# 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/9434447

## 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 Stevens
- **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/9434447

## 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 Stevens,
concurring in the judgment.
Because I have never been convinced that an Act of Congress can amend the Constitution and because I am uncer *741 tain whether the congressional enactment before us was truly “ ‘needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment,’” I write separately to explain why I join the Court’s judgment. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 458 (1976) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 651 (1966)).
The plain language of the Eleventh Amendment poses no barrier to the adjudication of this case because respondents are citizens of Nevada. The sovereign immunity defense asserted by Nevada is based on what I regard as the second Eleventh Amendment, which has its source in judge-made common law, rather than constitutional text. Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1, 23 (1989) (Stevens, J., concurring). As long as it clearly expresses its intent, Congress may abrogate that common-law defense pursuant to its power to regulate commerce “among the several States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8. The family-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is unquestionably a valid exercise of a power that is “broad enough to support federal legislation regulating the terms and conditions of state employment.” Fitzpatrick, 427 U. S., at 458 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). * Accordingly, Nevada’s sovereign immunity defense is without merit.
See Stevens, “Two Questions About Justice,” 2003 U. Ill. L. Rev. 821 (discussing Fitzpatrick).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434447. Public record. Not legal advice.