Eleventh Amendment immunity in Maryland

2018Cnty. v. Zimmer-Rubert , 409 Md. 200 , 205, 973 A.2d 233 , 236 (2009) (there was no contention between the parties that the Baltimore County Board of Education was a State agency for purposes of whether a provision in the Maryland Code's Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article waives the board's Eleventh Amendment immunity); Norville v. Bd. of Educ. , 160 Md.

2018Cnty. v. Zimmer-Rubert , 409 Md. 200 , 205, 973 A.2d 233 , 236 (2009) (there was no contention between the parties that the Baltimore County Board of Education was a State agency for purposes of whether a provision in the Maryland Code's Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article waives the board's Eleventh Amendment immunity); Norville v. Bd. of Educ. , 160 Md.

2023Schs., 666 F.3d 244 , 248-49 n.5 (4th Cir. 2012) (discussing state and federal decisions recognizing that Maryland’s county school boards are “instrumentalities of the State” for Eleventh Amendment immunity purposes); Jones v. Frederick County Bd. of Educ., 689 F. Supp. 535, 538 (D.

2023Schs., 666 F.3d 244 , 248-49 n.5 (4th Cir. 2012) (discussing state and federal decisions recognizing that Maryland’s county school boards are “instrumentalities of the State” for Eleventh Amendment immunity purposes); Jones v. Frederick County Bd. of Educ., 689 F. Supp. 535, 538 (D.

2009The specific defense of Eleventh Amendment immunity will be waived “where stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [would] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’ ” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673 , 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1361 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662, 678 (1974) (quoting Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151, 171 , 29 S.Ct. 458, 464 , 53 L.Ed. 742, 751 (1909)).

2009The specific defense of Eleventh Amendment immunity will be waived “where stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [would] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’ ” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673 , 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1361 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662, 678 (1974) (quoting Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151, 171 , 29 S.Ct. 458, 464 , 53 L.Ed. 742, 751 (1909)).

2018Cnty. v. Zimmer-Rubert , 409 Md. 200 , 205, 973 A.2d 233 , 236 (2009) (there was no contention between the parties that the Baltimore County Board of Education was a State agency for purposes of whether a provision in the Maryland Code's Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article waives the board's Eleventh Amendment immunity); Norville v. Bd. of Educ. , 160 Md.

2018Cnty. v. Zimmer-Rubert , 409 Md. 200 , 205, 973 A.2d 233 , 236 (2009) (there was no contention between the parties that the Baltimore County Board of Education was a State agency for purposes of whether a provision in the Maryland Code's Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article waives the board's Eleventh Amendment immunity); Norville v. Bd. of Educ. , 160 Md.

2009Comm’n, 535 U.S. at 753 , 122 S.Ct. at 1871 , 152 L.Ed.2d at 973 )); Lizzi v. WMATA, 156 Md.App. 1 , 8 n. 4, 845 A.2d 60 , 64 n. 4 (2003) (“[W]e point out that Eleventh Amendment immunity is not synonymous with the broader doctrine of sovereign immunity, but is instead a manifestation of it.”), affd, 384 Md. 199 , 862 A.2d 1017 (2004).

2009Comm’n, 535 U.S. at 753 , 122 S.Ct. at 1871 , 152 L.Ed.2d at 973 )); Lizzi v. WMATA, 156 Md.App. 1 , 8 n. 4, 845 A.2d 60 , 64 n. 4 (2003) (“[W]e point out that Eleventh Amendment immunity is not synonymous with the broader doctrine of sovereign immunity, but is instead a manifestation of it.”), affd, 384 Md. 199 , 862 A.2d 1017 (2004).

2009Co., 280 Md. 634, 639-50 , 374 A.2d 1135, 1138-13 (1977) (examining the history of Maryland public education from colonial times, through the Constitutions of 1864 and 1867 and the concomitant statutes, to conclude that the Board of Education of Anne Arundel County is a State agency); Bd. of Ed. v. Montgomery County, 237 Md. 191, 197 , 205 A.2d 202, 205 (1964) (noting that a local school board is neither a branch of the county government nor an agency under its control); see also Norville v. Board of Education, 160 Md.App. 12, 35-62 , 862 A.2d 477, 489-507 (2004) (discussing, and ultimately ho

2009Co., 280 Md. 634, 639-50 , 374 A.2d 1135, 1138-13 (1977) (examining the history of Maryland public education from colonial times, through the Constitutions of 1864 and 1867 and the concomitant statutes, to conclude that the Board of Education of Anne Arundel County is a State agency); Bd. of Ed. v. Montgomery County, 237 Md. 191, 197 , 205 A.2d 202, 205 (1964) (noting that a local school board is neither a branch of the county government nor an agency under its control); see also Norville v. Board of Education, 160 Md.App. 12, 35-62 , 862 A.2d 477, 489-507 (2004) (discussing, and ultimately ho

2009Servs. v. Fla. Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 149-50 , 101 S.Ct. 1032, 1034 , 67 L.Ed.2d 132, 135-36 (1981) (per curiam) (holding that a Florida law providing that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services “is a *211 ‘body corporate’ with the capacity to ‘sue and be sued’ ” was a general waiver of sovereign immunity and did not effect a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity (citation omitted)).

