# Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman > Supreme Court of the United States · January 23, 1984 · 465 U.S. 89 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429484 ## Case - **Full name:** PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL Et Al. v. HALDERMAN Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** January 23, 1984 - **Citations:** 465 U.S. 89; 52 U.S.L.W. 4155; 104 S. Ct. 900; 79 L. Ed. 2d 67; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 4 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Brennan - **Judges:** Powell, Burger, White, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Brennan, Stevens, Marshall, Blackmun - **Cited by:** 8,906 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled in part, on other grounds by Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) — not on the Supreme Court's list. - Negative treatments: 2 - Distinguished by: 3 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429484 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that the exceptions to the eleventh amendment recognized in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), and Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) for suits brought against state officials are not applicable to suits … - explaining that under Young, “[t]he Court has recognized an important exception to the general rule [that the Eleventh Amendment bars a suit against state officials when the state is the real, substantial party in interest]: a suit challenging .the constitutionality of a state… - holding that “although Congress has power with respect to the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment, we have required an unequivocal express of congressional intent to ‘overturn the constitutionally guaranteed immunity to the … States’… - holding that “a claim that state officials violated state law in carrying out their official responsibilities is a claim against the State that is protected by the Eleventh Amendment,” and “this principle applies as well to state-law claims brought into federal court under pen… - explaining that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court for damages against states, state agencies, and state officials in their official capacities unless the state unequivocally waives its immunity or Congress expressly abrogates the immunity by creating a statuto… ## Opinion text Justice Brennan, dissenting. I fully agree with Justice Stevens’ dissent. Nevertheless, I write separately to explain that in view of my continued belief that the Eleventh Amendment “bars federal court suits against States only by citizens of other States,” Yeomans v. Kentucky, 423 U. S. 983, 984 (1975) (Brennan, J., dissenting), I would hold that petitioners are not entitled to invoke the protections of that Amendment in this federal-court suit by citizens of Pennsylvania. See Employees v. Missouri Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, 411 U. S. 279, 298 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 687 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting). In my view, Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), upon which the Court today relies, ante, at 98, recognized that the Eleventh Amendment, by its terms, erects a limited constitutional barrier prohibiting suits against States by citizens of another State; the decision, however, “accords to nonconsenting States only a nonconstitutional immunity from suit by its own citizens.” Employees v. Missouri Dept. of Public *126 Health and Welfare, supra, at 313 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). For scholarly discussions supporting this view, see Gibbons, The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity: A Reinterpretation, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1889 , 1893-1894 (1983); Field, The Eleventh Amendment and Other Sovereign Immunity Doctrines: Part One, 126 U. Pa. L. Rev. 515 , 538-540, and n. 88 (1978). To the extent that such nonconstitutional sovereign immunity may apply to petitioners, I agree with Justice Stevens that since petitioners’ conduct was prohibited by state law, the protections of sovereign immunity do not extend to them. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429484. Public record. Not legal advice.