Ohio court dismiss Nina's § 1983 claim against the transit authority on that ground?

Explanation. Federal law defines the elements of and defenses to § 1983. If the defendant is a governmental entity that is a "person" under federal law, the State cannot add a sovereign-immunity defense of its own in state court. Because the Ohio court is otherwise competent and entertains analogous suits, refusing this federal claim would violate the Supremacy Clause.