Eleventh Amendment immunity in Texas

2019A section 1983 suit against a state official in his official capacity is deemed a suit against the state 6See Hoff v. Nueces Cty., 153 S.W.3d 45, 48 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam) (noting phrase “Eleventh Amendment immunity” is a misnomer but has become a term of art). 6 and therefore barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

2018After reviewing the “history, practice, precedent, and structure of the Constitution,” the Court concluded that the States’ “immunity from private suit in their own courts” is “beyond the congressional power to abrogate by Article 2The Court noted that, though a State’s immunity from suit is sometimes referred to as “Eleventh Amendment immunity,” that phrase is “something of a misnomer” because “the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from, nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 , 712–13 (1999); see Hoff v. Nueces Cty., 153 S.W.3d 45,

2021First, Congress can abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity without a state’s consent when acting pursuant to its authority The United States Supreme Court has noted that “Eleventh Amendment 3 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.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 , 119 S. Ct. 2240, 2246 (1999).

2021First, Congress can abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity without a state’s consent when acting pursuant to its authority The United States Supreme Court has noted that “Eleventh Amendment 3 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.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 , 119 S. Ct. 2240, 2246 (1999).

2025It is well recognized that “the State and arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or state court.” Howlett, 496 U.S. at 365 .

2018Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 , 110 S.Ct. 2430, 2437 , 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990)(“Will establishes that the State and arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or state court.”); Will, 491 U.S. at 66 , 109 S.Ct. at 2309-10 ; see City of Corinth v. NuRock Dev., Inc., 293 S.W.3d 360, 366 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2009, no pet.)(under the Eleventh Amendment, “the State of Texas and its agencies are immune from claims based on federal law, whether brought in federal or state court”); see also Tex. Dep

2018See Univ. of Tex. at El Paso v. Herrera , 322 S.W.3d 192 , 201 (Tex. 2010) (concluding statement in university's handbook referencing employees' possible right to bring suit did not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity); Tooke , 197 S.W.3d at 344 ("All [the charter] clearly says is that the City can be sued and impleaded in court when suit is permitted, not that immunity is waived for all suits."); cf. Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth. , 320 S.W.3d 829 , 837 (Tex. 2010) ("[A] statute that contemplates a government entity's involvement in litigation does not 'clearly and unambig

2011XI; Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1632, 1637-39 , 179 L.Ed.2d 675 (2011) (stating that the Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity is limited to the situation in which prospective, equitable relief is sought against a state actor in his official capacity commanding the actor to refrain from violating federal law and that the exception does not apply when the state is the real defendant); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167, n. 14 , 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3106, n. 14 , 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (198

2009See, e.g., Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 279 , 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2039 , 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (explaining that state is not immune from claim for damages under federal Title VII because Congress can abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when exercising remedial powers under section five of Fourteenth Amendment); Univ. of Tex. at El Paso v. Henera, 281 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2008, pet. filed) ("Federal courts have no jurisdiction over federal or state law claims against a state or state agency unless Eleventh Amendment immunity has been expressly waived by the st

2009See, e.g., Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 279 , 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2039 , 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (explaining that state is not immune from claim for damages under federal Title VII because Congress can abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when exercising remedial powers under section five of Fourteenth Amendment); Univ. of Tex. at El Paso v. Henera, 281 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2008, pet. filed) ("Federal courts have no jurisdiction over federal or state law claims against a state or state agency unless Eleventh Amendment immunity has been expressly waived by the st

2025Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Wercinski, 513 F.3d 476, 482 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Ex Parte Young subjects a state employee acting in her official capacity to suits for prospective relief that avoid the Eleventh Amendment bar, but the employee’s conduct remains state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.”); see also Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 642 S.W.3d 569 , 573 n.5 (Tex. 2022); City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 , 374–75 (Tex. 2009) (comparing Ex Parte Young and ultra vires doctrines).

2011XI; Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1632, 1637-39 , 179 L.Ed.2d 675 (2011) (stating that the Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity is limited to the situation in which prospective, equitable relief is sought against a state actor in his official capacity commanding the actor to refrain from violating federal law and that the exception does not apply when the state is the real defendant); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167, n. 14 , 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3106, n. 14 , 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (198

2015Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 , 337–45 (1979); see also Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25, 27 (1991) (holding suits against state officials in their official capacity are suits against the State, and section 1983 does not authorize suits against them).

