CIVIL RIGHTS
GODSIL
FALL 2011
Introduction
A. Focus: The interplay between statutory sources of protection and the Constitution itself
B. 42 USC §1983: Passed by Congress to protect Civil Rights after the Civil War
a. Themes: federalism, separation of powers, questions about scope of constitutional rights
b. Creates a cause of action that allows individuals to sue the government for violation of constitutional and federal statutory rights (and be made whole)
c. It provides affirmative relief
d. It provides statutory protection against unauthorized government conduct that violates the Constitution or another federal statute
e. Justice: Deterrence & Compensation
C. Major Questions
a. Scope
i. What is the scope of the federal constitutional and statutory protections? (how broadly/narrowly has the Court interpreted federal constitutional rights)
b. Who is an appropriate defendant in a §1983 action?
i. Who can you sue for violating federal rights? (the state, state officers, cities/municipalities, city-level municipal officers, etc.)
c. Immunities
i. Who is immune from suit? Can you sue any gov’t official? Can you sue state gov’t? What kind of immunities are available? Why do some actors get absolute immunity and why do other actors get qualified immunity? What are the contours of absolute/qualified immunities?
d. Remedy
i. What are the plaintiffs entitled to? (compensatory relief, injunctive relief, punitive damages)
e. Attorneys Fees
i. Are attorneys fees available in civil rights litigation?
D. Argueta Complaint
a. What is the legal standard to hold officials responsible for policies enacted by the officials but enforced by agents?
b. Role of Qualified Immunity – is knowing and acquiescence enough?
State Sovereign Immunity and the Eleventh Amendment
A. Sovereign Immunity
a. Sovereign Immunity in the federal courts is based on SCOTUS’s interpretation of the 11th Amendment à so we are concerned w/ the judicial interpretation of the 11th Amendment
b. State sovereign immunity is a major limit on federal judicial power
c. Origination in England: this just meant the sovereign was immune from suit
B. The Eleventh Amendment
a. Most civil rights actions are brought against government officers and the remedies run against those officers rather than against the government that employs them
i. Reason: This is because the 11th Amendment has been interpreted to forbid damage actions against states
b. Purpose of the 11th Amendment: Protect the states against federal court suits for money damages
c. Article III §2 defines the scope of federal judicial power: Authorizes federal jx over suits
i. Between a State and citizens of another State; and
ii. Between citizens of different states
d. The Eleventh Amendment modified these two heads of jurisdiction
i. Article III gives the power to the federal courts and the 11th amendment takes some of that power away…how much it takes away is the question.
ii. Were the clauses of Article III meant to override the sovereign immunity that states enjoyed at common law prior to the adoption of the Constitution? The language of Article III seems to override sovereign immunity
iii. Interpretation:
1. Plain Language
2. Original intent of framers
3. Constitutional Convention and State Ratification Debate
e. As interpreted, 11th Amendment prohibits suits in federal courts against state governments founded in law, equity, or admiralty by a state’s own citizens, by citizens of another state, or by citizens of foreign countries
i. Alden v Maine (1999): Sovereign immunity bars suits against state governments that are maintained in state courts as well
f. “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”
g. Local governments DO NOT have immunity under the 11th Amendment, but their direct liability for constitutional violations has been limited by other doctrines
i. Lincoln County v Luning (1890): 11th amendment does not protect a county from suit in federal court. At this time, local government was viewed as corporate entities without connection to the state.
h. Competing Theories of the Eleventh Amendment
i. Broad Interpretation: Total Sovereign Immunity. The 11th is a restriction on subject matter jx of the federal courts that bars all suits against state governments. This is the constitutional amendment memorializing common law sovereign immunity.
ii. Narrow Interpretation: The 11th restricts the federal court’s subject matter jx only in precluding cases brought against states that are founded solely on diversity jx so that suits based on federal law are unaffected by the 11th.
C. Chisholm v Georgia (1793) The Catalyst for the Eleventh Amendment
a. An out-of-state resident/merchant (S.C.) sued the state of Georgia for money damages, attempting to recover money owed by the state (diversity jurisdiction)
b. Judiciary Act of 1789: Scotus had original jurisdiction in diversity actions
c. Holding: Suit can go forward despite Georgia’s claim of sovereign immunity à Georgia must pay the debt owed on the bond
d. Article III §2 authorizes federal judicial power to controversies b/w a State and citizens of another state (diversity jurisdiction)
e. Reaction: concern about state sovereignty and fear of exhausting state treasuries à states became concerned about suits brought by out-of-state citizens for back debt owed from the Revolutionary War.
f. The Eleventh Amendment was adopted to OVERRULE this decision
i. Osborne v Bank of US (1824): The 11th Am applies only when the state is a party of record à so 11th Amendment can be avoided by suing an appropriate state officer rather than the state itself.
