Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 6× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1984 · …gambling, smuggling, and extortion are several of the abuses fueled by the failure of prison officials to control the possession of currency inside the institution. at p. 1160 ⚠ not in text
cited 6× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 · 2 courts · …there can be no doubt, however, that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless alabama has consented to the filing of such a suit. ✓
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2025–2026 · …there can be no doubt, however, that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless has consented to the filing of such a suit. at p. 782 ✓ Topic ↗
3,692 citation events (1,736 in the last 25 years) across 122 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Shalonda Meaux v. Kentucky Department of Revenue, et al. (kywd, 2026-06-24) · Strongest negative: Jech v. Burch (hid, 1979-02-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "but see" Jech v. Burch (3×)
D. Haw. · 1979 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 , 98 S.Ct. 3057 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978). 18 .
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Shalonda Meaux v. Kentucky Department of Revenue, et al.
W.D. Ky. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
he eleventh amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against states and their agencies.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Levon Alls v. Captain Jackson, in her individual and official capacity, et al.
M.D. Ga. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the eleventh amendment bars action against the georgia department of corrections
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Erick Francisco Nunez Tavarez v. Georgia Department of Corrections; Smith State Prison; Ashley Kennedy; Keenan Carver; Curtis Todd; Willesha Warren; Rodney Foulks; Tyrone Oliver; Charles Mims; and Jacob Beasley
S.D. Ga. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there can be no doubt, however, that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless has consented to the filing of such a suit.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Terrance D. Smith v. Jared T. Williams, District Attorney; Foozan Monga, Investigator; Jesse C. Stone, Superior Court Judge; State of Georgia; and Richmond County, Georgia
S.D. Ga. · 2026 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
neither a state nor its agencies may be sued as a named defendant in federal court absent the state's consent.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Edward B. Jennings v. The State of Alabama and Tallapoosa County Circuit Court
M.D. Ala. · 2025 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
he eleventh amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against states and their agencies.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Merilien v. Harner
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there can be no doubt, however, that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless has consented to the filing of such a suit.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Kinsey v. Pasha
S.D. Cal. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there can be no doubt, 16 however, that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh 17 amendment, unless has consented to the filing of such a suit.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Jones v. State of Georgia
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
neither a state nor its agencies may be sued as a named defendant in federal court absent the state's consent.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Thompson v. California Prison Industry Authority
S.D. Cal. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there can be no doubt, 10 however, that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh 11 amendment, unless has consented to the filing of such a suit.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Turner v. State Of Georgia
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there can be no doubt, however, that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless has consented to the filing of such a suit.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) HALL v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there can be no doubt, however, that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless has consented to the filing of such a suit.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Patrick v. Georgia Department of Corrections and All Entity
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there can be no doubt, however, that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless has consented to the filing of such a suit.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) LUDWIG v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE
W.D. Pa. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
absent a state's consent, the eleventh amendment bars a civil rights suit in federal court that names the state as a defendant...
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Fields v. The State of Georgia
S.D. Ga. · 2024 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
neither a state nor its agencies may be sued as a named defendant in federal court absent the state's consent.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) DURKIN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY
W.D. Pa. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the 'jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the relief sought
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Jones v. Anthony (INMATE 1)
M.D. Ala. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there can be no doubt . . . that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless alabama has consented to the filing of such a suit.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Gonzalez v. Connecticut Department of Correction
D. Conn. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
he eleventh amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against state and their agencies.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) SKELTON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
D.N.J. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there can be no doubt, however, that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless has consented to the filing of such a suit
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Smith v. Alabama Department of Corrections (INMATE 1)
M.D. Ala. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there can be no doubt . . . that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless alabama has consented to the filing of such a suit.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) WCI, Inc. v. Ohio Department Of Public Safety
S.D. Ohio · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there can be no doubt, however, that suit against the state and is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless has consented to the filing of such a suit.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Perry v. Treseler
D. Mass. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
he eleventh amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against states and their agencies.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) WALTON v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, PENNSYLVANIA
W.D. Pa. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the 'jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the relief sought
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) (PC) Greschner v. CDCR
E.D. Cal. · 2019 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the nevada 22 department of prisons, as a state agency, clearly was immune from suit under the eleventh 23 amendment.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Security And Law Enforcement Employees v. Carey (4×) also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited as authority (rule)
2d Cir. · 1984 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