2015Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 , 337–45 (1979); see also Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25, 27 (1991) (holding suits against state officials in their official capacity are suits against the State, and section 1983 does not authorize suits against them).

2011See Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 71-73 , 106 S.Ct. 423 , 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985) (recognizing, in the context of an Eleventh Amendment immunity claim where there was no ongoing violation to enjoin, that courts could order prospective relief, including ancillary measures to appropriate prospective relief, but could not award money damages or restitution, despite a “dispute about the lawfulness of [state actor’s] past actions”).

2011See Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 71-73 , 106 S.Ct. 423 , 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985) (recognizing, in the context of an Eleventh Amendment immunity claim where there was no ongoing violation to enjoin, that courts could order prospective relief, including ancillary measures to appropriate prospective relief, but could not award money damages or restitution, despite a “dispute about the lawfulness of [state actor’s] past actions”).

2009Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 401 , 99 S.Ct. 1171, 1177 , 59 L.Ed.2d 401 (1979); see also Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530 , 10 S.Ct. 363, 363 , 33 L.Ed. 766 (1890) (concluding that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends only to States, not to counties or municipal corporations). .

2009Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 401 , 99 S.Ct. 1171, 1177 , 59 L.Ed.2d 401 (1979); see also Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530 , 10 S.Ct. 363, 363 , 33 L.Ed. 766 (1890) (concluding that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends only to States, not to counties or municipal corporations). .

2009See, e.g., Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 279 , 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2039 , 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (explaining that state is not immune from claim for damages under federal Title VII because Congress can abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when exercising remedial powers under section five of Fourteenth Amendment); Univ. of Tex. at El Paso v. Henera, 281 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2008, pet. filed) ("Federal courts have no jurisdiction over federal or state law claims against a state or state agency unless Eleventh Amendment immunity has been expressly waived by the st

2009See, e.g., Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 279 , 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2039 , 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (explaining that state is not immune from claim for damages under federal Title VII because Congress can abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when exercising remedial powers under section five of Fourteenth Amendment); Univ. of Tex. at El Paso v. Henera, 281 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2008, pet. filed) ("Federal courts have no jurisdiction over federal or state law claims against a state or state agency unless Eleventh Amendment immunity has been expressly waived by the st

2008In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 , 116 S.Ct. 1114 , 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996), the Supreme Court articulated a two-part test for determining whether an act of Congress abrogates the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

2008In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 , 116 S.Ct. 1114 , 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996), the Supreme Court articulated a two-part test for determining whether an act of Congress abrogates the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

2009Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 401 , 99 S.Ct. 1171, 1177 , 59 L.Ed.2d 401 (1979); see also Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530 , 10 S.Ct. 363, 363 , 33 L.Ed. 766 (1890) (concluding that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends only to States, not to counties or municipal corporations). .

2009Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 401 , 99 S.Ct. 1171, 1177 , 59 L.Ed.2d 401 (1979); see also Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530 , 10 S.Ct. 363, 363 , 33 L.Ed. 766 (1890) (concluding that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends only to States, not to counties or municipal corporations). .

2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) 105 S.Ct. 3099 , 87 L.Ed.2d 114 , 53 USLW 4966 waived Eleventh Amendment immunity, there on the merits and for fees, to the governmental could be no doubt that the damages action entity employing the offending official. did not seek to impose monetary liability on the Commonwealth and absent liability on the 346 Cases that cite this headnote merits fees could not be awarded against the Commonwealth. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983 , 1988; U.S.C.A.

2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) 105 S.Ct. 3099 , 87 L.Ed.2d 114 , 53 USLW 4966 waived Eleventh Amendment immunity, there on the merits and for fees, to the governmental could be no doubt that the damages action entity employing the offending official. did not seek to impose monetary liability on the Commonwealth and absent liability on the 346 Cases that cite this headnote merits fees could not be awarded against the Commonwealth. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983 , 1988; U.S.C.A.

