How could it mean that? I mean, the S.Ct can pronounce to its heart's content on state court jurisdiction, but what gives _it_ jurisdiction to do that? That is mere dicta. All 11A cases are about Federal jurisdiction, full stop. Now, there are cases that say that states have to enforce federal law, and maybe your idea is that these have been subtly abrogated. But I will believe it when I see the caselaw. I ain't seen it yet. Right now, I see just that Congress didn't have the power, or didn't succeed in exercising it, to abrogate the 11A, barring Federal jurisdiction, under the 14A. None of this has any bearing on state jurisdiction. NB the cases I cited are Rehnquist court cases.
--jks
>But these are what everyone thought the law meant before the recent court
>cases. You seem to argue that there hasn't been a radical shift in the law
>from these precedents. The import of the ADA cases and previous cases like
>the patent and age discrimination cases is that states are immune to
>lawsuit
>PERIOD.
>
>-- Nathan
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 3:54 PM
>Subject: Re: ADA suits against states struck down- what's next?
>
>
>
>But there is no Eleventh Amendment immunity in state court to be abrogated
>by section 5 of the 14thA. See, e.g., Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223, 229,
>n. 2, (1989) ("[A]n unconsenting State is immune from liability for
>damages
>in a suit _brought in federal court_ by one of its own citizens.) (emphasis
>added). .
>
>Or: "In Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1(1890), the Court held that, despite
>the limited terms of the Eleventh Amendment, a federal court could not
>entertain a suit brought by a citizen against his own State. . . .
>[F]ederal jurisdiction over suits against unconsenting States "was not
>contemplated by the Constitution when establishing the judicial power of
>the
>United States." In short the principle of sovereign immunity is a
>constitutional limitation on the federal judicial power established in >
>Art. III." Pennhurt State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 96-97
>(1984).
>
>The state court suits should be OK. --jks
>
>
> >From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org>
> >Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> >To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> >Subject: Re: ADA suits against states struck down- what's next?
> >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:03:14 -0500
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
> >
> >
> > >No. The 11th amendment stuff just blocks lawsuits IN FEDERAL COURT.
>It's
> >a
> > >jurisdictional issue, and the 11th amendment doesn't speak to the
> > >jurisdiction of the state courts. So the states can be sued under the
>ADA
> > >FOR DAMAGES in state court. --jks
> >
> >I don't think so, Justin, unless the state government chooses to waive
> >immunity. I don't think you can sue under federal law when there is no
> >right of action to sue in the federal courts. Federalism is pretty
> >bizarre,
> >but I don't think its that bizarre.
> >
> >I think you are looking for optimistic loopholes where there are none.
>And
> >I
> >agree with Marta that the march of cases is that no damages will be won
> >against states in any form, although injunctive relief will hopefully
> >remain. Unless the Supreme Court follows up on its statement that the
>ADA
> >was not justified by the evidence to rule the whole law unconstitutional
>as
> >outside the Congress's enumerated powers.
> >
> >-- Nathan Newman
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com