Eleventh Amendment immunity in Iowa

2016The Supreme Court occasionally uses the phrase “Eleventh Amendment immunity” as “convenient shorthand” for the broader constitutional principle known as state sovereign immunity or “the States’ immunity from suit.” See Alden, 527 U.S. at 713 , 119 S. Ct. at 2246–47, 144 L.

2016The Supreme Court occasionally uses the phrase “Eleventh Amendment immunity” as “convenient shorthand” for the broader constitutional principle known as state sovereign immunity or “the States’ immunity from suit.” See Alden, 527 U.S. at 713 , 119 S. Ct. at 2246–47, 144 L.

2016See Lee I, 815 N.W.2d at 738–39 (quoting Alden, 527 U.S. at 713 , 119 S. Ct. at 2246–47, 144 L.Ed.2d at 652). 7Courts may not award attorney fees in actions against state officers in their personal capacities, however.

2014Indeed, in Lee I, defendants acknowledged Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity “applies equally in state court and federal court.” 815 N.W.2d at 738 .

2020Sheriff Dep’t, 255 F. Supp. 2d 971, 985 (N.D.

2020Also, Eleventh Amendment immunity may only be “waived by consent or a voluntary appearance, by statute, or by the state’s conduct in the suit.” Shumaker v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 541 N.W.2d 850, 853 (Iowa 1995).

2020See Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533 , 541–42, 122 S. Ct. 999, 1005 (2002).

2020See Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533 , 541–42, 122 S. Ct. 999, 1005 (2002).

2020Fla. 2020) (“Plaintiffs argue Florida waived its sovereign immunity for federal suits ‘based on violations of the state or federal constitution.’ The cases relied upon by Plaintiffs were both filed in state court and involved sovereign immunity under state law, not the Eleventh Amendment. . . . [T]his Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established that Florida has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity as to any of the claims in this case.” (citations omitted)); Veasey v. Perry, 29 F. Supp. 3d 896, 922 (S.D.

2020See Vasquez v. Rackauckas, 734 F.3d 1025 , 1041 32 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding that the Eleventh Amendment barred a claim under the California Constitution against a state official); Spoklie v. Montana, 411 F.3d 1051 , 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Spoklie claims that I–143 violates his property rights under Article II, section 3, of the Montana Constitution.

2020See Vasquez v. Rackauckas, 734 F.3d 1025 , 1041 32 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding that the Eleventh Amendment barred a claim under the California Constitution against a state official); Spoklie v. Montana, 411 F.3d 1051 , 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Spoklie claims that I–143 violates his property rights under Article II, section 3, of the Montana Constitution.

2020App’x 332, 334 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (“Iowa has waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for tort claims filed in state court, but has not consented to tort claims filed in federal court.”); Jacobsen v. Dep’t of Transp., 332 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1230 (N.D.

2020Tex. 2014) (finding no jurisdiction over claims under the Texas Constitution because any waiver of the Eleventh Amendment would have to be “unequivocal” and “[n]o such 33 unequivocal consent appears here, where the State has asserted its Eleventh Amendment rights”); Common Cause/Ga. v. Billups, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1358 (N.D.

2014Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71, 96 (2d Cir.2007) (“Every Circuit to have considered the issue ... has held that claims for reinstatement to previous employment satisfy the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment’s sovereign immunity bar.”); Treleven v. Univ. of Minn., 73 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir.1996) (allowing claim for reinstatement under Ex parte Young).

2014Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71, 96 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Every Circuit to have considered the issue . . . has held that claims for reinstatement to previous employment satisfy the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment’s sovereign immunity bar.”); Treleven v. Univ. of Minn., 73 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 1996) (allowing claim for reinstatement under Ex parte Young).

2014See Nelson v. Univ. of Tex. at Dallas, 535 F.3d 318, 324 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding “a request for reinstatement is sufficient to bring a case within the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity” because “it is a claim for prospective relief designed to end a continuing violation of federal law”); State Emps.

2014Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71, 96 (2d Cir.2007) (“Every Circuit to have considered the issue ... has held that claims for reinstatement to previous employment satisfy the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment’s sovereign immunity bar.”); Treleven v. Univ. of Minn., 73 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir.1996) (allowing claim for reinstatement under Ex parte Young).

2014Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71, 96 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Every Circuit to have considered the issue . . . has held that claims for reinstatement to previous employment satisfy the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment’s sovereign immunity bar.”); Treleven v. Univ. of Minn., 73 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 1996) (allowing claim for reinstatement under Ex parte Young).

2014Comm’n, 535 U.S. 635, 645 , 122 S.Ct. 1753, 1760 , 152 L.Ed.2d 871, 882 (2002) (“In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a ‘straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.’ ” (quoting Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 296 , 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2047 , 138 L.Ed.2d 438, 465 (1997) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment))).

2014Comm’n, 535 U.S. 635, 645 , 122 S.Ct. 1753, 1760 , 152 L.Ed.2d 871, 882 (2002) (“In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a ‘straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.’ ” (quoting Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 296 , 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2047 , 138 L.Ed.2d 438, 465 (1997) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment))).

2014Comm’n, 535 U.S. 635, 645 , 122 S.Ct. 1753, 1760 , 152 L.Ed.2d 871, 882 (2002) (“In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a ‘straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.’ ” (quoting Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 296 , 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2047 , 138 L.Ed.2d 438, 465 (1997) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment))).

2014Comm’n, 535 U.S. 635, 645 , 122 S.Ct. 1753, 1760 , 152 L.Ed.2d 871, 882 (2002) (“In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a ‘straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.’ ” (quoting Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 296 , 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2047 , 138 L.Ed.2d 438, 465 (1997) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment))).

2014Sys., 535 U.S. 613, 621, 624 , 122 S.Ct. 1640, 1645-46 , 152 L.Ed.2d 806, 814, 816 (2002) (holding state’s removal of suit to federal court waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity).

2014Sys., 535 U.S. 613, 621, 624 , 122 S.Ct. 1640, 1645-46 , 152 L.Ed.2d 806, 814, 816 (2002) (holding state’s removal of suit to federal court waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity).

2014Id. at 1257–58 (footnotes omitted).

2014Ed. 2d at 673 . “[T]he Supreme Court has established a bright line Eleventh Amendment test between permissible prospective and impermissible retroactive relief, with the effective date of the District Court’s order requiring future compliance being the operative date.” Barnes, 828 F.2d at 1257.

2001Furthermore, there is no indication anywhere in Chapter 91A that a “court of competent jurisdiction” includes & federal court. “[I]n order for a state statute or a constitutional provision to constitute a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity, it must specify the State’s intention to subject itself to suit in federal court.” Raper, 940 F.Supp. at 1426 (citation omitted).