2009XI. 26 … Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 729 , 119 S. Ct. 2240, 2254 (1999) (quoting Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13 , 10 S. Ct. 504, 506 (1890)). 27 … See, e.g., Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 279 , 117 S. Ct. 2028, 2039 (1997) (explaining that state is not immune from claim for damages under federal Title VII because Congress can abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when exercising remedial powers under section five of Fourteenth Amendment); Univ. of Tex. at El Paso v. Herrera, 281 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex. App.—El Paso Nov. 25, 2008, pet. filed) (“Federal courts have no ju

2009XI. 26 … Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 729 , 119 S. Ct. 2240, 2254 (1999) (quoting Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13 , 10 S. Ct. 504, 506 (1890)). 27 … See, e.g., Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 279 , 117 S. Ct. 2028, 2039 (1997) (explaining that state is not immune from claim for damages under federal Title VII because Congress can abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when exercising remedial powers under section five of Fourteenth Amendment); Univ. of Tex. at El Paso v. Herrera, 281 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex. App.—El Paso Nov. 25, 2008, pet. filed) (“Federal courts have no ju

2009Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835 , 838–39 (Tex. 2007) (holding that because state has not waived immunity from money damages against federal claim based on § 1983, Lawson is not implicated by claim that state official breached agreement settling § 1983 claim). 29 … Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 401 , 99 S. Ct. 1171, 1177 (1979); see also Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530 , 10 S. Ct. 363, 363 (1890) (concluding that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends only to States, not to counties or municipal corporations). 30 … See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.

2009Sys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835 , 838–39 (Tex. 2007) (holding that because state has not waived immunity from money damages against federal claim based on § 1983, Lawson is not implicated by claim that state official breached agreement settling § 1983 claim). 29: Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency , 440 U.S. 391, 401 , 99 S. Ct. 1171, 1177 (1979); see also Lincoln County v. Luning , 133 U.S. 529, 530 , 10 S. Ct. 363, 363 (1890) (concluding that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends only to States, not to counties or municipal corporations). 30: See Howlett v. Rose , 496

2009The parties also agree that in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 , 120 S.Ct. 631 , 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000), the Supreme Court specifically held that the abrogation of the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for violations of the ADEA was not a valid exercise of Congress’s power and that the purported abrogation of immunity was invalid.

2009The parties also agree that in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 , 120 S.Ct. 631 , 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000), the Supreme Court specifically held that the abrogation of the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for violations of the ADEA was not a valid exercise of Congress’s power and that the purported abrogation of immunity was invalid.

2009Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835 , 838–39 (Tex. 2007) (holding that because state has not waived immunity from money damages against federal claim based on § 1983, Lawson is not implicated by claim that state official breached agreement settling § 1983 claim). 29 … Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 401 , 99 S. Ct. 1171, 1177 (1979); see also Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530 , 10 S. Ct. 363, 363 (1890) (concluding that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends only to States, not to counties or municipal corporations). 30 … See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.

2009Sys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835 , 838–39 (Tex. 2007) (holding that because state has not waived immunity from money damages against federal claim based on § 1983, Lawson is not implicated by claim that state official breached agreement settling § 1983 claim). 29: Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency , 440 U.S. 391, 401 , 99 S. Ct. 1171, 1177 (1979); see also Lincoln County v. Luning , 133 U.S. 529, 530 , 10 S. Ct. 363, 363 (1890) (concluding that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends only to States, not to counties or municipal corporations). 30: See Howlett v. Rose , 496

2025“Section 1983 does not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340 (1979); Aguilar v. Texas Dep’t of Crim.

2025“Section 1983 does not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340 (1979); Aguilar v. Texas Dep’t of Crim.

2018Nevertheless, the term “Eleventh Amendment immunity” has been used interchangeably with “state sovereign immunity” to refer to a state’s immunity from suit without its consent. 5 the state and that sovereign immunity protects it from a § 1983 suit in federal court. 6 See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 , 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2309 , 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (Section 1983 “does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties,” and this rule applies to governmental entities considered “arms of the State”).

2018Nevertheless, the term “Eleventh Amendment immunity” has been used interchangeably with “state sovereign immunity” to refer to a state’s immunity from suit without its consent. 5 the state and that sovereign immunity protects it from a § 1983 suit in federal court. 6 See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 , 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2309 , 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (Section 1983 “does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties,” and this rule applies to governmental entities considered “arms of the State”).

