# Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon > Supreme Court of the United States · August 28, 1985 · 473 U.S. 234 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430160 ## Case - **Full name:** ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL Et Al. v. SCANLON - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** August 28, 1985 - **Citations:** 473 U.S. 234; 105 S. Ct. 3142; 87 L. Ed. 2d 171; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 89 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Stevens - **Judges:** Powell, Burger, White, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens - **Cited by:** 1,745 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Reported superseded on other grounds by Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) — not on the Supreme Court's list. - Negative treatments: 3 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430160 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that general consent to suit provision in Article III, § 5, of the California Constitution, providing “[sjuits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as shall be directed by law” did not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity because the “provisi… - holding that a state constitutional provision providing that “[s]uits may be brought against the State . . . in such courts as shall be directed by law” was insufficient to constitute a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity because such a waiver “must specify the State’s inten… - finding that § 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, which provides for suits in federal court against "any recipient of Federal assistance" fell "far short of manifesting a clear intent to condition participation in the programs funded under the Act on a State's con- sent to waive i… - finding that S 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, which provides for suits in federal court against "any recipient of Federal assistance" fell "far short of manifesting a clear intent to condition participation in the programs funded under the Act on a State's consent to waive its… - holding that remedies under the Rehabilitation Act for violations by “any recipient of Federal assistance” did not extend to violations by a State recipient because Congress did not make “unmistakably clear in the language of the statute” its intention to abrogate State immunity ## Opinion text Justice Stevens, dissenting. Because my decision to join Justice Brennan’s dissent is a departure from the opinion I expressed in Florida Dept. of Health v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U. S. 147, 151 (1981), a word of explanation is in order. As I then explained, notwithstanding my belief that Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974), was incorrectly decided, see 450 U. S., at 151, n. 2 ,1 then concluded that the doctrine of stare decisis required that Edelman be followed. Since then, however, the Court has not felt constrained by stare decisis in its expansion of the protective mantle of sovereign immunity— having repudiated at least 28 cases in its decision in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89, 165-166, n. 50 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting) — and additional study has made it abundantly clear that not only Edelman , but Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), as well, can properly be characterized as “egregiously incorrect.” 450 U. S., at 153 . I am now persuaded that a fresh examination of the Court’s Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence will produce benefits that far outweigh “the consequences of further unraveling the doctrine of stare decisis” in this area of the law. Id., at 155 . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430160. Public record. Not legal advice.