Lapides v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsEleventh AmendmentState sovereign immunityRemovalEleventh Amendmentsovereign immunityremovalwaiver

Facts

After a student accused professor Paul Lapides of sexual harassment, Kennesaw State University investigated and found no corroborating evidence. Lapides later alleged that fellow faculty members fabricated defamatory letters about him, disseminated them among faculty, and placed them in his personnel file, harming his professional opportunities. He sued the Board and individual defendants in Georgia state court under § 1983 and the Georgia Tort Claims Act. The Georgia Attorney General removed the case to federal court based on the federal questions and simultaneously asserted the Board's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Issue

Does a state's removal of a case from state court to federal court, by itself, constitute a waiver of the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity? More specifically, did the Georgia Attorney General waive Georgia's immunity by removing this action?

Rule

A state does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity merely by removing a case to federal court. Waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity must be express or overwhelmingly implied from authorized state law, and a state official may waive that immunity only if the state's constitution, statutes, or decisions explicitly authorize the official to do so; the narrow bankruptcy-related waiver-by-conduct cases do not extend to ordinary removal.

🔒

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.

Nadia Flores sued the Ohio Department of Water Safety in an Ohio state court, alleging a federal due process claim and a state-law negligence claim. The Ohio Attorney General removed the case to federal court and immediately moved to dismiss the federal claim on Eleventh Amendment grounds; Ohio law authorizes the attorney general to represent state agencies in civil litigation but says nothing about waiving immunity.

Under the majority rule of this case, what is the strongest argument about the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity?

Explanation. The majority held that removal by a state does not itself waive Eleventh Amendment immunity. A state official may waive that immunity only if state law explicitly authorizes the official to do so, and a general duty to represent the state in civil actions is not enough. (Derived from Lapides v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (n.d.).)