2023Tex. Dept. of Transp. v. Esters, 343 S.W.3d 226 , 232– 33 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (holding that despite the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity, the plaintiff can seek prospective, equitable relief under federal law against employees of a state agency in their official capacity; but this rule does not affect the immunity of the state agency from such suits, even though these suits, for all practical purposes, are against the state agency).

2021Tex. Dept. of Transp. v. Esters, 343 S.W.3d 226 , 232–33 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (holding that despite the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, the plaintiff can seek prospective, equitable relief under federal law against employees of a state agency in their official capacity; but this rule does not affect the immunity of the state agency from such suits, even though these suits, for all practical purposes, are against the state agency).

2015Edelman v. Jordan, supra, 415 U.S., at 667–668, 94 S.Ct., at 1357–1358. 19 No argument has been made that the Commonwealth waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by failing specifically to seek dismissal of that portion of the damages action that named Commissioner Brandenburgh in his official capacity.

2015Edelman v. Jordan, supra, 415 U.S., at 667–668, 94 S.Ct., at 1357–1358. 19 No argument has been made that the Commonwealth waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by failing specifically to seek dismissal of that portion of the damages action that named Commissioner Brandenburgh in his official capacity.

2010See Loro, 259 F.3d at 16 ("[T]he personal medical leave provision of the FMLA does not exhibit a sufficient congruence to the prevention of unconstitutional state discrimination to validly abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir.2000) ("There is no evidence that this conferment of federally protected [self-care] leave is tailored to remedy sex-based employment discrimination....

2010See Loro, 259 F.3d at 16 ("[T]he personal medical leave provision of the FMLA does not exhibit a sufficient congruence to the prevention of unconstitutional state discrimination to validly abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir.2000) ("There is no evidence that this conferment of federally protected [self-care] leave is tailored to remedy sex-based employment discrimination....

2010See Loro, 259 F.3d at 16 ("[T]he personal medical leave provision of the FMLA does not exhibit a sufficient congruence to the prevention of unconstitutional state discrimination to validly abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir.2000) ("There is no evidence that this conferment of federally protected [self-care] leave is tailored to remedy sex-based employment discrimination....

2010See Loro, 259 F.3d at 16 ("[T]he personal medical leave provision of the FMLA does not exhibit a sufficient congruence to the prevention of unconstitutional state discrimination to validly abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir.2000) ("There is no evidence that this conferment of federally protected [self-care] leave is tailored to remedy sex-based employment discrimination....

2010Dist., 242 Fed.Appx. 652, 653 (11th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (unpublished) ("Our holding in Garrett that Congress is without authority to abrogate state sovereign *200 immunity for claims arising under the self-care provision of the FMLA.”). 42 .

2008In Batchelor , the court held that “Garrett ... remains the law of this Circuit” regarding the self-care provision of FMLA. 242 Fed.Appx. at 653 .

2008To date, six federal courts of appeals have explicitly followed the Court’s lead in finding that the states have Eleventh Amendment immunity from employee suits under the self-care portion of the Act: • Fifth Circuit: Nelson v. University of Tex. at Dallas, 535 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2008).

2008To date, six federal courts of appeals have explicitly followed the Court's lead in finding that the states have Eleventh Amendment immunity from employee suits under the self-care portion of the Act: Fifth Circuit: Nelson v. University of Tex. at Dallas , 535 F.3d 318 , 13 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1549 (5th Cir. 2008).

2009Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835 , 838–39 (Tex. 2007) (holding that because state has not waived immunity from money damages against federal claim based on § 1983, Lawson is not implicated by claim that state official breached agreement settling § 1983 claim). 29 … Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 401 , 99 S. Ct. 1171, 1177 (1979); see also Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530 , 10 S. Ct. 363, 363 (1890) (concluding that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends only to States, not to counties or municipal corporations). 30 … See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.

2009Sys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835 , 838–39 (Tex. 2007) (holding that because state has not waived immunity from money damages against federal claim based on § 1983, Lawson is not implicated by claim that state official breached agreement settling § 1983 claim). 29: Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency , 440 U.S. 391, 401 , 99 S. Ct. 1171, 1177 (1979); see also Lincoln County v. Luning , 133 U.S. 529, 530 , 10 S. Ct. 363, 363 (1890) (concluding that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends only to States, not to counties or municipal corporations). 30: See Howlett v. Rose , 496