D. Hans v. Louisiana (1890) Involved Federal Question brought by state citizen against state
a. In-state Louisiana citizen sued Louisiana to recover unpaid interest on state bonds and claimed the state constitutional amendment (which disavowed the obligation to pay interest) violated the U.S. Constitution Art. I §10 (federal question). This was not a diversity suit.
b. Holding: 11th Amendment bars recovery à it is inherent in the nature of sovereignty that the state cannot be sued without its consent. The court took the Broad Interpretation of SI. The rationale of the judges was that the states would not have agreed to such a provision.
i. While the 11th Amendment doesn’t specifically say anything about same-state residents, it would be anomalous to allow states to be sued by their own residents when the 11th Amendment would prohibit an out-of-state resident to sue. Very political decision
ii. This decision did not prevent Hans from bringing the suit in-state (biases)
c. 1890: After Reconstruction, states’ rights are taken very seriously and it seemed the court was uncomfortable holding the federal government held this power to make states liable to suits
E. Revisiting the Competing Interpretations of the Eleventh Amendment
a. Diversity Interpretation (Narrow)
i. The 11th Amendment is a restriction on the federal courts only when the jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. Out-of-state resident cannot sue another State in federal court to enforce state law obligations. Therefore, suits arising under federal law would be unaffected and would not be barred
b. Hans Interpretation (Broad)
i. The 11th Amendment is a total constitutional bar prohibiting all suits in federal courts against states. The 11th is a restriction on the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts and this restriction bars all suits against state gov’t in federal court. The 11th Amendment “constitutionalized” state sovereign immunity in federal court, even in suits by in-state citizens of the defendant state.
F. Modes of Circumvention: Hans is still good law (11th is construed broadly)
a. An expansive reading of the 11th Amendment could prohibit any suit in federal court against the state à this could include state governments, state-level actors (gov’t employees), political subdivisions (cities/municipalities), local gov’t actors (police), etc.
b. Scotus has adopted a number of ways to avoid the broader implications of Hans and permit federal civil rights to be enforced against the states (but still preserve some meaningful role for state sovereign immunity)
c. Scotus has circumvented the Hans result by:
i. Permitting suits against state officials (Ex parte Young)
ii. Permitting states to waive 11th A
ugh its officials
b. Ex Parte Young as a reaction to Hans
i. Scotus engaged in this bizarre reasoning b/c of Hans à reading Hans to its broadest extent, states would be immune from ALL suits in federal court. Young is a reaction to Hans as a way around Hans’s broadest understanding
1. Brennan: Young is the foundation of federal enforcement of constitutional rights against the states à Young is the primary method of limiting the effect of the 11th Amendment and ensuring state compliance w/ federal law
ii. Ex Parte Young created a substantial exception to state sovereign immunity – a state can be sued in federal court for prospective relief by the simple expedient of naming the appropriate state officer as the defendant
iii. Young has come to be cited for the proposition that a cause of action for equitable relief to prevent violation of constitutional rights exists independent of explicit congressional authorization. The Ps sued to prevent the violation of their constitutional right without any statute specifically authorizing such an action
I. Home Telephone & Telegraph v. LA (1913)
a. Individual conduct not entitled to 11th amendment immunity is nonetheless state action for purposes of the 14th amendment. A state official acting within their official capacity –is a “state actor” for the purposes of the 14th Amendment, while at the same time, is not one for the purposes of the 11th amendment.
J. Edelman v Jordan (1974) Suit for prospective and retrospective relief
a. The plaintiff brought a class action suit against a dept. of state of Illinois alleging that a federal-state welfare program (AABD) had been administered in a way that violated both federal laws and the 14th Amendment. Jordan (P) claimed administrators were applying their own guidelines which ignored federally mandated time limits and when aid was actually distributed, it was not paid retroactively to the time when the state should have started paying it (according to federal guidelines). Plaintiff sought a positive injunction to require the State to award him and others similarly situated the aid they missed b/c of the delay in processing the applications (wanted retroactive benefits). Edelman = director of the Dept of Public Aid of Illinois (P can sue state official b/c of Ex parte Young).
b. Cause of action: Assuming no private right of action in the statute itself, Plaintiff can sue under 42 USC §1983 which provides a “cause of action” entitling plaintiffs to sue to vindicate BOTH federal constitutional and federal statutory rights.
c. Procedural History: The DC awarded both prospective and retroactive relief – the 7th circuit characterized the monetary relief as equitable restitution
d. Holding: The 11th Amendment allows prospective relief, but not retroactive relief against state officers. When the action is for money, sovereign immunity bars the suit.
i. The funds to satisfy this award would come from general State revenues (would not be paid by Edelman) à so the award resembles a monetary award of damages against the state itself (Ford) rather than it does the prospective injunctive relief awarded in Young.
ii. The 11th amendment does not prohibit the court from giving injunctive relief even if the injunctive relief will cost the state a great deal of money
iii. Ford Motor Co v Dept of Treasury (1945): When the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state, the state is the real substantial party in interest and is entitled to invoke its sovereign immunity from suit even though individual officials are nominal defendants à so suit might be barred by 11th Amendment even if state is not a named party to the suit if it is for money damages
