Part 4: Sovereign Immunity and New Judicial Federalism

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CONGRESS POWER TO ENFORCE 13 TH, 14 TH & 15 TH AMENDMENTS AND LIMITATION IMPOSED BY THE 11th AMENDMENT Goals: Effect of 11 th A on scope of Congress power.
Advertisements

Unit Four Lesson 25 What is the role of the Supreme Court in the American Constitutional System?
The Judicial Branch. Judicial Branch Article III of the Constitution by creating a National Supreme Court. Article III also gave Congress the power to.
Chapter 7: The Judicial Branch
JUDICIAL BRANCH THE UNITED STATES COURT SYSTEM. I. JURISDICTIONS A. Original Article III, section 2 B. Appellate.
The Federal Court System. Background Information Article III, Section 1 : “The Judicial Power of the U.S. shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in.
Constitutional Law Spring 2008 Prof. Fischer Class 16: Limits on Congressional Power to Regulate – Sovereign Immunity Feb 13, 2008.
The Federal Courts Chapter 11 Section 1. Constitutional Origins The courts are established by Article III of the Constitution. The courts are established.
Constitutional Law Spring 2008 Prof. Fischer Class 15 Limits on Legislative Power/Judicial Power: Sovereign Immunity and Amendment XI.
 To interpret and define law  This involves hearing individual cases and deciding how the law should apply  Remember federalism – there are federal.
Gonzalez v. Oregon Logan Oyler, Chris Cubra, Jake Macnair, Vikash Patel, Tyler Stallworth Tyler Stallworth.
Chapter 7: The Judicial Branch. “The Federal Court System & How Federal Courts Are Organized”
Chapter 11: What Do You Think? 1. What is the highest court of the land? 2. What do you know about this court? 3. What are the duties of the Judicial Branch?
Chapter 11: The Federal Court System Section 1: Powers of the Federal Courts.
The Judicial System Chapter 15.
Unit 8 Judiciary.
Unit 4: The dual court system of the US
UNIT 2.
The Judicial Branch.
Court Systems.
Contemporary Federalism: The State and Federal Relationship
The Judicial Branch Chapter 16.
The Judicial Branch Chapter
Chapter 8, Section 3 The United States Supreme Court
The Judicial Branch Friday August 25 Mr. Wade.
The Federal Court System
The Judicial Branch.
Unit 6 Goal 5.02 Identify the jurisdiction of state and federal courts. THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
The Constitution: Structure and Principles
Book Assignment Pages 279 – 280,
The Judicial Branch.
The Judicial Branch.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
The Constitution: Structure and Principles
The Judicial Branch And the Federal Courts.
Warmup What kind of judgments do you have to make in your daily life?
Chapter 8 Section 1.
Lecture 48 Voting and Representation II
The Constitution Chapter 3.
Supreme Court Cases.
American Government and Organization
Chapter 18: The Federal Court System Section 1
The Judiciary: Blending Law and Politics
The Constitution: Structure and Principles Mr
Judicial Branch.
Part 2: Reconstruction to the Burger Court
Speech Clauses III (Tests and Guidelines; Symbolic Speech)
The Constitution: Structure and Principles Mr
Judicial Review & the 1st Constitutional Crisis
The Judicial Branch.
Unit 2: Interactions Among Branches of Government
The Judicial Branch.
Bell Work Please take out your composition book and your colors
Lecture 42 Economic Substantive Due Process
Lecture 35 The Power to Tax and Spend
The Constitution.
The Judicial Branch Article 3.
Article III – The Federal Court System
Lecture 41 The Contract Clause
Lecture 47 Voting and Representation I
Chapter 18: The Federal Court System Section 1
learn limits imposed by 11th A & exceptions
Chapter Three Section 2 Federalism.
Appeals Courts Losing party may be able to appeal the decision to an appeals (appellate) court Losing party will ask the court to review the decision.
Article III Judicial Branch.
Part 5: Presidential Immunity from Lawsuits
The Judicial Branch.
Judicial Branch #1 The Supreme Court.
Lecture 8 The Legislature
Presentation transcript:

Part 4: Sovereign Immunity and New Judicial Federalism Lecture 22 Federalism Part 4: Sovereign Immunity and New Judicial Federalism

This lecture We will cover Sovereign Immunity and the 11th Amendment New Judicial Federalism Pages 387-399

Sovereign Immunity States were to be protected from lawsuits from citizens of other states unless the state consents to the lawsuit Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) Court allows jurisdiction for a lawsuit by South Carolina citizens against Georgia This is overturned by ratification of the 11th Amendment in 1795 But what about suits by people in the state suing their own state in federal court? Cohens v. Virginia (1821) seemed to say the could sue Hans v. Louisiana (1890) says no they can not Can Congress abrogate this? Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976) says yes on 14th Amendment grounds Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Company (1989) says yes on Commerce clause grounds Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996) takes the opposite view

Alden v. Maine (1999) Alden v. Maine (1999) Background Congress can make exceptions to sovereign immunity at given times Congress enabled state employees to sue states for violations of the FLSA In light of Seminole Tribe of Florida, they lost their case in federal court So they moved to state court to sue under the FLSA Question: Can Congress abrogate a state’s immunity under Article I from suits in state courts?

