holding that Congress made its intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity explicit when it amended Title VII’s definition of “person engaged in an industry affecting interstate commerce” to include "governments, governmental agencies [and] political subdivisions,” and simultaneously amended the definition of "employee” to include individuals "subject to the civil service laws of a State government, government agency, or political subdivision”
How later courts described this case
- holding that Congress made its intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity explicit when it amended Title VII’s definition of “person engaged in an industry affecting interstate commerce” to include "governments, governmental agencies [and] political subdivisions,” and simultaneously amended the definition of "employee” to include individuals "subject to the civil service laws of a State government, government agency, or political subdivision”
- explaining that the Eleventh Amendment and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment; therefore, for purposes of enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may provide for private suits against States which would be constitutionally impermissible in other contexts
- holding that Congress may abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment because the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted well after the Eleventh Amendment and ratification of the Constitution, operated to alter the pre-existing balance between state and federal power achieved by Article III and the Eleventh Amendment
- finding that, because the Fourteenth Amendment expanded federal power at the expense of state power, the Fourteenth Amendment extended federal power into the province of the Eleventh Amendment and, therefore, § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress to abrogate the immunity of the Eleventh Amendment
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital, 612 F.2d 84 (1979)
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976), recognizes that National League of Cities is inapplicable to legislation promulgated pursuant to § 5 of the fourteenth amendment. 427 U.S. at 453-56, 96 S.Ct. 2666.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Brennan,
concurring in the judgment.
This suit was brought by present and retired employees of the State of Connecticut against the State Treasurer, the State Comptroller, and the Chairman of the State Employees’ Retirement Commission. In that circumstance, Connecticut may not invoke the Eleventh Amendment, since that Amendment bars only federal-court suits against States by citizens of other States. Rather, the question is whether Connecticut may avail itself of the nonconstitutional but ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity as a bar to a claim for damages under Title VII. In my view Connecticut may not assert sovereign immunity for the reason I expressed in dissent in Employees v. Missouri Public Health Dept., 411 U. S. 279, 298 (1973): The States surrendered that immunity, in Hamilton’s words, “in the plan of the Convention” that formed the Union, at least insofar as the States granted Congress *458 specifically enumerated powers. See id., at 319 n. 7; Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 687 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Parden v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U. S. 184 (1964). Congressional authority to enact the provisions of Title VII at issue in this case is found in the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and in § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, two of the enumerated powers granted Congress in the Constitution. Cf. Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112, 131-134 (1970) (Black, J.); id., at 135-150 (Douglas, J.); id., at 216-217 (Harlan, J.); id., at 236-281 (Brennan, White, and Marshall, JJ.) ; id., at 282-284 (Stewart, J.); Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 651 (1966). I remain of the opinion that “because of its surrender, no immunity exists that can be the subject of a congressional declaration or a voluntary waiver.” Employees v. Missouri Public Health Dept., supra, at 300.
I therefore concur in the judgment of the Court.