Everything about The Abrogation Doctrine totally explained
The
Abrogation doctrine is a
constitutional law doctrine expounding when and how
Congress may waive a state's
Sovereign immunity and subject it to lawsuits to which the state hasn't consented (for example, to "abrogate" their immunity to such suits).
Most of the powers delegated to Congress spring from
Article One of the U.S. Constitution, and these powers can't be used to abrogate state sovereign immunity. See
Seminole Tribe v. Florida. However, the Congress
can authorize
lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual
U.S. states when it acts pursuant to powers delegated to it by amendments
subsequent to the Eleventh Amendment. This is most frequently done pursuant to §5 of the
Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly allows Congress to enforce its guarantees on the states and thus overrides states'
Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
The doctrine was first announced by the
United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision written by then-
Associate Justice William Rehnquist,
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer,
427 U.S. 445 (
1976).
Bitzer "continued the line of reasoning that Rehnquist had acknowledged in
Fry v. United States ... that cases involving Congress’ authority under Section Five present different problems than cases involving Congress’ commerce clause authority." The doctrine has since developed a number of nuances and limitations. In particular, later cases explained that the Court wouldn't infer Congressional intent to abrogate sovereign immunity, but would only uphold abrogations where Congress has "unequivocally express[ed] its intention to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment bar to suits against states in federal court." In order to do this, Congress must "mak[e] its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute."
Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon,
473 U.S. 234 (
1985).
Another limitation that the courts have read into Congressional power to abrogate is the "congruence and proportionality" test, first discussed in
City of Boerne v. Flores,
521 U.S. 507 (
1997). Because the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress to take "appropriate" action to enforce rights, the Court has determined that such action must be congruent and proportional to the deprivation of the right that Congress is seeking to remedy. For an example of a case where an act of Congress failed the
Boerne test, see
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents; for an example where an act passed the
Boerne test, see
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Abrogation Doctrine'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://abrogation_doctrine.totallyexplained.com">Abrogation doctrine Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
