Case Law Vs Statute: Who Wins?

The abrogation doctrine is a US constitutional law doctrine that outlines when and how Congress may revoke a state's sovereign immunity and authorize lawsuits against it. In constitutional law, abrogation refers to Congress's power to revoke a state's immunity and allow lawsuits against the state without its consent. Case law can be abrogated by statute, as indicated by flags or icons in citator services like Westlaw Edge, Bloomberg Law Citator, and Lexis. These flags indicate the standing of a case, such as Overruled by, Abrogated by, Distinguished by, or Superseded by. It is crucial to validate case research by reviewing citator reports and reading subsequent cases to determine if a case is still considered Good Law and can be confidently relied upon.

The abrogation doctrine

The doctrine was first stated by the Supreme Court in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer in 1976. In this case, the Court continued the line of reasoning from Fry v. United States, which acknowledged that cases involving Congress' authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment present unique problems compared to cases involving the Congress's Commerce Clause authority.

Subsequently, in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's authority under Article One of the United States Constitution could not be used to abrogate state sovereign immunity. This decision established a significant limitation on the power of Congress to waive a state's immunity to lawsuits. However, it's important to note that Congress can still authorize lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual US states when acting pursuant to powers delegated by amendments subsequent to the Eleventh Amendment. This is often done under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gives Congress explicit authority to enforce its guarantees on the states, thereby overriding states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Verifying case law

Understanding the Doctrine: Begin by familiarizing yourself with the abrogation doctrine, which outlines when and how Congress can waive a state's sovereign immunity and subject it to specific lawsuits. This doctrine is essential in understanding the interplay between case law and statutes.

Using Citators: Citators like KeyCite (available on Westlaw), Shepard's (available on Lexis), and BCITE (available on Bloomberg Law) are invaluable tools for verifying case law. These citators provide parallel citations and references to other proceedings in the same case, allowing attorneys to trace the judicial history and determine if the case law has been overruled, superseded, or not followed by another court. The citators also offer warnings, such as red and yellow flags, to indicate negative treatment or history, helping you assess the validity of the case law.

Shepardizing Citations: When using citators, you can employ a technique called "Shepardizing." On Lexis, type "shep:" before the citation in the search box or click on "Shepardize this document" while reading a case. This process will provide you with valuable information on the standing of the case law and its treatment by other cases.

Checking Authority: It is crucial to verify the authority of the case law you are citing. Tools like Fastcase Authority Check, available on Fastcase, help determine if a case is "good law." This step ensures that the case law you are relying on has not been overruled or diminished in its precedent.

Understanding Limitations: Recognize the limitations on Congressional power to abrogate. For example, in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's authority under Article One of the United States Constitution could not be used to abrogate state sovereign immunity. Understanding such limitations is essential in verifying the applicability of case law.

Congressional intent

The abrogation doctrine is a US constitutional law doctrine that outlines when and how Congress may waive a state's sovereign immunity and subject it to lawsuits to which the state has not consented. In other words, it clarifies when Congress can "abrogate" a state's immunity from such lawsuits.

In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's authority under Article One of the US Constitution could not be used to abrogate state sovereign immunity. However, Congress can authorize lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual US states when acting pursuant to powers delegated by amendments subsequent to the Eleventh Amendment. This is often done through Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly allows Congress to enforce its guarantees on the states, thereby overriding states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.

To abrogate a law is to formally annul or repeal it through an act of legislation, constitutional authority, or custom. For instance, in Ferency v. Secretary of State, the Supreme Court of Michigan explained that "an existing constitutional provision is altered or abrogated if a proposed amendment would add to, delete from, or change existing wording, or would render it fully inoperative."

In the context of the abrogation doctrine, the Court has clarified that it will not infer Congressional intent to abrogate sovereign immunity. Instead, it will only uphold abrogations where Congress has "unequivocally expressed its intention" to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment bar to suits against states in federal court. To achieve this, Congress must make its intention "unmistakably clear" in the language of the statute.

Another limitation on Congressional power to abrogate is the "congruence and proportionality" test, introduced in City of Boerne v. Flores. Due to the Fourteenth Amendment's allowance for 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 aims to remedy.

Sovereign immunity

The abrogation of sovereign immunity occurs when Congress expresses an unequivocal intention to revoke a sovereign entity's immunity from lawsuits. This intent must be "unmistakably clear" in the language of the statute in question. For instance, in the case of Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, the Supreme Court found that statutory language authorising age discrimination suits against "any employer (including a public agency)" sufficiently demonstrated an intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity.

In the United States, the abrogation of sovereign immunity is predominantly associated with Congress's authority to waive a state's immunity and expose it to lawsuits to which the state has not consented. This power, however, is not without limitations. In the case of Seminole Tribe v. Florida, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress, under Article One of the United States Constitution, lacks the authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity. Nevertheless, Congress can authorise lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual states when acting pursuant to powers granted by amendments subsequent to the Eleventh Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly Section 5, is often invoked in this context. It empowers Congress to enforce its guarantees on the states, thereby overriding their Eleventh Amendment immunity. However, this power is subject to limitations established by Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that laws passed under Section 5 are only valid if there is a "congruence and proportionality" between the injury to be addressed and the means employed to achieve this goal.

In summary, while sovereign immunity shields sovereign entities from lawsuits without their consent, this immunity can be abrogated when Congress expresses a clear and unequivocal intention to do so. This abrogation is particularly relevant in the context of Congress's authority to subject states to lawsuits, although it is constrained by constitutional limitations, as illustrated by case law.

Seminole Tribe v. Florida

The case of Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996) is a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the question of whether Congress has the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity under Article One of the US Constitution. The case centred around the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which allowed Indian tribes to conduct gaming activities subject to agreements with the states in which they operated.

The Seminole Tribe of Florida owned property in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and in the late 1970s, they built a large bingo facility on that land. As this was before the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the tribe sued the Broward County Sheriff to prevent him from enforcing state law on tribal land. The tribe was successful in the lower courts, which opened the floodgates for Indian gaming across the nation.

However, in 1991, when the Seminole Tribe requested that the state of Florida enter into negotiations under the newly passed Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the state refused. The Tribe then filed suit against the state of Florida and its governor, Lawton Chiles, as allowed by the statute. The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the suit violated Florida's sovereign immunity from suit in federal court, as protected by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the respondents, holding that Article One of the US Constitution did not give Congress the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity, which is protected by the Eleventh Amendment. The Court clarified that abrogation is only permitted when necessary to enforce the rights of citizens guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, the Court held that the doctrine of Ex parte Young, which allows state officials to be sued for prospective injunctive relief, was inapplicable in these circumstances.

This decision narrowed the scope of Congressional power to abrogate state sovereign immunity and highlighted the importance of a clear legislative statement of intent to remove such immunity. The case also demonstrated the complex interplay between federal and state laws regarding gaming activities on tribal lands.

Frequently asked questions