Springboards v. McAllen Indep School

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 8, 2023

No. 21-40333 Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Springboards to Education, Incorporated,

Plaintiff—Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

versus

McAllen Independent School District,

Defendant—Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

No. 21-40334

Springboards to Education, Incorporated,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

IDEA Public Schools,

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CV-523

USDC No. 7:16-CV-617

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

Before Smith, Duncan, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Stuart Kyle Duncan, Circuit Judge:

Springboards for Education (“Springboards”) brought trademark

infringement claims against McAllen Independent School District

(“MISD”), a public school district in Texas, and IDEA Public Schools

(“IDEA”), a nonprofit organization operating charter schools in Texas. The

district court dismissed the suit against IDEA, concluding it was an arm of

the state and therefore shared Texas’s sovereign immunity. As for MISD,

the court found that it did not have sovereign immunity but ultimately

granted summary judgment in MISD’s favor. Agreeing that MISD does not

have sovereign immunity and that it was entitled to summary judgment on

the merits, we affirm the district court’s judgment for MISD. Although we

disagree with the district court’s conclusion that IDEA has sovereign

immunity, we affirm the judgment for IDEA on alternate grounds.

I.

Springboards is a Texas corporation that sells educational materials

designed to encourage schoolchildren to read. At issue in this case is

Springboards’ Read a Million Words Campaign (“Campaign”), which urges

students to read one million words over the course of the schoolyear.

Participating schools receive a customized kit with Springboards’

educational materials, and students who successfully meet their reading goals

become Millionaire Readers and are inducted, with much fanfare, into the

Millionaire’s Reading Club. Springboards has registered several trademarks

in connection with the Campaign, including “Read a Million Words,”

“Million Dollar Reader,” and “Millionaire Reader.”

Springboards has been vigilant in combatting what it perceives as

infringement of its trademarks by local schools that operate their own

monetary-themed reading programs. Our court has affirmed dismissals of

2

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

Springboards’ trademark claims against two Texas school districts. 1 This

appeal concerns similar claims against MISD and IDEA 2 under the Lanham

Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et. seq., alleging trademark infringement, trademark

counterfeiting, and false designation of origins. 3 MISD is a public school

district in Hidalgo County, Texas, and IDEA is a nonprofit corporation that

runs public charter schools throughout Texas.

Springboards alleges that MISD infringed Springboards’ trademarks

through its reading program. Many MISD schools track the number of words

students read each year and present students who read a million words with

faux million-dollar bills bearing the phrase “Million Dollar Reader.” Various

MISD schools have posts on their websites or social media celebrating their

“Millionaire Reader[s], “Millionaires,” and referring to a “millionaire

club.”

Springboards alleges similar infringement by IDEA through its

reading program. IDEA schools present awards to students who achieve

“IDEA Millionaire Reader status” and host “IDEA Millionaire Reader’s

Celebration[s]” in recognition of their accomplishment. IDEA schools

sometimes share information about these events and the millionaire reading

program online.

In the district court, both MISD and IDEA moved to dismiss for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing they were arms of the state and thus

1

Springboards to Educ., Inc. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 912 F.3d 805 (5th Cir.

2019), as revised (Feb. 14, 2019) (affirming dismissal of Lanham Act claims against a public

school district); Springboards to Educ., Inc. v. Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Indep. Sch. Dist., 33

F.4th 747 (5th Cir. 2022) (same).

2

We address the two suits together, as did the district court.

3

Springboards also brought claims against MISD and IDEA for trademark dilution

under the Lanham Act, the dismissals of which it does not appeal.

3

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

entitled to sovereign immunity. Both also moved for summary judgment. The

district court disposed of these motions at the same time. It ruled that only

IDEA enjoyed sovereign immunity and, accordingly, granted IDEA’s motion

to dismiss and denied MISD’s. However, the court granted MISD summary

judgment, concluding Springboards could not establish MISD’s program was

likely to cause confusion with respect to Springboards’ trademarks.

Springboards now appeals the summary judgment in favor of MISD,

while MISD cross-appeals its denial of sovereign immunity. Springboards

also appeals the dismissal of its claims against IDEA on the basis of sovereign

immunity.

II.

We review both the district court’s determination of sovereign

immunity and its summary judgment de novo. Richardson v. Flores, 28 F.4th

649, 653 (5th Cir. 2022); All. for Good Gov’t v. Coal. for Better Gov’t, 901 F.3d

498, 504 (5th Cir. 2018). We may affirm a judgment on grounds other than

those relied upon by the district court if the record contains an adequate and

independent basis for that result. Lauren C. by & through Tracey K. v.

Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 904 F.3d 363, 374 (5th Cir. 2018); Chauvin v.

Tandy Corp., 984 F.2d 695, 697 (5th Cir. 1993).

III.

We begin with the threshold jurisdictional issue of whether IDEA and

MISD enjoy sovereign immunity. Vogt v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Orleans Levee

Dist., 294 F.3d 684, 688 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Federal court jurisdiction is

limited by the Eleventh Amendment and the principle of sovereign immunity

that it embodies.”). The Eleventh Amendment recognizes the background

constitutional principle that states, as separate sovereigns, are inherently

immune from suit without their consent. Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson

Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 39–40 (1994); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Fla., 517 U.S. 44,

4

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

54 (1996); see also The Federalist No. 81, at 487 (Alexander Hamilton)

(Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (“It is inherent in the nature of [a State’s]

sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its

consent.”). That immunity extends to so-called arms of the state, entities

which are effectively the state itself because “the state is the real, substantial

party in interest” to the lawsuit. Hudson v. City of New Orleans, 174 F.3d 677,

681 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Pendergrass v. Greater New Orleans Expressway

Comm’n, 144 F.3d 342, 344 (5th Cir. 1998)); see also Mt. Healthy City Sch.

Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977).

In determining whether an entity is an arm of the state, we balance the

so-called “Clark factors,” which our court first articulated decades ago in

Clark v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1986). Those factors are:

(1) whether state statutes and case law view the entity as an arm of the state;

(2) the source of the entity’s funding; (3) the entity’s degree of local

autonomy; (4) whether the entity is concerned primarily with local, as

opposed to statewide, problems; (5) whether the entity has the authority to

sue and be sued in its own name; and (6) whether it has the right to hold and

use property. Clark, 798 F.2d at 744–45. The second factor carries the most

weight, while factors five and six are of lesser importance. Hudson, 174 F.3d

at 682; Black v. N. Panola Sch. Dist., 461 F.3d 584, 596 (5th Cir. 2006). But

“no single factor” is dispositive; courts consider the factors “as a whole.”

Clark, 798 F.2d at 745. The burden of proof rests with the entity asserting

immunity. Skelton v. Camp, 234 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir. 2000).

The Clark factors have not escaped criticism. Recently, they were

fairly described as “hav[ing] all the precision of a blunderbuss.” Cutrer v.

Tarrant Cnty. Loc. Workforce Dev. Bd., 943 F.3d 265, 270 (5th Cir. 2019), as

revised (Nov. 25, 2019). “No factor or combination of [the factors] is

necessary. None is sufficient. And Clark says nothing about how to ‘balance’

them.” Ibid. That imprecision is on display here. Making a good faith attempt

5

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

to apply the factors, the district court concluded a public school district was

not an arm of the state, but a public charter school was. That is puzzling, to

put it mildly. See, e.g., Black, 461 F.3d at 596 (“Generally, school boards and

districts are not arms of the state shielded by Eleventh Amendment

immunity.”). As discussed below, our application of the factors differs

meaningfully from the district court’s, particularly as to IDEA.

A.

We begin with IDEA. Examining each Clark factor, we conclude that,

contrary to the district court’s ruling, IDEA is not an arm of the state.

1.

For the first Clark factor, we examine how the state perceives the

entity through its constitution, laws, and other official pronouncements.

Hudson, 174 F.3d at 683. IDEA points out that Texas considers public charter

schools as arms of the state and directs us to the Texas Supreme Court’s

decision in El Paso Educ. Initiative, Inc. v. Amex Props., LLC, 602 S.W.3d 521

(Tex. 2020). That case held that because “open-enrollment charter schools

act as an arm of the State government,” they receive state sovereign

immunity. Id. at 529–30. See also HWY 3 MHP, LLC v. Elec. Reliability

Council of Texas, 462 S.W.3d 204, 210 (Tex. App. 2015) (noting that “open-

enrollment charter schools should be treated as governmental units”). While

the Texas courts’ decisions on state sovereign immunity are not dispositive

as to federal sovereign immunity, we agree with IDEA that this factor weighs

in favor of immunity. Texas law “reflects the state’s view that suing [IDEA]

is equivalent to suing the state of Texas itself.” Perez v. Region 20 Educ. Serv.

Ctr., 307 F.3d 318, 328 (5th Cir. 2002).

6

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

2.