gambling, smuggling, and extortion are several of the abuses fueled by the failure of prison officials to control the possession of currency inside the institution.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Security & Law Enforcement Employees v. Carey (4×) also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited as authority (rule)
2d Cir. · 1984 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
gambling, smuggling, and extortion are several of the abuses fueled by the failure of prison officials to control the possession of currency inside the institution.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Utley v. State of Kentucky
W.D. Ky. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the parole board is entitled to eleventh amendment immunity.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Muhammad v. State of Alabama (3×)
S.D. Ala. · 2020 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence low
suit against and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Fick v. State Of Alabama
S.D. Ala. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
this immunity may not be waived.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Parten v. Alabama Department of Tourism (3×)
M.D. Ala. · 2015 · signal: see · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
there can be no doubt, however, that suit,against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless alabama has consented to the filing of such a suit.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) S. v. Webb (3×)
D. Conn. · 2009 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence low
suit against the state and its is barred by the eleventh amendment unless has consented to the filing of such a suit
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Poirier v. Massachusetts Department of Correction (3×)
D. Mass. · 2008 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence low
there can be no doubt, however, that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless alabama has consented to the filing of such a suit.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Embury v. King (3×)
N.D. Cal. · 2001 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence low
the eleventh amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against states and their agencies
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Edwards v. Alabama Department of Corrections (3×)
M.D. Ala. · 2000 · signal: see · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
there can be no doubt, however, that suit against the state and its board of corrections is barred by the eleventh amendment, unless alabama has consented to the filing of such a suit.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Jerald Kendrick, Cross-Appellants v. David Bland, Cross-Appellees, United States of America, Amicus Curiae (3×)
6th Cir. · 1984 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence low
less intrusive, but equally effective, measures should have been taken by the district court
cited Cited as authority (rule) Desmond DeShawn Shaw v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
W.D. Ky. · 2026 · confidence medium
Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 124 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dwain Evans Turner v. State of Alabama DOC
N.D. Ala. · 2026 · confidence medium
(Doc. 11 at 6–7); see also Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rodney A. Campbell v. St. Charles County Jail and State of Missouri
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Celisha Towers v. Michael Abbott, et al.
D. Kan. · 2026 · confidence medium
Servs., 436 U.S. 658 , 690 n.55 (1978)). 24 Id. at 167 n.14 (citing Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam)). 25 Chilcoat v. San Juan County, 41 F.4th 1196 , 1213–14 (10th Cir. 2022). 26 Sturdevant v. Paulsen, 218 F.3d 1160, 1164 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Watson v. Univ. of Utah Med.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Todd Gray, Jr. v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al.
W.D. Mich. · 2026 · confidence medium
See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 , 98–101 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); O’Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823, 826 (6th Cir. 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) David Galeski v. Heidi Washington et al.
W.D. Mich. · 2026 · confidence medium
See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 , 98–101 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); O’Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823, 826 (6th Cir. 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth Hughes v. Sarah Schroeder, et al.
W.D. Mich. · 2026 · confidence medium
See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 , 98–101 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); O’Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823, 826 (6th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnny Ray Walls-Bey v. Hon. Stephanie Perlow, et al.
W.D. Ky. · 2026 · confidence medium
Ky. June 27, 2017); see also Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 124 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Calesha M. Harris v. State of Ohio, et al.
S.D. Ohio · 2026 · confidence medium
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58 (1996); Pennhurst State School v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joseph Richard Robles v. Warden Martin Gamboa, et al.
E.D. Cal. · 2026 · confidence medium
Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963 , 967 22 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State or its agencies for all 23 types of relief.”); Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020 , 1025–26 (9th Cir. 1999) (the State of 24 California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for federal claims under section 25 1983); Brown v. California Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (a suit against 26 CDCR is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per 27 curiam) (a state’s agency responsible fo…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Terance M. Towns, Sr. v. CHFS/CPS, et al.
W.D. Ky. · 2025 · confidence medium
Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144-46 (1993); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 119-24 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 781-82 (1978).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Terrell Roche v. Unknown Ricklard et al.
W.D. Mich. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 , 98–101 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); O’Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823, 826 (6th Cir. 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Deago Ray Pioterek v. Heide E. Washington et al.
W.D. Mich. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 , 98–101 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); O’Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823, 826 (6th Cir. 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Deago Ray Pioterek v. Dale Bonn et al.
W.D. Mich. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 , 98–101 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); O’Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823, 826 (6th Cir. 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Chance William Perkins v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al.
W.D. Mich. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 , 98–101 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); O’Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823, 826 (6th Cir. 1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ALABAMA Et Al.
v.
PUGH Et Al.
77-1107.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jul 3, 1978.
438 U.S. 781
Stevens, Brennan, Marshall.
Cited by 1,882 opinions  |  Published
14 passages pin-cited by 20 cases
Pinpoint authority: #3,575 of 633,719
Citer courts: M.D. Alabama (7) · S.D. Alabama (4) · Second Circuit (4) · D. Connecticut (4) · D. Massachusetts (4) · Sixth Circuit (3) · N.D. California (3)

