Nevada Dept of Human Res. v. Hibbs

Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 · Constitutional Law

538 U.S. 721 (2003)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawEleventh AmendmentSection 5 of the Fourteenth AmendmentFamily and Medical Leave Actstate sovereign immunityabrogationSection 5 enforcement powercongruence and proportionality

Facts

William Hibbs worked for Nevada's Department of Human Resources and sought FMLA leave to care for his wife while she recovered from a car accident and neck surgery. The Department granted him the full 12 weeks of FMLA leave and allowed intermittent use between May and December 1997, but later informed him he had exhausted that leave and had to return by a specified date. He did not return and was terminated. Hibbs then sued under 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C), seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief.

Issue

May Congress, through the FMLA's family-care provision, validly abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity so that state employees may recover money damages against a State in federal court? More specifically, was Congress acting within its § 5 Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power when it subjected States to private suits for violations of § 2612(a)(1)(C)?

Rule

Congress may abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity if it makes its intention to do so unmistakably clear in the statute and acts pursuant to a valid exercise of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valid § 5 legislation may prohibit some facially constitutional conduct to deter or remedy constitutional violations, but it must exhibit congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end, rather than substantively redefining constitutional rights.

🔒

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.

Congress enacts the Family Care Equality Act, which gives eligible employees up to 10 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a seriously ill parent or spouse. The statute creates a private action for damages against "any employer, including any public agency," and defines public agency to include "the government of a State and any of its departments." A state employee in Columbus sues the Ohio Department of Public Services for damages in federal court after being denied leave.

Ohio argues the suit is barred by sovereign immunity because Congress did not speak clearly enough. What is the strongest response?

Explanation. Congress may abrogate state sovereign immunity only if it states that intention unmistakably clearly in the statutory text and acts under a valid § 5 power. Language authorizing suits against any employer, including a public agency, coupled with a definition expressly including the State and its agencies, satisfies the clear-statement requirement. Article I commerce power alone is not enough.