Factor two, the funding inquiry, is more complex and ends up cutting

against immunity. The inquiry has two parts. “[F]irst and most

importantly,” we examine “the state’s liability in the event there is a

judgment against the defendant, and second, [we consider] the state[’s]

liability for the defendant’s general debts and obligations.” Vogt, 294 F.3d at

693 (quoting Hudson, 174 F.3d at 687). Whether the state would be liable for

a judgment depends primarily on whether it indemnifies the defendant, the

degree that it funds the defendant, and the extent that it restricts the

defendant’s use of state-provided funds. See Perez, 307 F.3d at 328; Hudson,

174 F.3d at 686–88. Factor two carries the most weight because one of the

Eleventh Amendment’s central purposes is to protect state treasuries from

involuntary liability. Jacintoport Corp. v. Greater Baton Rouge Port Comm'n,

762 F.2d 435, 440–41 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Hess, 513 U.S. at 48 (noting with

approval that most circuits privilege this factor).

The district court found, and IDEA continues to argue, that the first

part of the funding inquiry favors immunity because “94 percent of [IDEA’s]

funding comes from State and federal sources.” We disagree. For several

reasons, a hypothetical judgment against IDEA would likely not be paid with

state funds. To begin with, IDEA’s argument improperly aggregates state

and federal funds. See Cutrer, 943 F.3d at 271 (denying immunity where an

entity claimed to depend on public funds but failed to demonstrate its

reliance on “state funds”) (emphasis in original). The Eleventh Amendment

is concerned only about the potential impact on the state treasury. See

Pendergrass, 144 F.3d at 345 (explaining that the relevant rationale is “the

protection of state treasuries”). Whether federal money is at stake is

irrelevant.

7

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

Disaggregating the sources of IDEA’s funding shows that any risk of

a judgment’s being paid from state funds is remote. IDEA draws its 94%

figure from IDEA’s 2016–2018 financial reports. Those show that roughly a

quarter of IDEA’s annual funding comes from local and federal sources.

Those amounts run into the tens of millions. In 2018 alone, IDEA took in

about $27 million from local sources and $71 million from the federal

government, including almost $17 million given directly to IDEA without any

state processing. This cuts sharply against IDEA’s immunity, because the

funding inquiry “concerns whether the state is ‘directly responsible for a

judgment’ or ‘indemnifies the defendant.’” Stratta v. Roe, 961 F.3d 340, 354

(5th Cir. 2020) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Barron v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 381

F.3d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 2004) (cleaned up)). IDEA’s ample funding from

local and federal sources belies the assertion that Texas would be “directly

responsible for a judgment.” 4 And IDEA points to no evidence that Texas is

obligated to indemnify it. See Vogt, 294 F.3d at 693 (weighing against

immunity the fact that “the state has no duty to pay a judgment” against the

entity).

Moreover, IDEA concedes that the “overwhelming majority” of its

state funding is “earmarked”—meaning it comes with state-imposed

restrictions on how the funds may be spent. Those restrictions also cut

against immunity. Whether “funding is earmarked for any particular

purpose” is relevant “to determine whether a judgment likely would be paid

with state funds.” Perez, 307 F.3d at 328. When state funds are set aside for

specific uses, that weighs against immunity because those funds are

necessarily unavailable to satisfy legal liabilities. Hudson, 174 F.3d at 688

4

To be clear, as in past cases, “we do not draw a bright-line rule as to the amount

of [non-state] funding necessary to hold an entity financially independent from the state.”

Daniel v. Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr., 960 F.3d 253, 258 (5th Cir. 2020).

8

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

(“Importantly, either all or substantially all of the funds from the State are

earmarked for specific purposes . . . . These funds cannot be used to pay a . . .

judgment.”); Vogt, 294 F.3d at 694 (“Because the state funds are already

earmarked for other purposes, the state monies cannot be used to pay a

judgment against [the entity].”); Pendergrass, 144 F.3d at 345–46. IDEA

cannot concede that the bulk of its state funds is restricted while at the same

time arguing it would have to use those same funds to pay a judgment. 5

We turn to the second (and less important) part of factor two: whether

Texas may be indirectly liable because it is “responsible for the defendant’s

general debts and obligations.” Hudson, 174 F.3d at 688. Unlike its traditional

public school counterparts, IDEA cannot generate its own revenue by levying

taxes. Tex. Educ. Code § 12.102(4). It must instead issue bonds, which

Texas guarantees. Id. § 45.05219; 19 Tex. Admin. Code §33.67. IDEA’s

inability to independently raise revenue counsels in favor of immunity. Perez,

307 F.3d at 329. And the fact that Texas guarantees its bonds is also relevant.

Williams v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 242 F.3d 315, 320 (5th Cir. 2001).

However, these indirect indicators do not ultimately move the needle. We

have suggested that “where the state’s only liability was in guaranteeing a

state authority’s notes and bonds,” this “‘ancillary effect’ on the state

treasury does not confer immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.”

Jacintoport, 762 F.2d at 441 (citing Blake v. Kline, 612 F.2d 718, 726 (3d Cir.

1979)). Here, in light of the reasons discussed above, “[a]ny influence upon

the state treasury by . . . a judgment would be too indirect and remote to

5

Nor can IDEA argue that a judgment against it might lead Texas to provide

additional unrestricted funds to satisfy the liability. We have rejected the argument that the

“remote possibility that the state will elect to pay a judgment” constitutes a threat to the

state treasury. Hudson, 174 F.3d at 689. Nor does IDEA provide any evidence that Texas

regularly provides money to satisfy liabilities, despite having no obligation to do so. Cf.

Vogt, 294 F.3d at 693.

9

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

characterize it as a potential liability of the state treasury or to make the state

the real, substantial party in interest.” Pendergrass, 144 F.3d at 346. So, to

sum up, factor two weighs against immunity because Texas is unlikely to have

to pay for an adverse judgment and its indirect responsibility is limited to its

“ancillary” backing of IDEA’s bonds.

3.

Factor three considers whether the entity is autonomous or controlled

by the state. We look to the degree of independence enjoyed by the entity and

its managers, as well as how its managers are appointed. Vogt, 294 F.3d at

694; Stratta, 961 F.3d at 354. “Frequent and broad oversight by the state

suggests that the entity is an arm of the state.” Perez, 307 F.3d at 330. Texas

pervasively regulates charter entities like IDEA. Texas courts have

recognized that a charter school’s charter is “entirely contingent on State

discretion.” Texas Educ. Agency v. Am. YouthWorks, Inc., 496 S.W.3d 244,

262 (Tex. App. 2016). Texas may unilaterally withhold funding or suspend

the charter school’s authority to operate if the school violates its charter or

state law. Tex. Educ. Code § 12.1162(b). Texas may even “reconstitute”

the governing body of a charter school and appoint new members to the

governing body. Id. § 12.115(a), (d). And charter schools must satisfy Texas’s

annual performance evaluations by meeting state-mandated benchmarks. Id.

§ 12.1181. Provisions like these show that Texas has broad oversight and

control over IDEA, which counsels in favor of immunity.

4.

The fourth factor turns on “whether the entity acts for the benefit and

welfare of the state as a whole or for the special advantage of local

inhabitants.” Pendergrass, 144 F.3d at 347. The district court found that

IDEA “operates campuses statewide and with a statewide purpose of

providing public education,” and IDEA continues to press that argument

10

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

here, contending “education is a statewide concern.” But IDEA sets the

inquiry at too high a level of generality. We have already rejected this

argument in the context of a levee board’s arguing that it combatted the

“statewide problem” of flooding. Vogt, 294 F.3d at 695. The relevant inquiry,

we explained, “focuses on the tasks undertaken by the particular defendant.”

Ibid. By contrast, we noted that “primary education and law enforcement are

also statewide concerns, yet school boards and sheriffs are not arms of the

state.” Ibid. So too here. Education may be a statewide concern in the

abstract, but IDEA’s day-to-day “tasks” consist in operating local schools.

Just as the levee board in Vogt contributed to a statewide undertaking but was

local in nature because its primary concern was the local levees, IDEA too is

a local entity acting “for the special advantage of local inhabitants.”

Pendergrass, 144 F.3d at 347.

Nor can IDEA turn this factor to its advantage by pointing to the sheer

number of schools it operates throughout Texas. To the contrary, our

precedent teaches that an entity’s limited scope of jurisdiction counsels

against immunity. See Vogt, 294 F.3d at 695 (“[M]ost entities that are entitled

to Eleventh Amendment immunity have statewide jurisdiction.”). While

IDEA may operate schools throughout Texas, that does not somehow give

IDEA statewide jurisdiction. Rather, IDEA’s schools each serve

geographically limited communities. Properly understood, IDEA’s

“jurisdiction” is limited to particular areas where it has a school.

Accordingly, factor four weighs against immunity.

5.

Factor five, which carries little weight, considers whether the entity

can sue and be sued in its own name. That ability points against immunity.

