Eleventh Amendment immunity in New York

2024Trans-Hudson Corp. (513 US 30 [1994]) holds that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the federal courts from hearing claims against an entity formed with federal approval pursuant to the Compact Clause, because in such cases "the federal tribunal cannot be regarded as alien in this cooperative, trigovernmental arrangement." That holding is unrelated to any issue present here.

2024Our analysis aligns with the framework many courts apply in analyzing whether a state-created entity may invoke sovereign immunity in federal court—often called "Eleventh Amendment immunity" [FN1] —which is rooted in the same pre-ratification notions of State dignity ( see Federal Maritime Comm'n v South Carolina Ports Authority , 535 US 743, 760 [2002] ["The preeminent purpose of state sovereign immunity is to accord States the dignity that is consistent with their status as sovereign entities"]; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v Florida , 517 US 44, 58 [1996] [sovereign immunity "serves to avoid the

2022PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v New Jersey , __ US __, 141 S Ct 2244 , 2258 [2021] [a state's consent to be sued in a forum in which it would otherwise have immunity "must be unequivocally expressed"] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Raygor v Regents of Univ. of Minn. , 534 US 533, 547 [2002] [state defendant did not "consent" to be sued in federal court where it "raised its Eleventh Amendment defense at the earliest possible opportunity by including that defense in its answers"] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2022PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v New Jersey , __ US __, 141 S Ct 2244 , 2258 [2021] [a state's consent to be sued in a forum in which it would otherwise have immunity "must be unequivocally expressed"] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Raygor v Regents of Univ. of Minn. , 534 US 533, 547 [2002] [state defendant did not "consent" to be sued in federal court where it "raised its Eleventh Amendment defense at the earliest possible opportunity by including that defense in its answers"] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2021In the context [*7]of the Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Supreme Court has held that because sovereignty is jurisdictional in nature ( F.D.I.C. v Meyer , 510 US 471, 475 [1994]; see also Trepel v Hodgins , 183 AD3d 429 [1st Dept 2020]) it can be waived ( Lapides v Board of Regents of the Univ.

2021In the context [*7]of the Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Supreme Court has held that because sovereignty is jurisdictional in nature ( F.D.I.C. v Meyer , 510 US 471, 475 [1994]; see also Trepel v Hodgins , 183 AD3d 429 [1st Dept 2020]) it can be waived ( Lapides v Board of Regents of the Univ.

2021System of Georgia, 535 US 613, 618 [2002]; College Sav.

2021System of Georgia, 535 US 613, 618 [2002]; College Sav.

2021In the context [*7]of the Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Supreme Court has held that because sovereignty is jurisdictional in nature ( F.D.I.C. v Meyer , 510 US 471, 475 [1994]; see also Trepel v Hodgins , 183 AD3d 429 [1st Dept 2020]) it can be waived ( Lapides v Board of Regents of the Univ.

2021In the context [*7]of the Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Supreme Court has held that because sovereignty is jurisdictional in nature ( F.D.I.C. v Meyer , 510 US 471, 475 [1994]; see also Trepel v Hodgins , 183 AD3d 429 [1st Dept 2020]) it can be waived ( Lapides v Board of Regents of the Univ.

1995Hosp., 752 F Supp 1074, 1077 [SD Ga 1990]; see also, Tuveson v Florida Governor’s Council on Indian Affairs, 734 F2d 730, 734 [11th Cir 1984] [not-for-profit incorporation of State agency under statutory scheme which permits corporation to sue and be sued is not a sufficiently explicit waiver of the State’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity]).

1995Hosp. , 752 F Supp 1074, 1077 [SD Ga 1990]; see also , Tuveson v Florida Governor's Council on Indian Affairs , 734 F.2d 730, 734 [11th Cir 1984] [not-for-profit incorporation of State agency under statutory scheme which permits corporation to sue and be sued is not a sufficiently explicit waiver of the State's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity]).

2025Because, “waiver of a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity will not be found unless such consent is unequivocally expressed”, plaintiff’s arguments are unavailing (Close v State of N.Y., 125 F3d 31, 39 [2d Cir 1997]; see also McKlintic v 36th Jud.

2003In light of Seminole, the State succeeded when it again sought dismissal on Eleventh Amendment grounds ( 1996 WL 481550 , 1996 US Dist LEXIS 12330 [ND NY, Aug. 19, 1996]), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed ( 125 F3d 31 [1997]).

