Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976)

Compare Fitzpatrick, 427 U.S. at 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 (holding that state sovereign immunity may be abrogated by federal statute enacted pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment), and EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 , 243 n. 18, 103 S.Ct. 1054 , 75 L.Ed.2d 18 (1983) ("[W]hen properly exercising its power under § 5, Congress is not limited by the same Tenth Amendment constraints that circumscribe the exercise of its Commerce Clause powers."), with Seminole Tribe v. Flor…

Compare Fitzpatrick, 427 U.S. at 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 (holding that state sovereign immunity may be abrogated by federal statute enacted pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment), and EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 , 243 n. 18, 103 S.Ct. 1054 , 75 L.Ed.2d 18 (1983) (“[W]hen properly exercising its power under §. 5, Congress is not limited by the same Tenth Amendment constraints that circumscribe the exercise of its Commerce Clause powers.”), with Seminole Tribe v. Flo…

Cf. Katz, 546 U. S., at 372–373 (holding that “those who crafted the Bankruptcy Clause” understood it to “operat[e] free and clear of the State’s claim of sover- eign immunity”); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 456 (1976) (holding that state sovereign immunity is neces- sarily limited by the enforcement provision of the Four- teenth Amendment); South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286 , 314–318 (1904) (holding that Article 3, §2, gives the Supreme Court jurisdicti…

Cf. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 457 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (award of attorneys’ fees and back pay against state government employers pursuant to Title VII does not violate the Eleventh Amendment since that Amendment is limited by § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment).

See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976) ("[T]he Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment." (cita- tion omitted)).

See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) ("[T]he Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment." (citation omitted)). 14 Section 5 grants Congress the "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of" the Fourteenth Amendment, including the following portion of § 1: 15 No State shall make or enfor…

Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 , 119 S.Ct. 2219, 2223 , 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999); see also Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (“[T]he Eleventh Amendment, and the principles of state sovereignty which it embodies, ... are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”).

In contrast, Congress may abrogate a State’s sovereign immunity when it enacts valid legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 3 See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (“[T]he Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (citation omitted)).

In contrast, Congress may abrogate a State's sovereign immunity when it enacts valid legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 3 See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) ("[T]he Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment." (citation omitted)).

In contrast, Congress may abrogate a State's sover- eign immunity when it enacts valid legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.3See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976) ("[T]he Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment." (cita- tion omitted)).

See, e.g., Fitzpatrick, 427 U.S. at 456 , 96 S.Ct. at 2671 (Eleventh Amendment is "necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment").

See Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436, 447 (1883) (“The immunity from suit belonging to a State … is a personal privilege which it may waive at pleasure.”); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976) (“[W]e think that the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of [Section] 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”) (internal citation omitted).

Expense Bd., 119 S.Ct. 2219, 2223 (1999); see also Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976) ("[T]he Eleventh Amendment, and the principles of state sovereignty which it embodies, . . . are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.").

"When Congress acts pursuant to Sec. 5, not only is it exercising legislative authority that is plenary within the terms of the constitutional grant, it is exercising that authority under one section of a constitutional amendment whose other sections by their own terms embody limitations on state authority." Id. (upholding money award against a state under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the "Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which …

See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58 (1996) (“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment, by expanding federal power at the expense of state autonomy, . . . fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution.”); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976) (“[W]e think that the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of section 5 of the 14th A…

See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (“the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, see Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 , 10 S.Ct. 504 , 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890), are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”).

See also Garrett, 531 U.S. at 363 , 121 S.Ct. 955 ; Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 238 , 105 S.Ct. 3142 ; Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) ("the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of State sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.") (citations omitted).

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 447 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (Eleventh Amendment is limited by the enforcement power under §§ 5 of Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive provisions, in this instance, sexual discrimination); see also, Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 , 116 S.Ct. 1114 , 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996); Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Ed., 527 U.S. at 637 , 119 S.Ct. 2199 ; Nevada Dept. of Human Res. v. Hibbs,…

Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 , 116 S.Ct. 1114 , 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (Overruled Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1 , 109 S.Ct. 2273 , 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989), thereby eliminating Interstate Commerce Clause as an authority to abrogate); See also Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666, 2671 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (Eleventh Amendment is limited by the enforcement power under § 5 of Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s sub…

See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (Eleventh Amendment does not bar an award of back pay since limited by enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment).

