# Reply Brief — Alden v. Maine > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0232%3A04 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Reply Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1999 - **Citation:** 527 U.S. 706 ## Text OFFICE OF THE CLERK IN THE REME COURT, U.S. Supreme Court of the Wn OCTOBER TERM, 1998 JouHN H. ALDEN, et al., ” Petitioners, STATE OF MAINE, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS JONATHAN P. HIATT LARRY ENGELSTEIN 816 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 DONALD F.. FONTAINE 482 Congress Street Portland, Maine 04112 TImMoTHY L. BELCHER 65 State Street Of Counsel: Augusta, Maine 04332 DAVID L. SHAPIRO LAURENCE GOLD * 1575 Massachusetts Ave. 1900 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Cambridge, MA 03138 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 833-9340 * Counsel of Record WILSON - Eres PRINTING Co.,. INC. - 789-0096 - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 @ “EIT EAA SA aks > fa®.* ee REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS 2 that issue is squarely and directly presented by the con- flicting decisions of the Maine Court and the Arkansas Court. There is simply nothing to be gained in the in- terest of informed and reasoned decisionmaking in this Court that justifies a period of additional litigation in the state courts without any authoritative guidance. 2. As we noted in our petition, these jurisdictional papers do not present the proper occasion for a full-dress consideration of the questions presented here on the merits —that occasion is the briefs on the merits and the oral argument. Given respondent’s presentation, however, we do think it appropriate to meet the brief in opposition on three of its points. a. The brief in opposition (at pp. 6-10) attempts to create the impression that the Eleventh Amendment, and this Court’s Eleventh Amendment cases upholding state sovereign immunity in the federal courts, govern here. But this Court has affirmed, and reaffirmed, that the Elev- enth Amendment does not apply to state court proceed- ings and thus does not provide the State an immunity from suit in the state courts. See Pet. 6, 8-11 (collecting cases). b. The brief in opposition (at p. 7 n.3) marshalls a set of quotations from the Court’s Eleventh Amendment cases in order to suggest that the Court has recognized a general state immunity in private-party state-court fed- eral-law cases absent the State’s consent. Those quota- tions—each of which is taken out of context—do not support that broad proposition. Indeed, the square con- trary holding of Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), belies respondent’s submission in this regard. c. The brief in opposition’s reliance (at pp. 15-17) on Printz v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 2365 (1997) and its predecessor “commandeering” Tenth Amendment cases is wholly misplaced. In Printz, and in its predecessors, this gards, id., thereby giving added weight to our submission that this matter is ripe for review. 3 Court was at pains to distinguish between the situations there at hand and the special role and responsibility of the state courts under the Supremacy Clause in the en- forcement of federal law. See, e.g., 117 S. Ct. at 2370- 2371, 2381. IL Respondent’s argument (Br. in Opp. 19-22) that the certiorari petition’s second question presented—whether Maine can close its courts to employee federal statutory wage claims against the State where analogous state statu- tory claims are justiciable—was not considered by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court flies in the face of the record and the Maine Court’s decision. The discrimination argument was fully presented; in- deed one of the “issues presented for review” to the Maine Court was whether “the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution [is] violated when a state court bars a federal FLSA action against the state for overtime pay while simultaneously permitting similar suits based on state law.” Appellants Br. at 3. And, a full seven pages of our principal brief to the Maine Court was in support of the contention that “the state may not discriminate against federal causes of action.” Appellants Br. at 14-21. Eight pages of our’reply brief, in turn, were in support of the argument that “the Supremacy Clause prohibits dis- crimination by a state court against federal causes of action that are analogous to justiciable state cases.” Ap- pellants Reply Br. at 4-13. The Maine Court, moreover, never even suggested that the discrimination argument was not properly presented. To the contrary, the court below confronted the argu- ment directly (though choosing to misphrase our discrim- ination contention as one of “waiver”) and in so doing, rejected our position on the merits (and not on any of the procedural grounds tendered by the State of Maine). The Maine Court's ruling, set out in the last section of its opinion (dealing with our “alternative” argument), was that Maine state law does not create a cause of action against the State on the particular matter in controversy 4 (overtime pay) and thus that there was no “waiver” (viz., no discrimination ). See Pet. App. 6a-7a. Contrary to respondent (Br. in Opp. 22), this ques- tion—what constitutes discrimination against a federal as a matter of federal law, iner owing—is in itself a federal issue. The brief in opposition’s attempt (at p. 23 n.11) to push Howlett v. Rose to one side is misleading. Howlett is devoted in substantial part to a detailed elaboration of the State’s discrimination against federal (as opposed to state) claims in its courts. 496 U.S. at 378-380. And, this Court from Mondou v. New York, 223 US. 1 (1912), through Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 (1947), and on to Howlett. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated in the certiorari petition and in this reply brief the petition should be granted. *) Of Counsel: DAVID L. SHAPIRO 1575 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 03138 5 Respectfully submitted, JONATHAN P. HIATT LARRY ENGELSTEIN 816 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 DONALD F. FONTAINE 482 Congress Street Portland, Maine 04112 TrmorTuy L. BELCHER 65 State Street Augusta, Maine 04332 LAURENCE GOLD * 1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 833-9340 * Counsel of Record --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0232%3A04. Public record. Not legal advice.