Alden v. Maine- II Arguments For Alden (to abrogate) States cannot use sovereign immunity in a state case The 11th Amendment only applies in federal courts For the State of Maine (against abrogation) It is essential to state sovereignty Do not interpret it to only apply to federal courts

Alden v. Maine- III Justice Kennedy rules for a 5-4 Court The original silence was based on the belief that no one would try to abrogate sovereign immunity of states Early history shows these suits were not authorized by Congress Congress authorizing this in state courts would be more offensive to state sovereignty than authorizing it in federal court It would act to commandeer the state judicial system by the federal government The federal government holds immunity, so why not states too? It could threaten the financial integrity of a state It could give the federal government undo leverage over states

Alden v. Maine- IV More from Kennedy Sovereign immunity has its limits States may consent to lawsuits Congress may assert its 14th Amendment powers It bars actions against only states, but not other entities Maine never consented to the suit Thus Maine holds sovereign immunity from lawsuits under the FLSA in its state courts

Alden v. Maine- V Justice Souter, dissenting Joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer Congress had authority to extend FLSA protections to state employees- so why not give them a right of action for its violations If there is a right, there must be a remedy He compares their decisions on sovereign immunity to those of the Lochner era The one being as unrealistic as the other, as indefensible, and probably as fleeting So Stevens hopes this line of cases is overturned someday

A few more Sovereign Immunity Cases Most of the rest of the rulings go in favor of states Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000) No under the Age Discrimination Act Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001) No under the Americans with disabilities act Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003) Yes, for a specific application of the Family and Medical Leave Act There was a pattern of state violations Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals (2012) No, also under the Family and Medical Leave Act No pattern of violation established

New Judicial Federalism When will the federal courts review cases of state courts? If a federal law or constitutional provision is involved it can Murdock v. City of Memphis (1875) The Court would not review state court decisions unless it implicated federal law Adequate and independent state grounds test State courts are entitled to interpret state laws The Burger Court changes things It went from 75% ruling for criminal defendants to only 30% Liberals on the Court suggested that state courts provide for more protection of civil liberties and rights by using their own constitutions above those at the federal level This would avoid review at the federal level

Michigan v. Long (1983) Michigan v. Long (1983) Background State courts often address federal and state constitutional provisions in opinions This makes the adequate and independent state grounds test murky The Court had used many remedies and applications Dismissal of the appeal Sending it back for clarification (the first 2000 election decision) Direct the litigant to get state clarification Making a judgment on what basis the state court used

Michigan v. Long- II More background Article 1, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution was nearly identical to the Fourth Amendment The Michigan Supreme Court invoked both the federal and state constitutions as the reason for its decision They ruled in favor of Long to suppress a search of his car by police However, they rested their decision on both constitutions Question: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction in this case under the adequate and independent grounds test?

Michigan v. Long- III Arguments: For Michigan (the Attorney General, not the Supreme Court) Even thought the Michigan Supreme Court mentions the Michigan Constitution, they based the decision only on Fourth Amendment cases If they would have applied Michigan law properly, it would have been upheld given the strong relationship between it and the Fourth Amendment For Long (to uphold the Michigan Supreme Court ruling) The Court lacks jurisdiction because the Michigan Supreme Court based its decision on adequate state law grounds Michigan law grants more rights for search and seizure than the Fourth Amendment does In the alternative, the Court should remand for clarification

Michigan v. Long- IV Justice O’Connor delivers the 6-3 opinion (some was 5-4) Justice Blackmun concurred in part and dissented in part Under the Fourth Amendment, Terry would say the search was reasonable The Michigan Court ruled more on Fourth Amendment grounds than Michigan ones This was the problem If they had ruled only on Michigan state grounds, the court would not weigh in The mentioned nearly all federal cases and only two state ones Need for uniformity of federal law interpretation She says state courts should write clearly and expressly on bona fide state legal grounds State courts picked up on this- note the Massachusetts same sex marriage case

Michigan v. Long- V Justice Stevens, dissenting There was also a dissent by Brennan, joined by Marshall He makes a judicial restraint argument He rejects the uniformity argument He said there were a lot of other alternatives the Court could have employed rather than simply overturn this ruling

Next lecture We will wrap up the chapter on federalism National preemption of state laws Three main cases Pages 399-414