# Miller v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 15, 2005 · 421 F.3d 342

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8409688

## Case

- **Full name:** Lucinda G. MILLER, Elaine King-Miller v. TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, Defendant-Appellant Theodore Johnson v. Louisiana Department of Education, Louisiana Department of Education State of Louisiana President of Louisiana State University System Board of Regents, Defendants-Appellants Lynn August v. Suzanne Mitchell Mae Nelson Ed Barras, Department of Social Services, for the State of Louisiana
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 15, 2005
- **Citations:** 421 F.3d 342; 2005 WL 1950352
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Jones
- **Judges:** Barksdale, Benavides, Clement, Davis, Demoss, Dennis, Garza, Higginbotham, Jolly, Jones, King, Prado, Smith, Stewart, Wiener
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8409688

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a state waives sovereign immunity from claims arising under section 504 by accepting the relevant federal financial assistance

## Opinion text

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge,
joined by E. GRADY JOLLY, JERRY E. SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS and EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judges,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
The en banc decision in Pace v. Bogalusa City School Board, 403 F.3d 272 (5th Cir.2005), held that a state voluntarily and knowingly waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, as a matter of federal law, from suits for damages in federal court by accepting federal Rehabilitation Act funds made subject to 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7. We adhere to the arguments in the dissent from that decision. We concur, however, in the court’s disposition of the states’ fallback arguments in these cases. 1
. Of course, the court’s conclusion here that state law properly authorized the state officials to execute contracts in no way undercuts the arguments in dissent from Pace that the federal law during the relevant time period (1996 through 1998) did not communicate to the states that they possessed Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity to waive. See Pace, 403 F.3d at 301 (Jones, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8409688. Public record. Not legal advice.