2024Our analysis aligns with the framework many courts apply in analyzing whether a state-created entity may invoke sovereign immunity in federal court—often called "Eleventh Amendment immunity" [FN1] —which is rooted in the same pre-ratification notions of State dignity ( see Federal Maritime Comm'n v South Carolina Ports Authority , 535 US 743, 760 [2002] ["The preeminent purpose of state sovereign immunity is to accord States the dignity that is consistent with their status as sovereign entities"]; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v Florida , 517 US 44, 58 [1996] [sovereign immunity "serves to avoid the

2024Our analysis aligns with the framework many courts apply in analyzing whether a state-created entity may invoke sovereign immunity in federal court—often called "Eleventh Amendment immunity" [FN1] —which is rooted in the same pre-ratification notions of State dignity ( see Federal Maritime Comm'n v South Carolina Ports Authority , 535 US 743, 760 [2002] ["The preeminent purpose of state sovereign immunity is to accord States the dignity that is consistent with their status as sovereign entities"]; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v Florida , 517 US 44, 58 [1996] [sovereign immunity "serves to avoid the

2025The Court reasoned that with respect to the “family care” provisions, Congress invoked concerns related to gender discrimination thereby allowing a constitutional abrogation of a state’s immunity (Coleman, 566 US at 38 [“Due to the nature of the roles of men and women in our society, the primary responsibility for family caretaking often falls on women, and such responsibility affects the working lives of women more than it affects the working lives of men”]).

2024Co. of N. Y. v Chatham County , 547 US 189, 193 [2006]).

2024Co. of N. Y. v Chatham County , 547 US 189, 193 [2006]).

2024That last factor weighs heavily, and is often the deciding factor, in an Eleventh Amendment analysis ( see Regents of the Univ. of California v Doe , 519 US 425 [1997]; Hess v Port Auth.

2024That last factor weighs heavily, and is often the deciding factor, in an Eleventh Amendment analysis ( see Regents of the Univ. of California v Doe , 519 US 425 [1997]; Hess v Port Auth.

2024Our analysis aligns with the framework many courts apply in analyzing whether a state-created entity may invoke sovereign immunity in federal court—often called "Eleventh Amendment immunity" [FN1] —which is rooted in the same pre-ratification notions of State dignity ( see Federal Maritime Comm'n v South Carolina Ports Authority , 535 US 743, 760 [2002] ["The preeminent purpose of state sovereign immunity is to accord States the dignity that is consistent with their status as sovereign entities"]; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v Florida , 517 US 44, 58 [1996] [sovereign immunity "serves to avoid the

2024Our analysis aligns with the framework many courts apply in analyzing whether a state-created entity may invoke sovereign immunity in federal court—often called "Eleventh Amendment immunity" [FN1] —which is rooted in the same pre-ratification notions of State dignity ( see Federal Maritime Comm'n v South Carolina Ports Authority , 535 US 743, 760 [2002] ["The preeminent purpose of state sovereign immunity is to accord States the dignity that is consistent with their status as sovereign entities"]; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v Florida , 517 US 44, 58 [1996] [sovereign immunity "serves to avoid the

2024And although Karns involved Eleventh Amendment immunity, that is a distinction without a difference when it comes to analyzing NJT's powers as traditional exemplars of State sovereignty ( see Alden v Maine , 527 US 706, 713 ["The phrase ('Eleventh Amendment immunity') is convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, for the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from, nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment.

2024Decided November 25, 2024 Footnotes Footnote 1: The Supreme Court has explained that the phrase "Eleventh Amendment immunity" is a "misnomer" because "States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution" ( Alden v Maine , 527 US 706, 713 [1999]; see Northern Ins.

2024Other federal and state courts have also found NJT to be an arm of the State ( see, e.g., Davis v New Jersey Tr. , 2012 WL 3192716, *3 [NJ Super Ct App Div Aug. 8, 2012, No. A-4901-10T1]; Dykman v NJT , 685 F Supp 79, 80 [SD NY 1988]; Williamson v NJT , 1987 US Dist LEXIS 115, *1-2 (SD NY Jan. 9, 1987); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v NJT , 608 F Supp 1216, 1217-18 (SD NY 1985).

2024Other federal and state courts have also found NJT to be an arm of the State ( see, e.g., Davis v New Jersey Tr. , 2012 WL 3192716, *3 [NJ Super Ct App Div Aug. 8, 2012, No. A-4901-10T1]; Dykman v NJT , 685 F Supp 79, 80 [SD NY 1988]; Williamson v NJT , 1987 US Dist LEXIS 115, *1-2 (SD NY Jan. 9, 1987); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v NJT , 608 F Supp 1216, 1217-18 (SD NY 1985).

2024Other federal and state courts have also found NJT to be an arm of the State ( see, e.g., Davis v New Jersey Tr. , 2012 WL 3192716, *3 [NJ Super Ct App Div Aug. 8, 2012, No. A-4901-10T1]; Dykman v NJT , 685 F Supp 79, 80 [SD NY 1988]; Williamson v NJT , 1987 US Dist LEXIS 115, *1-2 (SD NY Jan. 9, 1987); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v NJT , 608 F Supp 1216, 1217-18 (SD NY 1985).

