Also known as: abrogation doctrines · abrogation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine under which Congress may override a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from private damages suits in federal court. The doctrine requires Congress to express its intent unequivocally and to act pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority such as the enforcement power in Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. Article I powers supply no basis for abrogation.
Alan Ackerman, a resident of State A, filed a federal suit against State A seeking money damages for injuries sustained at a state-run facility. The complaint relied on a federal statute enacted under the Commerce Clause that purported to authorize such actions. The district court dismissed the case because the statute supplied no valid basis for overriding the state's immunity.
The Red River Tribe sued the State of Danton in federal court for unpaid revenue-sharing amounts under a compact authorized by a federal statute resting on the Indian Commerce Clause. Danton moved to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds. The court granted the motion because Congress lacked power under Article I to abrogate the state's immunity.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Angela Acosta, a nurse at a state hospital, sued the state health department in federal court for back pay under a federal overtime statute. The department moved to dismiss asserting sovereign immunity. The court granted the motion because the statute rested on Article I authority rather than the Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power.
Antonio Alvarado, a tugboat captain and resident of State X, sued the State X Port Authority in federal court under federal maritime law for personal injuries. The authority moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. The court dismissed the action because no valid abrogation appeared in the governing statute.
Aether Technologies sued the State of Pennsylvania in federal court under a federal environmental statute seeking damages for cleanup costs. Pennsylvania asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court dismissed the suit because the statute relied on Article I authority that cannot support abrogation.
Amelia Amari, a state employee, filed a federal overtime claim against the State of Maine in Maine state court. Maine moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. The court dismissed the action because Congress cannot subject nonconsenting states to private damages suits in their own courts under Article I legislation.
Congress must act under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. Article I powers such as the Commerce Clause or the Indian Commerce Clause do not suffice.
Yes. The bar extends to suits brought by a state's own citizens absent consent or valid abrogation.
No. Waiver must be clear and unmistakable. Participation in a federal scheme alone does not constitute waiver.
Yes. A state may not be sued for damages in the courts of a sister state without its consent.
…Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty. , 554 U. S. 527, 547 (2008) (describing fraud and duress as “traditional grounds for the abrogation of [a] contract” that speak to “unfair dealing at the contract formation stage”); Hume v. United States , 132 U. S. 406, 411, 414 (1889) (describing an unconscionable contract as one “such…