Perez, 307 F.3d. at 331. IDEA concedes it has previously sued and been sued

under its own name. But it argues that this factor still favors immunity

11

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

because Texas specifically allows independent school districts to sue and be

sued, while remaining silent as to charter schools. See Tex. Educ. Code

§11.151(a) (allowing independent school districts to “sue and be sued” in the

name of the district). IDEA points to our decision in Perez, which concluded

that where state law is silent as to the entity’s power to sue but expressly

allows analogous entities to do so, this factor “slightly favors” immunity.

Perez, 307 F.3d. at 331. Perez is distinguishable, however. Perez made no

finding about whether the entity in question had a history of suing in its own

name—it based its conclusion merely on the silence in state law. Not so here.

IDEA concedes it has a history of suing in its own name. This factor thus

weighs against immunity.

6.

Finally, factor six asks whether the entity can hold and use property.

If it can, that points away from immunity. Texas law is clear on this point:

“[W]hile an open-enrollment charter school is in operation, the charter

holder holds title to any property . . . and may exercise complete control over

the property as permitted under the law.” Tex. Educ. Code § 12.128(b).

As IDEA observes, though, Texas law also states that property purchased by

a charter holder with state funding “is considered to be public property for

all purposes under state law” and is “property of this state held in trust by

the charter holder for the benefit of the students.” Id. § 12.128(a). If a charter

school ceases operations, Texas takes possession and control of the property.

Id. § 12.128(c). IDEA argues that these restrictions show that it does not truly

hold property.

We disagree. Our precedent rejects the argument that this factor

points toward immunity where the entity held title but “all of [the entity’s]

property ultimately belong[ed] to the state.” Vogt, 294 F.3d at 696. Because

Texas law provides that the charter holder holds title to its property, this

12

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

factor also weighs against immunity. See also Pendergrass, 144 F.3d at 347

(weighing this factor against immunity despite the fact that “at some time in

the distant future” the entity’s property “may revert to the state”).

***

In sum, factors one and three favor sovereign immunity while factors

two, four, five, and six do not. Balancing all the factors, and giving greater

weight to factor two, we conclude that IDEA is not an arm of the state and

does not share in Texas’s sovereign immunity.

B.

Because MISD cross-appeals the district court’s ruling that it is not

entitled to sovereign immunity, we must also apply the Clark factors to it.

Guided by our foregoing analysis, we easily conclude the district court was

correct. See Lopez v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 817 F.2d 351, 353 (5th Cir.

1987) (finding a Texas independent school district was “sufficiently distinct

from the state to be outside the [E]leventh [A]mendment”), overruled on

other grounds, Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297, 1303 n.4 (5th Cir. 1995) (en

banc); San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. McKinney, 936 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex.

1996) (holding that “an independent school district is more like a city or

county than it is like an arm of the State of Texas and is amenable to suit in

federal court under the Eleventh Amendment”); Black, 461 F.3d at 596

(“Generally, school boards and districts are not arms of the state shielded by

Eleventh Amendment immunity.”).

As with IDEA, factor one weighs in favor of immunity. Texas courts

have long recognized that independent school districts are part of the state

itself and therefore enjoy state sovereign immunity. As far back as 1931, the

Texas Supreme Court referred to them as “state agencies, erected and

employed for the purpose of administering the state’s system of public

schools.” Love v. City of Dallas, 40 S.W.2d 20, 26 (Tex. 1931). More recently,

13

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 14 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

the supreme court stated it is “well settled in this state that an independent

school district is an agency of the state” and thus enjoy immunity unless

Texas waives it. Barr v. Bernhard, 562 S.W.2d 844, 846 (Tex. 1978).

The second and weightier factor cuts against immunity because a

judgment against MISD would not fall upon Texas. In response, MISD

contends that recent changes to state law make school districts somewhat

more reliant on state funding. This argument fails for at least two reasons.

First, MISD still receives significant funding from non-state sources. The

record shows that roughly half of MISD’s annual revenue comes from

sources other than the state. In 2019, for instance, MISD collected about $90

million from local and intermediate sources, $20 million from federal

sources, and $6 million from “Other Resources.” There is little reason to

think the state treasury would be implicated by a judgment against MISD.

Second, while Texas law does impose some limits on school districts’ taxing

power, 6 they still maintain the power to levy certain taxes and to issue bonds.

See Tex. Educ. Code §§ 45.001, 45.002. The ability to self-finance

weighs heavily against immunity. See Pendergrass, 144 F.3d at 346.

Factor three, the degree of local autonomy, weighs in favor of

immunity because Texas exerts considerable oversight and control over its

school districts. School districts are subject to state accreditation, as well as

academic performance and financial accountability standards, and Texas can

take corrective action for any failure to comply. See Tex. Educ. Code

§ 39A.001. Indeed, Texas can close a noncompliant district and annex it to

an adjoining district. Id. § 39A.005. Texas also has significant influence over

6

See, e.g., Tex. Educ. Code § 45.0021 (preventing districts from levying

maintenance taxes to create a surplus to pay the district’s debt); id. § 45.0032 (placing

limits on maintenance, operations, and enrichment taxes); id § 45.003 (requiring some

taxes to be authorized by a majority of the district’s voters).

14

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 15 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

the day-to-day operations of school districts, as it controls to varying degrees

matters like school curriculum and student transportation. See, e.g., id.

§ 28.002 (required curriculum); Id. § 34.002, 34.003 (statewide bus safety

standards).

As with IDEA, factor four points away from immunity because school

districts meet local rather than statewide needs. MISD serves students in

Hidalgo County, not Texans generally. It thus operates “for the special

advantage of local inhabitants.” Pendergrass, 144 F.3d at 347. This limited

jurisdiction counsels against immunity. Vogt, 294 F.3d at 695.

Factors five and six likewise weigh against immunity. Texas law

provides that the trustees of an independent school district “in the name of

the district may acquire and hold real and personal property [and] sue and be

sued.” Tex. Educ. Code § 11.151(a). While of lesser importance, this

authority shows the district is separate from the state.

Altogether, only factors one and three weigh in favor of immunity and

the marquee second factor points the other way. We therefore agree with the

district court that MISD is not an arm of the state and is not entitled to

sovereign immunity

IV.

We turn to Springboards’ trademark claims and conclude that the

district court properly granted summary judgment in MISD’s favor. We also

conclude that judgment for IDEA is proper, “exercis[ing] our discretion to

affirm on unadvocated grounds supported by the record.” United States v.

Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678, 687 n.8 (5th Cir. 2018).

The Lanham Act imposes liability on anyone who, without consent,

uses “in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable

imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale,

15

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 16 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with

which such use is likely to cause confusion . . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a). The

likelihood of confusion is our focus here, as it is a prerequisite to recovery for

all of Springboards’ claims. See Springboards to Educ., Inc. v. Pharr-San Juan-

Alamo Indep. Sch. Dist., 33 F.4th 747, 750–51. (5th Cir. 2022). For

Springboards to prevail, it must show that MISD’s use of Springboards’

marks “create[d] a likelihood of confusion in the minds of potential

consumers as to the source, affiliation, or sponsorship” of MISD’s products

or services. Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188, 193 (5th Cir.

1998). “Likelihood of confusion means more than a mere possibility; the

plaintiff must demonstrate a probability of confusion.” Xtreme Lashes, LLC

v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal citation

omitted).

To assess whether confusion is likely, we consider a flexible list of

factors called the digits of confusion. These include:

(1) the type of mark allegedly infringed, (2) the similarity

between the two marks, (3) the similarity of the products or

services, (4) the identity of the retail outlets and purchasers,

(5) the identity of the advertising media used, (6) the

defendant's intent, (7) any evidence of actual

confusion . . . [and] (8) the degree of care exercised by

potential purchasers.

Bd. of Supervisors for LSU v. Smack Apparel Co., 550 F.3d 465, 478 (5th Cir.

2008) (cleaned up) (citation omitted). No one factor is dispositive, and we

may consider any other relevant factor. Capece, 141 F.3d at 194.

However, there is a threshold issue before we can reach the likelihood

of confusion. First, “we must identify the class of consumers at risk of

confusion.” Springboards To Educ., Inc. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 912 F.3d

805, 812 (5th Cir. 2019), as revised (Feb. 14, 2019). That is a problem here

16

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 17 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

because Springboards is neither clear nor consistent about whom it considers

to be at risk of confusion.

Springboards represents that its business model involves selling its

Campaign to schools as units, tailoring the contents and theme to each

school. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 912 F.3d at 813 (“Springboards’ business

model is premised on marketing the Read a Million Words campaign to

school districts and selling those districts the products and services needed

to implement the campaign.”). Springboards does not allege that MISD

marketed its own millionaire club to outside school districts, thus causing

confusion among other districts. Rather, Springboards repeatedly refers to

the confusion of parents, students, and teachers. For instance, Springboards

argues that its Campaign and MISD’s were “directed to identical groups –

students, parents, and educators in the school district[s].” As we explained

in a materially identical case rejecting Springboards’ claims, the confusion of

those persons is “not the appropriate focus of the likelihood-of-confusion

analysis” because they are not “purchasers in any ordinary sense.” Ibid.

