# Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 27, 2003 · 538 U.S. 721

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434446

## Case

- **Full name:** NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES Et Al. v. HIBBS Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 27, 2003
- **Citations:** 538 U.S. 721; 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 291; 2003 Daily Journal DAR 5569; 71 U.S.L.W. 4375; 8 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1221; 84 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,391; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4388; 123 S. Ct. 1972; 155 L. Ed. 2d 953; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4272
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Souter
- **Judges:** Rehnquist, O'Con-Nor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 467 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434446

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding FMLA family leave provi- sion validly abrogated state sovereign immunity: “pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women’s work,” in turn “foster[ing] employers’ stereotypical views about women’s commitment to work and their value as employees”
- holding that Congress constitutionally abrogated sovereign immunity for claims seeking money damages for violations of the “family care” provision
- concluding that “[t]he record in this case supports the postulate that women experience unwanted intimate touching by men differently from men subject to comparable touching by women.”
- finding an intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity in the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2617 , where the act expressly allowed a suit against a “public agency,” defined “to include both ‘the government of a State or political subdivision thereof’ and ‘any agenc…
- holding Congress may “abrogate such immunity in federal court if it makes its intention to abrogate unmistakably clear in the language of the statute and acts pursuant to a valid exercise of its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment”

## Opinion text

Justice Souter,
with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, concurring.
Even on this Court’s view of the scope of congressional power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356 (2001); Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62 (2000); Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U. S. 627 (1999), the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is undoubtedly valid legislation, and application of the Act to the States is constitutional; the same conclusions follow a fortiori from my own understanding of § 5, see Garrett, supra, at 376 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kimel, supra, at 92 (Stevens, J., dissenting); Florida Prepaid, supra, at 648 (Stevens, J., dissenting); see also Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 650-651 (1966). I join the Court’s opinion here without conceding the dissenting positions just cited or the dissenting views expressed in Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 100 (1996) (Souter, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434446. Public record. Not legal advice.