stating that “§1983 does not explicitly and by clear language indicate on its face an - 31 - intent to sweep away the immunity of the States; nor does it have a history which focuses directly on the question of state liability and which shows that Congress considered and firmly decided to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the States”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “§1983 does not explicitly and by clear language indicate on its face an - 31 - intent to sweep away the immunity of the States; nor does it have a history which focuses directly on the question of state liability and which shows that Congress considered and firmly decided to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the States”
- stating that “§ 1983 does not explicitly and by clear language indicate on its face an intent to sweep away the immunity of the States; nor does it have a history which focuses directly on the question of state liability and which shows that Congress considered and firmly decided to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the States”
- explaining that § 1983 gives no indication “on its face an intent to sweep away the immunity of the States; nor does it have a history which focuses directly on the question of state liability and which shows that Congress considered and firmly decided to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the States”
- holding that in a Section 1983 action against the state “a federal court’s remedial power . . . is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury” (internal quotations and citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported overruled on other grounds by Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) — not on the Supreme Court's list
440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979), overruled on other grounds by Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27
Supreme Court of the United StatesNov 5, 19919 citing opinionsother groundsunconfirmed confidenceRead itQuestioned by Smith v. Department of Public Health, 428 Mich. 540 (1987)
Although Quern involved Eleventh Amendment immunity, which, of course, is inapplicable to suits brought in state court, other appellate courts have interpreted the Quern language that § 1983 was not intended to abrogate existing immunity of the states, as tantamount to a holding that a state is not a "person” within § 1983.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Ward v. Murphy, 330 F. Supp. 2d 83 (2004)
440 U.S. 332, 341, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979), the eleventh amendment is inapplicable.
Distinguished by Hampton v. State of Michigan, 144 Mich. App. 794 (1985)
Although Quern involved Eleventh Amendment immunity, which, of course, is inapplicable to suits
The opinion
Mr. Justice Marshall,
concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment of the Court, for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 688 (1974), and my concurring opinion in Employees v. Missouri Public Health Dept., 411 U. S. 279, 287 (1973). Moreover, I agree that an affirmance here follows logically from the Court's decision in Edelman , because the explanatory notice approved by the Court of Appeals clearly is ancillary to prospective relief. But given that basis for deciding the present case, it is entirely unnecessary for the Court to address the question whether a State is a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. Accordingly, I join Parts I, II, and III of my Brother Brennan’s opinion.