They merely use a product that the school district buys. 7

At times, Springboards suggests that third parties in other districts

were misled into thinking that MISD’s “inferior” program was affiliated

with Springboards’ Campaign. This is the relevant class of consumers. It is

actionable if potential consumers confuse an infringing and inferior product

with the authentic mark, as that mistaken association might result in a loss of

sales or goodwill. Id. at 814. Accordingly, our likelihood of confusion analysis

is limited to the question of whether other school districts would likely

7

As in Houston Independent School District, Springboards has put forward no

evidence that these groups “exercise any influence over [MISD’s] purchasing decisions,”

so there is no potential cause of action for user confusion. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 912

F.3d at 813.

17

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 18 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

confuse MISD’s use of “Million Dollar Reader” and similar phrases with

Springboards’ marks related to its Campaign. 8

We see no risk of confusion. We follow our two prior cases affirming

dismissal of Springboards’ infringement claims against other Texas school

districts. In Springboards v. Houston Independent School District, 912 F.3d 805

(5th Cir. 2019), and Springboards v. Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School

District, 33 F.4th 747 (5th Cir. 2022), we found no likelihood of confusion

when Springboards brought identical Lanham Act claims against school

districts for factually indistinguishable monetary-themed reading incentive

programs. The more recent of those cases called Springboards’ claims “déjà

vu all over again” and recognized that the first case was “functionally

identical.” Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Ind. Sch. Dist., 33 F.4th at 748, 749. The

déjà vu continues here. Springboards points to no material distinction

between the instant case and our ruling in Houston Independent School District.

And the district court saw so little difference between MISD and the school

district in Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District (also located in

Hidalgo County) that it granted both summary judgment at the same time

without making any distinction between the two. Nothing material separates

this case from its predecessors.

Nevertheless, we briefly recite some of the reasons that Springboards

fails to demonstrate any likelihood of confusion. “We need not parse the

individual digits [of confusion]” because any possibility of confusion is

“exceedingly remote.” Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Ind. Sch. Dist., 33 F.4th at

750. To begin with, monetary-themed literacy programs using nearly

identical language to Springboards’ marks abound and predate Springboards’

8

Because we find there is no likelihood of confusion, we need not decide the open

question of whether Springboards must first produce evidence that MISD’s program is, in

fact, inferior. See Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 912 F.3d at 814 n.5.

18

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 19 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

Campaign by years. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 912 F.3d at 815. Indeed, MISD

purchased many of its “Million Dollar Reader” products from a company

that began selling similar products in 2010, while Springboards’ earliest mark

dates only to 2011. Plus, Springboards’ sales appear to be overwhelmingly

concentrated in one school district, so it is unlikely that other school districts

would confuse MISD’s program as an inferior knockoff of Springboards’.

Ibid.

Additionally, there is no evidence that MISD intended to confuse

other districts by attempting to “derive benefits from [Springboards’]

reputation by using [its] mark.” Viacom Int’l v. IJR Capital Invs., L.L.C., 891

F.3d 178, 195 (5th Cir. 2018). Springboards argues that MISD had knowledge

of Springboards’ Campaign, but “mere awareness . . .does not establish bad

intent.” Streamline Prod. Sys., Inc. v. Streamline Mfg., Inc., 851 F.3d 440, 456

(5th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). Springboards does not offer any evidence that

MISD ever ventured beyond mere awareness. In fact, MISD did not sell or

market its program to other school districts at all.

Finally, we note that school districts typically exercise great care as

consumers, which makes them unlikely candidates for confusion.

“[P]rofessional and institutional” purchasers “are virtually certain to be

informed, deliberative buyers.” Oreck Corp. v. U.S. Floor Sys., Inc., 803 F.2d

166, 173 (5th Cir. 1986). Public school districts searching for comprehensive

literacy programs are a far cry from an individual consumer’s grabbing an

item off the shelf. They are sophisticated institutions unlikely to be led astray

by passing similarities between services. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 912 F.3d

at 817. In short, there is no risk that other school districts would confuse

MISD’s program with Springboards’ Campaign–related marks.

For substantially the same reasons, Springboards’ identical Lanham

Act claims against IDEA also fail. While the district court’s ruling for IDEA

19

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 20 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

was erroneously predicated on sovereign immunity, we may affirm on other

ground “when the record contains an adequate and independent basis for

that result.” Lauren C., 904 F.3d at 374 (quoting Britt v. Grocers Supply Co.,

978 F.2d 1441, 1449 (5th Cir. 1992)). 9 The record shows no risk of confusion.

As noted, Springboards’ sales are concentrated in one school district,

indicating a relatively weak standing in the market. And school districts

commonly use other millionaire-themed reading programs, many of which

predate Springboards’ marks. See Sun Banks of Fla., Inc. v. Sun Fed. Sav. &

Loan Ass’n, 651 F.2d 311, 317 (5th Cir. 1981) (widespread third-party use

weighs heavily against a likelihood of confusion). Nor is there any evidence

that IDEA deliberately used Springboards’ marks. While Springboards

alleges deliberate misappropriation, its “evidence” is that it and IDEA both

use the same balloon vendor for some of their millionaire reader celebrations

and that IDEA schools are required to solicit multiple bids for projects rather

than engage in “sole source” procurement with a single supplier.

Additionally, IDEA consistently takes steps to signal that its reading

program bears no relation to Springboards’ Campaign. For instance, IDEA’s

program refers to “IDEA Millionaire Reader[s],” “IDEA Millionaires,” and

“IDEA Millionaire Reader’s Celebration[s].” Where a user of a mark clearly

identifies itself, there is little risk that third parties will be confused about the

origin of the mark. See Oreck, 803 F.2d at 171 (finding little chance of

confusion where a company’s advertisements “clearly indicate[d]” that it

was “the maker of the product”); Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 912 F.3d at 816

(concluding a school district’s use of its name in connection with the mark

“especially mitigates the likelihood of confusion”). Here, since IDEA clearly

9

Both parties fully briefed motions for summary judgment.

20

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 21 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

and consistently connects its reading program to its own name, there is no

genuine possibility that other school districts would be confused.

Without a likelihood of confusion, Springboards’ Lanham Act claims

fail. Judgment is proper for both MISD and IDEA.

V.

The district court’s judgments in favor of MISD and IDEA are

AFFIRMED.

21

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 22 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge, concurring:

In this case, we were asked to hold that a private charter school enjoys

state sovereign immunity while a public school district does not. The fact that

our precedents allow this question to be asked is reason enough to grant en

banc rehearing.

The line of cases that make possible such an absurd QP is called the

“arm of the State” doctrine. It’s cumbersome. It provides nonsensical

results. And worst of all, it doesn’t even ask the right question. It turns on a

multi-part balancing test, comprised of a non-exhaustive list of “Clark

factors”—none of which is necessary or sufficient to show an entity is an

“arm of the State” and thus entitled to state sovereign immunity. 1

I propose a new single-factor test: Was the entity asserting state

sovereign immunity considered “the State” in 1789? If yes, then sovereign

immunity. If no, then none.

Part I describes the original public meaning of sovereign immunity in

1789. Part II then discusses what constituted “the State” at the Founding.

Part III connects those two concepts and proposes a rule for “arms of the

State” to replace our current doctrine. Part IV concludes by applying that

rule to this case.

1

Under Clark v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1986), the potentially

relevant factors—none of which is necessary and none of which is sufficient—include: (1)

“whether the state statutes and case law view the entity as an arm of the state”; (2) “the

source of the entity’s funding”; (3) “the entity’s degree of local autonomy”; (4) “whether

the entity is concerned primarily with local, as opposed to statewide, problems”; (5)

“whether the entity has the authority to sue and be sued in its own name”; and (6)

“whether it has the right to hold and use property.” Id. at 744–45. “Such ‘tests’ have all

the precision of a blunderbuss.” Cutrer v. Tarrant Cnty. Loc. Workforce Dev. Bd., 943 F.3d

265, 270 (5th Cir. 2019).