Cf. City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 179 , 100 S.Ct. 1548, 1559 , 64 L.Ed.2d 119 (1980) (Constitutional “principles of federalism that might otherwise be an obstacle to congressional authority are necessarily overridden by the power to enforce the Civil War Amendments ‘by appropriate legislation.’ ”); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666, 2671 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (“[W]e think that the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereig…

XIV, § 5; see also Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976) (“[T]he Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provision of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (citation omitted)).

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976) (“[T]he Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies . . . are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Fla., 517 U.S. 44 , 72–73 (1996); Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 , 78–79 (2000) (“Congress lacks power under Article I to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity.”).

See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58 (1996) (“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment, by expanding federal power at the expense of state autonomy, . . . fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution.”); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976) (“[W]e think that the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of section 5 of the 14th A…

But see Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 456 (“Congress may, in determining what is ‘appropriate legislation’ for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, provide for private suits against States or state officials which are constitutionally impermissible in other contexts”); see also Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678 ; Maher v. Gagne, 448 U. S. 122 .

See Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 315 n. 6, 95 S.Ct. 992 , 997 n. 6, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975) (immunity from damages does not ordinarily bar equitable relief); Edelman v. Jordan, supra, 415 U.S. at 677 , 94 S.Ct. at 1362 (federal court’s remedial power, consistent with Eleventh Amendment, is limited to prospective injunctive relief and may not include retroactive award requiring payment of damages from state treasury); but cf. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 , 96 S.Ct.…

See Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 315 n. 6, 95 S.Ct. 992 , 997 n. 6, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975) (immunity from damages does not ordinarily bar equitable relief); Edelman v. Jordan, supra, 415 U.S. at 677 , 94 S.Ct. at 1362 (federal court's remedial power, consistent with Eleventh Amendment, is limited to prospective injunctive relief and may not include retroactive award requiring payment of damages from state treasury); but cf. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 , 96 S.Ct.…

See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 451 , 96 S.Ct. 2666, 2668 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (payments barred in Edelman were “indistinguishable from a monetary award against the State itself which had been prohibited in Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 464 , 65 S.Ct. 347 , 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945).”) (emphasis added); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 238 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (Edelman would bar plaintiff “seeking damages from the public trea…

See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 451 , 96 S.Ct. 2666, 2668 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (payments barred in Edelman were "indistinguishable from a monetary award against the State itself which had been prohibited in Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 464 , 65 S.Ct. 347 , 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945).") (emphasis added); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 238 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (Edelman would bar plaintiff "seeking damages from the public trea…

But see Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976).

But see Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976).

But cf. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, All U.S. 445, 456, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 2671 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1975) ("Congress may, in determining what is 'appropriate legislation' for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, provide for private suits against States or state officials which are constitutionally impermissible in other contexts"). 10 .

See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) ("We think that Congress may, in determining what is 'appropriate legislation' for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, provide for private suits against States or state officials which are constitutionally impermissible in other contexts") 54 One may argue that the Seminole Court intended its holding to have more bite than this.

Id. at 648-49 ; see also Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976) ("When Congress acts pursuant to § 5, [] it [is] exercising legislative authority that is plenary within the terms of the constitutional grant."). 81 While it is true that the FMLA goes beyond disallowing discrimination based on gender and imposes affirmative duties on the states in furtherance of equal protection, that imposition is permissible pursuant to Section 5's enforcement authority.

See, e.g., Reich v. State of New York, 3 F.3d 581, 590-91 (2d Cir.1993); Hale v. State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1391-92 (9th Cir.1993); cf. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 , 449 n. 2, 452, 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (“congressional authorization to sue the State ... clearly present” when Title VII amended to allow suits against “governments [and] governmental agencies”).