2024Other federal and state courts have also found NJT to be an arm of the State ( see, e.g., Davis v New Jersey Tr. , 2012 WL 3192716, *3 [NJ Super Ct App Div Aug. 8, 2012, No. A-4901-10T1]; Dykman v NJT , 685 F Supp 79, 80 [SD NY 1988]; Williamson v NJT , 1987 US Dist LEXIS 115, *1-2 (SD NY Jan. 9, 1987); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v NJT , 608 F Supp 1216, 1217-18 (SD NY 1985).

2024Hyatt III confirms this point, tearing down the wall that had separated Eleventh Amendment immunity from interstate sovereign immunity, and thereby suggesting that the same doctrinal inquiry may apply to both strands of immunity ( see 587 US at 236-237 [rejecting Hall 's historical and analytical distinction between interstate and Eleventh Amendment immunity]).

2024Hyatt III confirms this point, tearing down the wall that had separated Eleventh Amendment immunity from interstate sovereign immunity, and thereby suggesting that the same doctrinal inquiry may apply to both strands of immunity ( see 587 US at 236-237 [rejecting Hall 's historical and analytical distinction between interstate and Eleventh Amendment immunity]).

2023The U.S. Supreme Court is clear that waiver by litigation conduct can express a state’s consent to jurisdiction (cf. Atascadero State Hosp. v Scanlon, 473 US 234, 238 [1985] [“if a State waives its immunity and consents to suit in federal court, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the action”]).

2014If a judgment against a corporation created by an Indian tribe will not reach the tribe's assets, because the corporation lacks "the power to bind or obligate the funds of the tribe" (Ransom, 86 NY2d at 559 ), then the corporation is not an - 15 - - 16 - No. 196 "arm" of the tribe.

2014If a judgment against a corporation created by an Indian tribe will not reach the tribe’s assets, because the corporation lacks “the power to bind or obligate the funds of the tribe” (Ransom, 86 NY2d at 559 [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]), then the corporation is not an “arm” of the tribe.

2008Court held award of Medicaid benefits beginning three months prior to date husband was deemed Medicaid eligible was not retroactive relief in violation of the Eleventh Amendment] and Kostok v Thomas, 105 F3d 65, 69 [2d Cir 1997] [In holding that plaintiffs suit for injunctive relief compelling that State of Connecticut furnish him with a new wheelchair customized to his special needs was not violative of the Eleventh Amendment, Court stated, “(plaintiff) seeks relief that is truly prospective: a wheelchair from this time forward.

2007See Howlett, 496 US at 365 (stating “[a]s we held last Term in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58 [1989], an entity with Eleventh Amendment immunity is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of [section] 1983”).

2007This places an onerous burden on litigants. ( See also Woodward v State of New York, 23 AD3d 852, 857 [3d Dept 2005, Kane, J., dissenting].) [7] By this requirement, section 24 has redefined and limited the section 1983 cause of action, i.e., it eliminates a plaintiff's federal right to sue a DOCS employee, in his or her personal capacity, for damages in state court. [8] See Howlett, 496 US at 365 (stating "[a]s we held last Term in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58 [1989], an entity with Eleventh Amendment immunity is not a `person' within the meaning of [section] 1983").

2007See Howlett, 496 US at 365 (stating “[a]s we held last Term in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58 [1989], an entity with Eleventh Amendment immunity is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of [section] 1983”).

2007This places an onerous burden on litigants. ( See also Woodward v State of New York, 23 AD3d 852, 857 [3d Dept 2005, Kane, J., dissenting].) [7] By this requirement, section 24 has redefined and limited the section 1983 cause of action, i.e., it eliminates a plaintiff's federal right to sue a DOCS employee, in his or her personal capacity, for damages in state court. [8] See Howlett, 496 US at 365 (stating "[a]s we held last Term in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58 [1989], an entity with Eleventh Amendment immunity is not a `person' within the meaning of [section] 1983").

2007This places an onerous burden on litigants. ( See also Woodward v State of New York, 23 AD3d 852, 857 [3d Dept 2005, Kane, J., dissenting].) [7] By this requirement, section 24 has redefined and limited the section 1983 cause of action, i.e., it eliminates a plaintiff's federal right to sue a DOCS employee, in his or her personal capacity, for damages in state court. [8] See Howlett, 496 US at 365 (stating "[a]s we held last Term in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58 [1989], an entity with Eleventh Amendment immunity is not a `person' within the meaning of [section] 1983").