May States Refuse to Enforce Federal Law?
In Alden v. Maine, (1) the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the structure of the federal Constitution and historic principles of sovereign immunity, Congress could not authorize suits against states in state courts on federal claims without the consent of the state to be sued, except when Congress acts pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment powers . (2) However, a subsequent decision of the Seventh Circuit in Erickson v. Board of Governors, 207 F 3d 945 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. den. sub nom United States v. Board of Governors, 2001 WL 178191 (Feb. 26, 2001), suggests that the decision may be more limited in scope than it initially appeared. The Seventh Circuit correctly predicted the outcome of the Garrett case, that sovereign immunity bars a damage suit under Title I (employment) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against a state in federal court. It then went on to comment on the limited significance of its decision. All our holding means is that private litigation to enforce
Related Questions
- Even though the LAPD may enforce immigration law, why should the LAPD enforce federal immigration laws if they have higher law enforcement priorities to which to attend?
- Under state or federal law, can an owner of an apartment complex refuse to rent any of its apartments to a family solely because the family includes a minor child?
- Why does Congress refuse to reschedule marijuana to permit its use as a medicine under federal law?