See Bitzer, 427 U.S. at 455 , 96 S.Ct. at 2671 (“Were it not for the fifth section of [the Fourteenth A]mendment, there might be room for argument that the first section is only declaratory of the moral duty of the State.”) They have not done so here.

See Bitzer, 427 U.S. at 455 , 96 S.Ct. at 2671 ("Were it not for the fifth section of [the Fourteenth A]mendment, there might be room for argument that the first section is only declaratory of the moral duty of the State.") They have not done so here.

See, e.g., Reich v. State of New York, 3 F.3d 581, 590-91 (2d Cir. 1993); Hale v. State of Arizona, 993 F.3d 1387 , 1391-92 (9th Cir. 1993); cf. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 , 449 n.2, 452 (1976) (“congressional authorization to sue the State . . . clearly present” when Title VII amended to allow suits against “governments [and] governmental agencies”).

See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer , 427 U.S. 445 , 455, 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) ("There can be no doubt that this line of cases has sanctioned intrusions by Congress, acting under the Civil War Amendments, into the judicial, executive, and legislative spheres of autonomy previously reserved to the States."); Libertarian Party of Va. v. Alcorn , 826 F.3d 708 , 715 (4th Cir. 2016) (Wilkinson, J.) ("Of course, the Reconstruction Amendments ... materially altered the divis…

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (“Congress is expressly granted authority to enforce ‘by appropriate legislation’ the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which themselves embody significant limitations on state authority.”).

See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (“When Congress acts pursuant to s 5 ... it is exercising that authority under one section of a constitutional Amendment whose other sections by their own terms embody limitations on state authority.”); see also Kerr v. United States Dist.

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 452 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (“There is no dispute that in enacting the 1972 Amendments to Title VII to extend coverage to the States as employers, Congress exercised its power under section five of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Yoonessi v. State University of New York, 862 F.Supp. 1005, 1013 (W.D.N.Y.1994), leave to appeal denied, 56 F.3d 10 (2d Cir.1995).

See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (“We think that Congress may, in determining what is “appropriate legislation” for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, provide for private suits against States or state officials which are constitutionally impermissible in other contexts.”) Seminole Tribe’s contraction of Congress’ abrogation authority thus deflates citizen suit jurisdiction under not only § …

Further, while, in some instances, Congress may abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, see, e.g., United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 , 158–59 (2006); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976), Congress did not do so in Section 1983, see Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 , 74 n.4 (2009) (“[A] plaintiff seeking damages against [a] State . . . cannot use [Section] 1983 as a vehicle for redress because a State is not a ‘person’ under [Section] 1983.”); Will v. Mich. Dep’t…

Further, while, in some instances, Congress may abdicate a state’s sovereign immunity, see, e.g., United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 , 158–59 (2006); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976), Congress did not do so in § 1983, see Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 , 74 n.4 (2009) (“[A] plaintiff seeking damages against [a] State . . . cannot use § 1983 as a vehicle for redress because a State is not a ‘person’ under § 1983.” (citation omitted)); Will v. Mich. Dep’t of…

See Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 238 , 105 S.Ct. 3142 , 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985) (“[I]f a State waives its immunity and consents to suit in federal court, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the action.”); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (“Congress may, in determining what is ‘appropriate legislation’ for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, provide for private suits against Sta…

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 , 455–56 (1976).

See Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 238 (1985) (“[I]f a State waives its immunity and consents to suit in federal court, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the action.”); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976) (“Congress may, in determining what is ‘appropriate legislation’ for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, provide for private suits against States or state officials which are constitutionally impermissible in …

(See Docket Entry 62-1, ¶¶ 175–88; see also Docket Entry 64 at 5 (“Plaintiffs also allege that [Defendant NCSHP] has violated Title VII.”).) As Plaintiffs correctly have observed, “states do not have sovereign immunity [against suit for claims] under Title VII” (Docket Entry 65 at 4 (citing Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976))).

See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976); Hongmian Gong v. City Univ. of New York, No. 18-CV-3027, 2019 WL 952340 , at *3 n.3.