2009Servs. v. Fla. Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 149-50 , 101 S.Ct. 1032, 1034 , 67 L.Ed.2d 132, 135-36 (1981) (per curiam) (holding that a Florida law providing that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services “is a *211 ‘body corporate’ with the capacity to ‘sue and be sued’ ” was a general waiver of sovereign immunity and did not effect a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity (citation omitted)).

2009As the Supreme Court further explained in Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 , 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3146-47 , 87 L.Ed.2d 171, 179 (1985): Although a State’s general waiver of sovereign immunity may subject it to suit in state court, it is not enough to waive the immunity guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment. “[A] State’s constitutional interest in immunity encompasses not merely whether it may be sued, but where it may be sued.” Thus, in order for a state statute or constitutional provision to constitute a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity, it must specify the State’s inten

2009As the Supreme Court further explained in Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 , 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3146-47 , 87 L.Ed.2d 171, 179 (1985): Although a State’s general waiver of sovereign immunity may subject it to suit in state court, it is not enough to waive the immunity guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment. “[A] State’s constitutional interest in immunity encompasses not merely whether it may be sued, but where it may be sued.” Thus, in order for a state statute or constitutional provision to constitute a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity, it must specify the State’s inten

2008Id.; See Federal Maritime Comm’n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 753 , 122 S.Ct. 1864 , 152 L.Ed.2d 962 (2002) (“[Tjhe Eleventh Amendment does not define the scope of the [sjtates’ sovereign immunity; it is but one particular exemplification of that immunity.”); Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene *605 Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 267-68 , 117 S.Ct. 2028 , 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (holding that Eleventh Amendment immunity is but an example of state sovereign immunity as it applies to suits filed in federal court against unconsenting states by citizens of other states).

2008Id.; See Federal Maritime Comm’n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 753 , 122 S.Ct. 1864 , 152 L.Ed.2d 962 (2002) (“[Tjhe Eleventh Amendment does not define the scope of the [sjtates’ sovereign immunity; it is but one particular exemplification of that immunity.”); Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene *605 Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 267-68 , 117 S.Ct. 2028 , 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (holding that Eleventh Amendment immunity is but an example of state sovereign immunity as it applies to suits filed in federal court against unconsenting states by citizens of other states).

2005See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 , 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1355 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15-16 , 10 S.Ct. 504, 507 , 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890).

2005See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 , 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1355 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15-16 , 10 S.Ct. 504, 507 , 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890).

1986See also the discussion in Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 , 515-516 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 2557 , 2567 n. 19, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982) ("we have never held that [Eleventh Amendment immunity in a federal court § 1983 action] is jurisdictional in the sense that it must be raised and decided by this Court on its own motion").

1986See also the discussion in Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 , 515-516 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 2557 , 2567 n. 19, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982) ("we have never held that [Eleventh Amendment immunity in a federal court § 1983 action] is jurisdictional in the sense that it must be raised and decided by this Court on its own motion").

2008The Alden Court acknowledged that the Supreme Court has “sometimes referred to the [sjtates’ immunity from suit as ‘Eleventh Amendment immunity,’ ” but that phrase, while a “convenient shorthand,” is also something of a “misnomer” for “sovereign immunity of the [sjtates neither derives from, nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment.” Id.

2004The Alden Court acknowledged, 527 U.S. at 713 , 119 S.Ct. 2240 , that the Supreme Court has “sometimes referred to the *37 States’ immunity from suit as ‘Eleventh Amendment immunity,’ ” but that phrase, while “convenient shorthand,” is also something of a misnomer.” Id.

2026See, e.g., Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 145 (1993) (holding that the benefits of immunities are lost if the litigation is allowed to “proceed[] past motion practice” and that state entities may pursue immediate appeals from orders denying them Eleventh Amendment immunity under the collateral order doctrine).

2008J. § 5-518(c) did not specifically waive *595 Eleventh Amendment immunity, made a threshold assumption that appellee is an “arm of the State.” 4 See Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 141-44 , 113 S.Ct. 684 , 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993) (opining that Eleventh Amendment immunity is only available to states and “state entities”).