22

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 23 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

I.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity was firmly established in the

English common law by the thirteenth century. Clyde E. Jacobs, The

Eleventh Amendment and Sovereign Immunity 5 (1925) (“At

least as early as the thirteenth century . . . it was recognized that the king

could not be sued in his own courts . . . .”); Louis L. Jaffe, Suits Against

Governments and Officers: Sovereign Immunity, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 2 (1963)

(“By the time of Bracton (1268) it was settled doctrine that the King could

not be sued eo nominee in his own courts.”). All sovereign power was “vested

by [law] in a single person, the king or queen.” 1 William Blackstone,

Commentaries *183; see also Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419,

446 (1793) (Iredell, J., dissenting) (determining that the Crown alone was

“the sovereign of the Kingdom”). This meant that the Crown was

“immediately invested [with] all the ensigns, rights, and prerogatives of

sovereign power.” 1 Blackstone, supra, at *183. One such royal

prerogative the Crown enjoyed was immunity from suit. Id. at *235 (“[N]o

suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters, because

no court can have jurisdiction over him.”); 3 Blackstone, supra, at *255

(“[N]o action will lie against the sovereign, (for who shall command the

king?) . . . .”); see also Chisholm, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) at 437 (Iredell, J., dissenting)

(compiling sources).

The historical record contains competing justifications for the

doctrine of sovereign immunity. Part of the justification was that the Crown

was above everyone, so it could be amenable to suit by no one. See, e.g., 1

Blackstone, supra, at *242. Part of the justification was that the King was

the font of all law, so he could not by definition violate it. Kawananakoa v.

Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907) (“A sovereign is exempt from suit, not

because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and

practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that

23

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 24 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

makes the law on which the right depends.”). And part of the justification

was the courts belonged to the King, so he had the right to refuse consent to

suit in his own courts. Interestingly, this last rationale was not limited to the

Crown; it extended to feudal lords who also were not amenable to suit in their

own courts. 1 F. Pollock & F. Maitland, History of English

Law 518 (2d ed. 1899) (“He can not be compelled to answer in his own

court, but this is true of every petty lord of every petty manor; that there

happens to be in this world no court above his court is, we may say, an

accident”); 3 W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law 465

(3d ed. 1927) (“[N]o feudal lord could be sued in his own court”).

At the Founding, sovereign immunity became a part of the American

common law. See Chisholm, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) at 437 (Iredell, J., dissenting)

(concluding that state sovereign immunity comes from “the common law,”

which “is the ground-work of the laws in every State in the Union,” and

which is, “where no special act of Legislation controls it, to be in force in each

State, as it existed in England, (unaltered by any statute) at the time of the

first settlement of the country”); Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715–16

(1999); William Baude & Stephen E. Sachs, The Misunderstood Eleventh

Amendment, 169 U. Pa. L. Rev. 609, 614 (2021). Of course, English

conceptions of the doctrine did not map neatly onto the American Republic

where sovereignty resides in the People and where we’ve never had a king or

feudal lord.

The most important American innovation to the doctrine was that our

Founders left “to the several states, a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.”

The Federalist No. 39, at 198 (James Madison) (George W. Carey &

James McClellan eds., 2001); see also Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960,

1968 (2019) (discussing the well-established principle of “dual sovereignty”

at the founding (quotation omitted)). As part of their residual sovereignty, all

States retained immunity from suits without their consent—in state courts

24

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 25 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

and in federal ones. See The Federalist No. 81, at 422 (Alexander

Hamilton) (George W. Carey & James McClellan eds., 2001) (“It is inherent

in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual

without its consent. . . . [T]he exemption, as one of the attributes of

sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every state in the union.”);

Alden, 527 U.S. at 730–754 (holding state sovereign immunity applies in state

courts as in federal ones).

For example, the Articles of Confederation provided: “Each State

retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power,

Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated

to the United States, in Congress assembled.” Articles of

Confederation art. II (U.S. 1781) (emphasis added). Likewise, courts

commonly held that States were immune from suit. For example, in Nathan

v. Virginia, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 77 (C.C.P. Phila., Phila. Cnty., 1981), the court

agreed with the attorney general that each State “was a sovereign” so that

“every kind of process” issued against a State was “null and void.” Ibid.; see

also Nelson, supra, at 1579. Likewise, in Moitez v. The South Carolina, 17 F.

Cas. 574 (No. 9697) (1781), a Pennsylvania Admiralty Court dismissed a suit

against a South Carolina warship on the grounds that it was owned by a

“sovereign independent state.” Ibid. Other pre-constitutional sources

confirmed. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 81, at 422 (Alexander

Hamilton) (George W. Carey & James McClellan eds., 2001) (claiming that

sovereign immunity “is now enjoyed” by each State, referring to a time

before ratification (emphasis added)); The Federalist No. 39, at 198

(James Madison) (George W. Carey & James McClellan eds., 2001)

(discussing the “inviolable sovereignty” of States); McIlvaine v. Coxe’s

Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808) (“This opinion is predicated upon

a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which

composed this union . . . became entitled, from the time when they declared

25

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 26 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states

. . . .”); see also Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 139 S. Ct. 1485, 1493–94

(2019); Alden, 527 U.S. at 726–27; Gamble, 139 S. Ct. at 1968 (“When the

original States declared their independence, they claimed the powers

inherent in sovereignty. The Constitution limited but did not abolish the

sovereign powers of the States . . . .” (quotation omitted)).

As many have argued, the Constitution didn’t override common-law

sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Gamble, 139 S. Ct. at 1968; Franchise Tax Bd.

of Cal., 139 S. Ct. at 1495–96; William Baude, Sovereign Immunity and the

Constitutional Text, 103 Va. L. Rev. 1, 8–9 (2017); Caleb Nelson, Sovereign

Immunity as a Doctrine of Personal Jurisdiction, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 1559,

1580–1601 (2002); Stephen E. Sachs, Constitutional Backdrops, 80 Geo.

Wash. L. Rev. 1813, 1816–18, 1828–34 (2012); Bradford R. Clark, The

Eleventh Amendment and the Nature of the Union, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 1817,

1862–75 (2010); Kurt T. Lash, Leaving the Chisholm Trail: The Eleventh

Amendment and the Background Principle of Strict Construction, 50 Wm. &

Mary L. Rev. 1577, 1599–1603, 1618–27, 1649–50, 1653–76 (2009); Steven

Menashi, Article III as a Constitutional Compromise: Modern Textualism and

State Sovereign Immunity, 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1135, 1155–75 (2009).

The ratification debates, negative public reactions to Chisholm v. Georgia

(holding that there was no common-law sovereign immunity for States from

out-of-state citizen suits under the Constitution), and Congress’s swift

passage of the Eleventh Amendment in response to Chisholm all indicate as

much.

Common-law sovereign immunity is different from Eleventh

Amendment sovereign immunity. The latter only prohibits suits brought by

out-of-state plaintiffs in federal court: “The Judicial power of the United

States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or

equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by

26

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 27 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

Citizens of another State, or by Citizens of any Foreign State.” U.S.

Const. amend. XI (emphasis added). The former is broader in a sense 2

because it applies even a citizen sues his home State. Coolbaugh v.

Commonwealth, 4 Yeates 493 (Pa. 1808) (finding it “a settled principle, that

no sovereign power [is] amenable to suits either in its own courts, or those of

a foreign country, unless by its own consent”); Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. (20

How.) 527, 529 (1857) (applying the “established principle of jurisprudence

in all civilized nations that the sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts, or

in any other, without its consent and permission” in a suit against a State in

its own court); The Siren, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 152, 153–54 (1868) (“It is a

familiar doctrine of the common law, that the sovereign cannot be sued in his

own courts without his consent.”); Cunningham v. Macon & B.R. Co., 109

U.S. 446, 451 (1883) (“It may be accepted as a point of departure

unquestioned, that neither a state nor the United States can be sued as

defendant in any court in this country without their consent . . . .”). This

practice culminated most famously in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890),

which held that a State cannot be sued by its own citizen. See id. at 14–15. And

the Court continues to “uph[o]ld States’ assertions of sovereign immunity

in various contexts outside the literal text of the Eleventh Amendment”

today. Alden, 527 U.S. at 727; see also PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. New

Jersey, 141 S. Ct. 2244, 2264 (2021) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting); Baude &

Sachs, supra, at 612–14.

This case implicates common-law sovereign immunity, not the

Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff Springboards to Education, Inc. is a citizen

2

In another sense common-law sovereign immunity is narrower than the immunity

recognized by the Eleventh Amendment: Common-law sovereign immunity can be waived

by the sovereign, whereas the Eleventh Amendment (at least by its plain text) speaks in

subject-matter-jurisdiction terms that presumably cannot be waived. Baude & Sachs, supra,

at 623–24.

27

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 28 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

of Texas, and defendants McAllen Independent School District and IDEA

Public Schools both claim to be the State of Texas. So we’re necessarily

discussing the common law of sovereign immunity that predated the

Eleventh Amendment and survived its ratification.

II.

The next question is what (or who) qualified as the “State” under the

common law of sovereign immunity in 1789? As with so many historical

inquiries, this one has points of clarity and points of ambiguity. I (A) begin

with what we know for sure: Corporations were not considered the State

under the common law. They had no sovereign immunity. Then I (B)

cautiously wade into territory with limited historical evidence: whether

unincorporated state agencies, boards, and departments were considered the

State. It appears that the immunity of these entities in federal court was left

in the hands of the States.

