This amendment to our constitution clarified the states' sovereign immunity. Although the scope here is limited (the amendment doesn't say anything about a state's own citizens), it does provide some degree of protection. The states also have the right to waive this immunity to allow cases to be heard, as well.
Video:
Reaction:
This video is one of a chain of videos I found that show how a state was committing actions that violated basic human rights of the mentally ill at this institution. This video and investigation sparked a Supreme Court case against Pennsylvania and eventually resulted in the protection of the rights of the mentally ill.
Article:
State's voluntary removal of case to federal court waives 11th Amendment immunity
Lapides v. Board of Regents, 122 S. Ct. 1640 (2002).
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a state's voluntary removal of a case to federal court acts as a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Here, Lapides, a professor, sued a university, alleging its officials placed allegations of sexual harassment in his personnel file. Defendant had the case removed to federal court, then moved to dismiss, arguing it was immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. The trial court denied the motion, finding that defendant had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by removing the case to federal court. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
Reversing the appeals court, the Supreme Court noted that it would be inconsistent for a state to invoke federal jurisdiction, thereby agreeing that the judicial power of the United States extends to a case, while at the same time claiming Eleventh Amendment immunity, which would deny that it extends to the same case. Citing its own case law, the Court found that a state's voluntary appearance in federal court amounted to a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity. In addition, the Court explained, a state that voluntarily becomes a party to a case cannot avoid the results of its voluntary act by invoking the Eleventh Amendment.
Applying this reasoning here, the Court found that defendant was brought into the case involuntarily in the original state court proceeding. However, defendant then voluntarily agreed to remove the case to federal court, thereby invoking federal court jurisdiction. The Court explained that adopting defendant's Eleventh Amendment argument would allow states to gain unfair tactical advantages. Thus, the reason for applying a general voluntary invocation rule is strong, the Court concluded.
Plaintiffs Counsel
David J. Bederman, Atlanta, Ga.
Amicus Curiae Counsel
Irving L. Gornstein, Washington, D.C.
"State's voluntary removal of case to federal court waives 11th Amendment immunity". Law Reporter. FindArticles.com. 19 Dec, 2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3898/is_200210/ai_n9115393/
Copyright Association of Trial Lawyers of America Oct 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved
Reaction:
I found this article particularly interesting concerning state sovereign immunity. Here, the state attempted to circumvent having to hear a case by removing it to federal court, then claiming protection of the eleventh amendment to say it had immunity, which the court promptly denied. Nice try, Connecticut. Nice try.
No comments:
Post a Comment