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondents, inmates or former inmates of the Alabama prison system, sued petitioners, who include the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections as well as a number of Alabama officials responsible for the administration of its prisons, alleging that conditions in Alabama prisons constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The United States District Court agreed and issued an order prescribing measures designed to eradicate cruel and unusual punishment in the Alabama prison system. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed but modified some aspects of the order which it believed exceeded the limits of the appropriate exercise of the court's remedial powers. 559 F. 2d 283.

Among the claims raised here by petitioners is that the issuance of a mandatory injunction against the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections is unconstitutional because the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against States and their agencies. The Court of Appeals did not address this contention, perhaps because it was of the view that in light of[*782] the numerous individual defendants in the case dismissal as to these two defendants would not affect the scope of the injunction. There can be no doubt, however, that suit against the State and its Board of Corrections is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, unless Alabama has consented to the filing of such a suit. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974); Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U. S. 459 (1945); Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley, 302 U. S. 292 (1937). Respondents do not contend that Alabama has consented to this suit, and it appears that no consent could be given under Art. I, § 14, of the Alabama Constitution, which provides that “the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.” Moreover, the question of the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity is not merely academic. Alabama has an interest in being dismissed from this action in order to eliminate the danger of being held, in contempt if it should fail to comply with the mandatory injunction.[1] Consequently, we grant the petition for certio-rari limited to Question 2 presented by petitioners,[2] reverse the judgment in part, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals with instructions to order the dismissal of the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections from this action.

So ordered.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall dissent.
1

Respondents contend that petitioners failed to raise the Eleventh Amendment issue in the District Court. The Court held in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 678 (1974), however, that “the Eleventh Amendment defense sufficiently partakes of the nature of a jurisdictional bar so that it need not be raised in the trial court . . . .”

2

“Whether the mandatory injunction issued against the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections violates the State’s Eleventh[*783] Amendment immunity or exceeds the jurisdiction granted federal courts by 42 U. S. C. § 1983.”

Dissent

Mr. Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

This Court is much too busy to spend its time correcting[*783] harmless errors. Nothing more is accomplished by the summary action it takes today.*

The Court does not question the propriety of the injunctive relief entered by the District Court and upheld by the Court of Appeals. Striking the State’s name from the list of parties will have no impact on the effectiveness of that relief. If the state officers disobey the injunction, financial penalties may be imposed on the responsible state agencies. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678. The District Court’s asserted error did not trouble the Court of Appeals because it has no practical significance. It does not justify the exercise of this Court’s certio-rari jurisdiction. I respectfully dissent.

Surely the Court does not intend to resolve summarily the issue debated by my Brothers in their separate opinions in Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678, 700 (BreNNAN, J., concurring), and 708-709, n. 6 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).