A.

First, corporations. It’s evident that at common law, both in England

and the early American Republic, incorporated entities were not entitled to

sovereign immunity. This rule applied regardless of whether the corporations

were private or public and regardless of whether they exercised governmental

functions.

As Chief Justice Marshall said, “[a]s our ideas of a corporation, its

privileges and its disabilities, are derived entirely from the English books, we

resort to them for aid, in ascertaining its character.” Bank of U.S. v. Deveaux,

9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 61, 88 (1809). In his Commentaries on the Laws of England,

Blackstone identified many types of corporations at common law, including

civil corporations, churches, colleges and universities, hospitals,

manufacturing or commercial organizations, the royal society, and notably,

corporations “erected for the good government of a town or particular

28

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 29 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

district.” 1 Blackstone, supra, at *458–59. These corporations could only

be created with the consent of the sovereign. Id. at *460. Once they were

created, they could “sue or be sued, implead or be impleaded, grant or

receive, . . . and do all other acts as natural persons may.” Id. at *463. And

for that reason, a corporation could not assert the sovereign’s immunity from

suit. See, e.g., Moodalay v. Morton, (1785) 28 Eng. Rep. 1245 (Ch.).

At the Founding, America embraced the English conception of

corporations. This theme was pervasive throughout the constitutional

debates and early American court cases. See Lash, supra, at 1657.

First, the constitutional debates. For all that the Federalists and Anti-

Federalists disagreed about, they agreed that corporations were not

sovereigns. Both drew sharp distinctions between corporations, which

weren’t immune from suits, and sovereigns, which were, to advance their

arguments.

The Federalists began this debate by contending that States were akin

to corporations. See 1 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal

Convention of 1787, at 323, 328 (1907) (Alexander Hamilton:

discussing how the States were “Corporations” with mere “corporate

rights”); id. at 357–58 (James Madison); id. at 471 (James Madison: “There

is a gradation of power in all societies, from the lowest corporation to the

highest sovereign. The states never possessed the essential rights of

sovereignty . . . . The states, at present, are only great corporations . . . .”);

id. at 552 (Gouverneur Morris: “[The States] were originally nothing more

than colonial corporations.”).

The Anti-Federalists responded strongly and persuasively. They

argued that the Federalists sought to reduce sovereign States to “mere

corporation[s].” The Address of the Seceding Assemblymen (Oct. 2, 1787),

reprinted in 13 The Documentary History of the Ratification

29

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 30 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

of the Constitution 295, 296 (John P. Kaminski & Gaspare J.

Saladino eds., 1981); see also 2 The Debates in the Several State

Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal

Constitution 403 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 1836) [hereinafter Elliot’s

Debates] (Thomas Tredwell in the New York convention: “The sole

difference between a state government under this Constitution, and a

corporation under a state government, is, that a state being more extensive

than a town, its powers are likewise proportionably extended, but neither of

them enjoys the least share of sovereignty . . . .”); Democrat, Mass.

Mercury (Bos.), July 23, 1793, reprinted in 5 The Documentary

History of the Supreme Court, 1789–1800, at 393, 393 (Maeva

Marcus ed., 1994) [hereinafter DHSC] (noting that some feared the

Constitution as written “destroy[ed] the SOVEREIGNTY of the states, and

render[ed] them no more than corporate towns”); Cato II (Oct. 11, 1787),

reprinted in 13 The Documentary History of the Ratification

of the Constitution, supra, at 369, 371 (arguing that “the different

states do not retain separately their sovereignty and independency” under

the Constitution); 3 Elliot’s Debates, supra, at 527 (George Mason: “Is

this state to be brought to the bar of justice like a delinquent individual? Is the

sovereignty of the state to be arraigned like a culprit, or private offender?”).

And the Anti-Federalists proved triumphant. The Federalists

eventually conceded that States were not corporations and hence would

retain sovereign immunity. See 3 Elliot’s Debates, supra, at 533 (James

Madison); The Federalist No. 81 (Alexander Hamilton); 3 Elliot’s

Debates, supra, at 555 (John Marshall); Brutus, Indep. Chron. (Bos.),

July 18, 1793, reprinted in 5 DHSC, supra, at 392, 392 (Rufus King); Democrat,

supra, at 393–94, 394 nn.3–4 (Rufus King). The Federalists insisted,

however, that no one would be so silly as to sue a sovereign State in federal

court. See The Federalist No. 81, at 422 (Alexander Hamilton)

30

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 31 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

(George W. Carey & James McClellan eds., 2001) (stressing that “the danger

intimated must be merely ideal”).

Second, this sharp line between corporations and sovereigns is also

clear in early American court cases. The very first case entered on the

Supreme Court docket, Van Staphorst v. Maryland, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 401

(1791), involved a suit against a State. See 5 DHSC, supra, at 7, 16. While the

Court didn’t reach the question of immunity, many members of the public

raised red flags, and the sovereign/corporation distinction animated their

objections. For example, one anonymously published letter heralded the

danger that “[s]hould this action be maintained,” it would mean “the several

States, have relinquished all their SOVEREIGNTIES, and have become

mere corporations.” Letter from an Anonymous Correspondent, Indep.

Chron. (Phila.), Feb. 13 & 19, 1791, reprinted in 5 DHSC, supra, at 20, 21.

The letter went on: “For a Sovereign State, can never be sued, or coerced,

by the authority of another government.” Ibid. To be sued, States would have

to become “mere corporations.” Ibid. Massachusetts Attorney General James

Sullivan also published his concern that this suit reduced the States from “an

assemblage of republics” under the federal government to “divers

corporations.” James Sullivan, Observations upon the Government of the United

States of America (Bos.), July 7, 1791, reprinted in 5 DHSC, supra, at 21, 21. He

concluded that without immunity, States were “mere corporation[s]”

devoid of sovereignty. Id. at 29.

The Court confronted this problem again in Oswald v. New York, 2

U.S. (2 Dall.) 401 (1792). And again, the Court didn’t have a chance to decide

the issue. Ibid. But Justice Iredell, who would pen the lone dissent in Chisholm

v. Georgia one year later, began to explore the differences between a State and

a “mere Corporation” in a draft opinion. See James Iredell’s Observations on

State Suability (Phila.), Feb. 11–14, 1792, reprinted in 5 DHSC, supra, at 76,

87–88.

31

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 32 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

By the time the Court heard Chisholm v. Georgia, it knew the question

of State suability boiled down to whether States were more akin to sovereigns

or corporations. The majority and dissent agreed that sovereigns were

entitled to immunity while corporations were not. They merely disagreed on

whether States were sovereigns or corporations. Compare Chisholm, 2 U.S. (2

Dall.) at 468 (Cushing, J.) (“As to corporations, all States whatever are

corporations or bodies politic.”), and id. at 472 (Jay, C.J.) (arguing there’s no

difference between suing a municipal corporation and suing a State), with id.

at 448 (Iredell, J., dissenting) (discussing the “differences between such

corporations, and the several States in the Union”).

Justice Iredell’s lone Chisholm dissent is particularly instructive.

That’s in part because his interpretation ultimately won the day—both in the

short-term with the passage of the Eleventh Amendment, and in the long-

term with the Court’s endorsement of his view of common-law sovereign

immunity. See Hans, 134 U.S. at 16. But of greater relevance for present

purposes, Justice Iredell discussed at length the “common law” of

corporations and sovereigns. Chisholm, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) at 447 (Iredell, J.,

dissenting). He first argued that under the common law, a “corporation is a

mere creature” of the sovereign and “owes its existence . . . to the authority

which create[d] it.” Id. at 448. Conversely, a “State does not owe its origin

to the Government of the United States” but rather “derives its authority

from the same pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate

choice of the people.” Ibid. Similarly, a corporation “is altogether

depend[e]nt on that Government to which it owes its existence.” Ibid. Its

“charter may be forfeited,” and its “authority may be annihilated.” Ibid. But

a State is “totally independent” of the federal government. Ibid. Because of

these differences, Justice Iredell concluded that while corporations are not

immune from suits, States are “altogether exempt from the jurisdiction of

32

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 33 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

the Courts of the United States” except for “the special instances where the

general Government has power derived from the Constitution itself.” Ibid.

The public response to Chisholm echoed this categorization. For

example, one newspaper said that while the Constitution provided that

“Congress should guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form

of government[,] ‘[a] form of government’ was never a mode of expression

applied to the police of a town, parish, city or other corporation.” “The True

Federalist” to Edmund Randolph, Number II, Indep. Chron. (Bos.), Jan.

23 & 27, 1794, reprinted in 5 DHSC, supra, at 243, 245 [hereinafter The True

Federalist].