2023We hold as such because, after assessing the plain language of the MTCA, there is no evidence that the General Assembly intended to include federal statutory claims within the 14 Notably, the 1985 amendment retained the State’s immunity for torts of State employees acting outside the scope of their duties or with malice or gross negligence; required that a claimant file a claim with the Treasurer for damages as a condition precedent to filing a suit for damages; limited the waiver to exclude damages arising out of a single claim or occurrence in excess of state insurance coverage for tort clai

2011Area Transit Auth., 412 Md. 691, 713 , 990 A.2d 1048 (2010), the Court said: *600 [t]he notable features of the MTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity are: 1) the State waives its sovereign immunity to all tort actions, arising out of governmental, proprietary, or other functions, unless specifically excluded by § 5-522(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article; 2) the exclusive remedy for recovery is to file a claim with the Treasurer pursuant to Md.Code (1984, 2009 Repl.Vol.), §§ 12-106 to 12-107 of the State Government Article, or institute an action in Maryland state court upon denial

2010See Lapides v. Board of Regents, 535 U.S. 613, 616 , 122 S.Ct. 1640, 1642 , 152 L.Ed.2d 806, 811 (voluntary removal by a State of a lawsuit from state court to federal court constitutes a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court).

2010See Lapides v. Board of Regents, 535 U.S. 613, 616 , 122 S.Ct. 1640, 1642 , 152 L.Ed.2d 806, 811 (voluntary removal by a State of a lawsuit from state court to federal court constitutes a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court).

2009Co., 280 Md. 634, 639-50 , 374 A.2d 1135, 1138-13 (1977) (examining the history of Maryland public education from colonial times, through the Constitutions of 1864 and 1867 and the concomitant statutes, to conclude that the Board of Education of Anne Arundel County is a State agency); Bd. of Ed. v. Montgomery County, 237 Md. 191, 197 , 205 A.2d 202, 205 (1964) (noting that a local school board is neither a branch of the county government nor an agency under its control); see also Norville v. Board of Education, 160 Md.App. 12, 35-62 , 862 A.2d 477, 489-507 (2004) (discussing, and ultimately ho

2009Co., 280 Md. 634, 639-50 , 374 A.2d 1135, 1138-13 (1977) (examining the history of Maryland public education from colonial times, through the Constitutions of 1864 and 1867 and the concomitant statutes, to conclude that the Board of Education of Anne Arundel County is a State agency); Bd. of Ed. v. Montgomery County, 237 Md. 191, 197 , 205 A.2d 202, 205 (1964) (noting that a local school board is neither a branch of the county government nor an agency under its control); see also Norville v. Board of Education, 160 Md.App. 12, 35-62 , 862 A.2d 477, 489-507 (2004) (discussing, and ultimately ho

2009Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 307-09 , 110 S.Ct. 1868, 1873-74 , 109 L.Ed.2d 264, 273-75 (1990) (holding that a venue provision allowing for venue to “be laid within a county or judicial district, established by one of said States or by the United States” constituted a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in an associated consent-to-suit provision); Fla. Dep’t of Health and Rehab.

2009Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 307-09 , 110 S.Ct. 1868, 1873-74 , 109 L.Ed.2d 264, 273-75 (1990) (holding that a venue provision allowing for venue to “be laid within a county or judicial district, established by one of said States or by the United States” constituted a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in an associated consent-to-suit provision); Fla. Dep’t of Health and Rehab.

2004The Fourth Circuit further stated that “WMATA is a state agency, subject to all the benefits and liabilities of a state itself, including sovereign immunity.” Id. (emphasis added).

2004The signatories of the [WMATA] compact intended to *208 confer Eleventh Amendment immunity on WMATA.” Id. at 132 (alteration added) (footnote added).

2025Cal. 2011); Parrish v. HBO & Co., 85 F. Supp. 2d 792, 797 (S.D.

2018Md. 1988) (concluding that the Frederick County Board of Education is an agent of the State of Maryland entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Beka , 419 Md. at 210 , 18 A.3d at 900 ("affirm[ing] that a county board of education, is 'a State agency entitled to governmental immunity' " when assessing whether a county board of education is subject to a statutory waiver of immunity); Bd. of Educ. of Balt.

2018Md. 1988) (concluding that the Frederick County Board of Education is an agent of the State of Maryland entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Beka , 419 Md. at 210 , 18 A.3d at 900 ("affirm[ing] that a county board of education, is 'a State agency entitled to governmental immunity' " when assessing whether a county board of education is subject to a statutory waiver of immunity); Bd. of Educ. of Balt.

2009Comm’n, 535 U.S. at 753 , 122 S.Ct. at 1871 , 152 L.Ed.2d at 973 )); Lizzi v. WMATA, 156 Md.App. 1 , 8 n. 4, 845 A.2d 60 , 64 n. 4 (2003) (“[W]e point out that Eleventh Amendment immunity is not synonymous with the broader doctrine of sovereign immunity, but is instead a manifestation of it.”), affd, 384 Md. 199 , 862 A.2d 1017 (2004).

2009Comm’n, 535 U.S. at 753 , 122 S.Ct. at 1871 , 152 L.Ed.2d at 973 )); Lizzi v. WMATA, 156 Md.App. 1 , 8 n. 4, 845 A.2d 60 , 64 n. 4 (2003) (“[W]e point out that Eleventh Amendment immunity is not synonymous with the broader doctrine of sovereign immunity, but is instead a manifestation of it.”), affd, 384 Md. 199 , 862 A.2d 1017 (2004).