A few months later, Justice Iredell’s outcry reverberated through the

halls of the Massachusetts General Assembly. In opposition to a suit against

the Commonwealth, Vassall v. Massachusetts, Massachusetts Governor

Hancock delivered a rousing speech. See John Hancock’s Address to the

Massachusetts General Court, Indep. Chron. (Bos.), Sept. 18, 1793,

reprinted in 5 DHSC, supra, at 416, 416. He argued that the rights of State as

sovereigns could not be reduced to those of “mere Corporations.” Id. at 418.

Others echoed his sentiments. See, e.g., William Widgery’s Speech in the

Massachusetts House of Representatives, Indep. Chron. (Bos.), Sept. 23,

1793, reprinted in 5 DHSC, supra, at 427, 428 (distinguishing between the

State and “mere dependent corporations”); Brutus, supra, at 392 (urging the

Massachusetts General Assembly to respond or risk becoming “an

unimportant subordinate corporation”). The General Assembly rallied to its

Governor’s side. It refused to answer Vassall’s suit, and the Court eventually

dismissed it. See Reply of the Massachusetts General Court to John Hancock,

Indep. Chron. (Bos.), Sept. 27, 1793, reprinted in 5 DHSC, supra, at 441,

441.

33

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 34 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

In the early nineteenth century, the Court relied even more on this

formal division between corporations and sovereigns. In Trustees of

Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819), the Court

examined the nature of the Dartmouth College corporate charter with New

Hampshire. Id. at 626–27. In doing so, the Court again considered the

common law of corporations. It determined that a corporation was “a

collection of individuals, united into one collective body, under a special

name, and possessing certain immunities, privileges and capacities, in its

collective character.” Id. at 667. Notably, as “artificial person[s],”

corporations were not immune from lawsuits; they could “sue and be sued.”

Ibid.

This sovereign-corporate distinction is best illustrated by a series of

suits against State-created banks. In those cases, the Court repeatedly held

that even “a bank created by the government for its own uses, whose stock

[was] exclusively owned by the government, [was a] public corporation,” and

thereby unprotected by sovereign immunity. Id. at 669 (emphasis added); see

also Bank of Commonwealth of Ky. v. Wister, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 318, 319 (1829)

(holding that even though Kentucky “was the sole proprietor of the stock of

the bank,” the bank was not the Commonwealth and therefore was not

entitled to sovereign immunity); Bank of U.S. v. Planters’ Bank of Ga., 22

U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 908 (1824) (holding that even where Georgia was a

proprietor and corporator of the Bank, the “Planters’ Bank of Georgia [was]

not exempted from being sued in the federal courts”); Briscoe v. Bank of

Commonwealth of Ky., 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 257, 327 (1837) (holding that even

though Kentucky was the sole stockholder of the bank, the bank was not

entitled to sovereign immunity); Darrington v. Bank of Ala., 54 U.S. (13

How.) 12, 16–17 (1851) (same); Curran v. Arkansas, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 304,

309 (1853) (“[A] State . . . by owning all the capital stock [in a bank], does not

impart to that corporation any of its privileges or prerogatives . . . .”). The

34

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 35 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

mere fact that the State held all the financial interest in a bank did not make

the bank an arm of the State. 3 Rather, the State’s incorporation of the bank

severed any connection between the State and the bank for purposes of

sovereign immunity. See Planters’ Bank of Ga., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 907

(“The suit is against a corporation, and the judgment is to be satisfied by the

property of the corporation, not by that of the individual corporators. The

State does not, by becoming a corporator, identify itself with the corporation.

The Planters’ Bank of Georgia is not the State of Georgia, although the State

holds an interest in it.”).

And while the Court highlighted the differences between corporations

and the States, it minimized any differences between types of corporations.

For example, the Court held that there was no distinction between public and

private corporations—neither was entitled to sovereign immunity. See, e.g.,

Trustees of Dartmouth College, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 668. The Court allowed

suits to proceed against corporations with “public political purposes only,

such as towns, cities, parishes and counties.” Ibid. The Court concluded that

even corporations “founded by the government, for public purposes, where

the whole interests belong also to the government,” were not “the State” for

purposes of sovereign immunity. Id. at 669; see also Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22

U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 772 (1824) (The State’s “mere creation of a

corporation, does not confer political power or political character” even

where the corporation is given “public employments” normally reserved to

the State.); cf. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 442 (1821)

(discussing how Congress’s incorporation of the City of Washington created

3

This fact alone suggests the Clark factors must be overturned. Clark’s emphasis

on the financial ties between an entity and the State to determine if the entity is an arm of

the State has no foundation in our legal history and tradition.

35

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 36 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

a “separate body for the management of the internal affairs of the City, for its

internal government, for its police” (emphasis added)).

Other examples of corporations included “hospital[s] created and

endowed by the government for general charity,” “insurance, canal, bridge,

and turnpike companies,” “college[s],” and other “eleemonsynary

corporations.” Trustees of Dartmouth College, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 668. Even

when a college “acquire[d] the character of a public institution,” it retained

its corporate status. Id. at 669. It didn’t miraculously become the State.

Regardless of the types of corporations or the State’s involvement in them,

the Court consistently found corporations weren’t entitled to sovereign

immunity.

The Court continued to abide by this formalistic rule throughout the

nineteenth century—even as corporations grew in number and took on more

public functions. For example, when confronted with a suit against a school

board, the Court looked exclusively to the text of the State’s statute and

concluded that “the language of the Nebraska statute makes school districts

corporations in the fullest sense of the word.” School Dist. No. 56 v. St. Joseph

Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 103 U.S. (13 Otto) 707, 708 (1880). The Court

concluded its inquiry with the text, finding “no warrant for [a] distinction”

between private and public corporations and concluding that both could be

sued. Id. at 709. This principle was so well-established by the time the Court

decided Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529 (1890), that the Court held it

was “beyond question” that the county could be sued. Id. at 530; see also P.R.

Ports Auth. v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 531 F.3d 868, 881–82 (D.C. Cir. 2008)

(Williams, J., concurring). On the same day that the Court decided Hans v.

Louisiana, it held in Lincoln County that an incorporated county was not the

State for purposes of sovereign immunity. Lincoln County, 133 U.S. at 530

(“[W]hile the county is territorially a part of the state, yet politically it is also

a corporation created by, and with such powers as are given to it by, the state.

36

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 37 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

In this respect, it is a part of the state only in that remote sense in which any

city, town, or other municipal corporation may be said to be a part of the

state.”).

In sum, it’s clear that incorporated entities or entities with sue-and-

be-sued clauses did not qualify as “the State” for purposes of sovereign

immunity at the Founding. Any “arm of the State” rule must account for this

history to properly reflect the common-law immunity that predated and

survived the Constitution.

B.

It’s less clear whether unincorporated, State-created entities were

entitled to sovereign immunity. The English common law isn’t helpful since

the American notion of “dual sovereignty” had no counterpart across the

Atlantic. The constitutional ratification debates don’t have much to

contribute because the Federalists and Anti-Federalists primarily debated

whether the States would have immunity at all. See supra at 8–9. But as far as

I can tell, neither side devoted much time to discussing which state entities

might be immune from suit. And the law reports don’t provide much help

either. While some state constitutions created agencies, boards, or

departments in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries, these

entities were not nearly as powerful or as numerous as they are today. And

when plaintiffs sought damages or injunctive relief against the State in federal

court, they sued “the State” or a State officer by name. 4 It isn’t clear how

4

The early Supreme Court’s record on officer suits also isn’t especially

enlightening. That’s because most of these cases post-dated Chisholm and were decided

under the rubric of the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Osborn, 22 U.S. at 857. And it’s

also because Marshall’s Court wasn’t consistent. In one breath it said sovereign immunity

only barred suits naming “the State” as the defendant. See ibid. (“[T]he jurisdiction of the

Court depends . . . upon the actual party on the record. . . . [T]he 11th amendment, which

restrains the jurisdiction granted by the constitution over suits against States, is, of

37

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 38 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

federal courts would’ve treated a defendant such as the Texas Department

of Public Safety if it existed at the time.

But we have some data points. We know that the Constitution

explicitly provided that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by

the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States

respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const. amend. X. Under this division

of power, federal “jurisdiction extend[ed] to certain enumerated objects

only,” leaving “to the several states, a residuary and inviolable sovereignty

over all other objects.” The Federalist No. 39, at 198 (James Madison)

(George W. Carey & James McClellan eds., 2001). Among the well-

established powers reserved to the States was the power to structure their

governments as they saw fit. See, e.g., Roger Sherman, A Citizen of New

Haven, II, New Haven Gazette (Dec. 25, 1788), reprinted in Essays

on the Constitution of the United States: Published

During its Discussion by the People 1787–1788, at 237, 238 (Paul

Leceister Ford ed., 1892) (“The powers vested in the federal government are

clearly defined, so that each state still retain its sovereignty in what concerns

its own internal government, and a right to exercise every power of a

necessity, limited to those suits in which a State is a party on the record.”); see also Davis

v. Gray, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 203, 220 (1872) (reading Osborn to hold that “[m]aking a State

officer a party does not make the State a party, although her law may have prompted his

action, and the State may stand behind him as the real party in interest” and a “State can

be made a party only by shaping the bill expressly with that view”). And in the next breath

it said that officers may be “the State” for purposes of sovereign immunity, especially

where the suit sought to recover the State’s property. See Governor of Ga. v. Madrazo, 26

U.S. (1 Pet.) 110, 123–24 (1828) (“[W]here the chief magistrate of a state is sued, not by

his name, but by his style of office, and the claim made upon him is entirely in his official

character, we think the state itself may be considered as a party on the record.”); United

States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115, 139 (1809) (allowing a suit against the Pennsylvania

treasurer in his personal capacity but stipulating that “[i]f these proceeds had been the

actual property of Pennsylvania” it “would have presented a case on which it was

unnecessary to give an opinion”).

38

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 39 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

sovereign state not particularly delegated to the government of the United

States.”). That’s why, for example, Texas can have a bicameral legislature

and Nebraska can have a unicameral one. There’s no mandated, one-size-

fits-all structure for “the State.”

We also know from various discussions of sovereign immunity at the

Founding that it didn’t just rest with abstract “States.” It belonged to “state

governments.” See, e.g., The Federalist No. 81, at 422 (Alexander

Hamilton) (George W. Carey & James McClellan eds., 2001) (Sovereignty

belongs to the “government of every State in the Union.” (emphasis added));

The Federalist No. 32, at 155 (Alexander Hamilton) (George W. Carey

& James McClellan eds., 2001) (“[S]tate governments would clearly retain all

the rights of sovereignty . . . .” (emphasis added)); Brutus XIII (Feb. 21,

1788), reprinted in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 428, 429

(Herbert Storing ed., 1981) (subjecting a State to suit “is humiliating and

degrading to a [state] government” (emphasis added)); Federal Farmer III

(Oct. 10, 1787), reprinted in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist,

supra, at 234, 245 (“How far it may be proper to admit a foreigner or the

citizen of another state to bring actions against state governments . . . is

doubtful . . . .” (emphasis added)); Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304,

325 (1816) (“[S]overeign powers vested in the state governments, by their

respective constitutions, remained unaltered and unimpaired, except so far

as they were granted to the government of the United States.” (emphasis

added)); 2 Elliot’s Debates, supra, at 403 (Thomas Tredwell’s

remarks in New York Ratifying Convention: referencing the sovereign power

as belonging to “state governments” (emphasis added)); The True Federalist,

supra, at 245 (“The word State in itself, signifies a sovereign government.”

(emphasis added)); Sullivan, supra, at 29 (“sovereignty of the [state]

governments” (emphasis added)); 1 Elliot’s Debates, supra, at 327

(New York Ratification Statement: “every power, jurisdiction, and right”

39

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 40 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

not delegated to Congress “remains to the people of the several states, or to

their respective state governments” (emphasis added)); 1 Elliot’s

Debates, supra, at 334 (Rhode Island Ratification Statement: same); Report

of a Joint Committee of the Massachusetts General Court, Indep. Chron.

(Bos.), June 20, 1793, reprinted in 5 DHSC, supra, at 230, 230 (arguing that

subjecting States to suits is “in its principle subversive of the State

Governments” (emphasis added)); 4 Elliot’s Debates, supra, at 259–60

(Charles Pinckney speech before South Carolina House of Representatives:

“The distinction which has been taken between the nature of a federal and

state government appeared to be conclusive—that in the former, no powers

could be executed, or assumed, but such as were expressly delegated; that in

the latter, the indefinite power was given to the government, except on points

that were by express compact reserved to the people.” (emphases added)).

Thus, while the historical evidence doesn’t provide a clear answer to

whether an unincorporated entity created by the State—like a state agency—

enjoyed sovereign immunity at the Founding, any theory must account for

these well-established principles: (1) sovereign immunity belonged to state

governments, and (2) States retained the power to structure their

governments as they saw fit after the Constitution. These two principles

suggest that the State can imbue its constituent parts with sovereign

immunity when creating them as unincorporated arms of the State. For

example, Texas could choose not to have a Health and Human Services

Commission or a Department of Public Safety or a Commission on

Environmental Quality, and it could choose instead to perform its health,

safety, and environmental functions under one undifferentiated state

government that (obviously) enjoys common-law sovereign immunity. The

fact that the State chose, in its sovereign prerogative, to create those

unincorporated agencies of state government does not appear to change the

40

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 41 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

conclusion that these agencies still constitute “the State” and enjoy the same

sovereign immunity.

III.

From this historical evidence about incorporated and unincorporated

state government entities we can distill a rule to determine whether an entity

is an immune “arm of the State.”

If an entity has a separate legal status from the State (e.g., as a

corporation, LLC, or § 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization) or the state statute

designating the entity includes a “sue-and-be-sued” clause, the entity is not

“the State” and hence is not entitled to sovereign immunity. That’s because

the State has classified these entities as distinct legal persons, and a federal

court cannot second-guess the State’s decision. 5 All other State-created

entities are presumably arms of the State and entitled to sovereign immunity.

This rule has several advantages over the Clark factors.

First, it aligns with the Supreme Court’s guidance. In Regents of the

University of California v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425 (1997), the Court stressed that

any arm-of-the-State inquiry hinges on state law:

Ultimately, of course, the question whether a particular state

agency has the same kind of independent status as a county or

is instead an arm of the State, and therefore “one of the United

States” within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment, is a

question of federal law. But that federal question can be

5

In Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank,

527 U.S. 627 (1999), the Court accepted the district court’s determination that an

incorporated entity with such a sue-and-be-sued clause was an arm of the State. Id. at 633

n.3 (1999). But the Court stipulated that this was “a conclusion the parties did not dispute

before either the Federal Circuit or this Court.” Ibid.

41

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 42 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

answered only after considering the provisions of state law that

define the agency’s character.

Id. at 429 n.5 (emphasis added). Clark by contrast is a pre-Regents relic. And

it minimizes the importance of state law as only one of many factors and less

important than others. See Clark, 798 F.2d at 736, 744; Hudson v. City of New

Orleans, 174 F.3d 677, 682 (5th Cir. 1999). All else being equal, if state law

says the unincorporated entity is not the State, but the entity is funded by the

state treasury, a court will conclude it’s “the State.” See Hudson, 174 F.3d at

682 (finding that the source of funding is the most important Clark factor).

This result departs from Regents and accordingly must be overruled.

Second, the proposed bright-line rule is grounded in what sovereign

immunity meant at the Founding. As previously discussed, early American

courts expressly disavowed any connection between an entity’s entitlement

to sovereign immunity and its connection to the state treasury. See supra at

13–14 & n.2. Clark, by contrast, pivots on the funding factor. Ibid. Thus, it

abandons any tether to the common law (or the Eleventh Amendment for

that matter).

Third, the proposed rule is workable. As the majority rightly notes,

the Clark factors are cumbersome and at times irreconcilable with one

another. They don’t provide clear answers and lead to nonsensical results.

Finally, the proposed rule respects the States’ powers under the

Tenth Amendment to structure their governments however they see fit. The

Clark factors, by contrast, give federal judges the power to decide what

qualifies as “the State.” The result is a pandora’s box—there’s no telling

what will come out. States have no notice, and they cannot structure their

governments in predictable ways and in accordance with their sovereign

prerogatives. The proposed test enables state governments to order their

affairs so they can foreseeably raise sovereign immunity.

42

Case: 21-40333 Document: 00516670330 Page: 43 Date Filed: 03/08/2023

Nos. 21-40333 and 21-40334

IV.

Finally, it’s time to apply this arm-of-the-State rule to the facts at

hand.

The McAllen Independent School District concedes that the Texas

Education Code gives it the power to “sue and be sued.” The Code says:

“The trustees of an independent school district constitute a body corporate

and in the name of the district may . . . sue and be sued . . . .” Tex. Educ.

Code § 11.151(a). The district is a corporation that can be sued by name, so

it’s not entitled to sovereign immunity.

IDEA Public Schools is a § 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. ROA.21-

40334.169, 2241. Thus, it’s not entitled to sovereign immunity.

* * *

The Clark factors do not reflect the common law of sovereign

immunity. They are cumbersome and indeterminate. And they prompt

needless litigation, as this case illustrates. Our en banc court should revisit

them. 6

6

Lest there be any confusion, the question addressed in this opinion is what

constitutes “the State”—and hence what enjoys the State’s sovereign immunity in federal

court. The States are obviously free to cloak non-State entities with all manner of

governmental immunities in state court, and as with almost everything in our federal

system, the State need not follow federal standards in doing so. See, e.g., Tex. Educ.

Code 12.1056(a).

43