Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Alabama v. Pugh
Ala. v. Pugh, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1114 (1978)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1978-07-03
- Topic
- general
holding that a suit against a state and its Board of Corrections is barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent consent | holding that a suit against the Alabama Board of Corrections was barred by the Eleventh Amendment | holding that the State of Alabama has not waived its immunity to suit in § 1983 cases | holding that the State of Alabama has not waived its immunity to suit in § 1983 cases | holding that the State of Alabama has not waived its immunity to suit in § 1983 cases | concluding that Pennsylvania's First Judicial District is a state entity entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity | concluding that Pennsylvania's First Judicial District is a state entity entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity | holding that where the State of Alabama has not consented to suit the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State and its agencies | holding that Eleventh Amendment immunity precluded suit against state and state agency for injunctive relief, even though plaintiffs also had sued a number of state actors in their official capacity | holding that Eleventh Amendment bars suits for retrospective monetary relief against state | holding that Eleventh Amendment immunity precluded suit against state and state agency for injunctive relief, even though plaintiffs also had sued a number of state actors in their official capacity | holding that, unless a State has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity or Congress has overridden it, a State cannot be sued directly in its own name regardless of the relief sought | recognizing that the Alabama Board of Corrections is a part of the State | recognizing that the Alabama Board of Corrections is a part of the State | recognizing that the Alabama Board of Corrections is a part of the State | recognizing that the Alabama Board of Corrections is a part of the State | finding that the shield of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity extends to “subunits of the State” | holding “arms of the state,” 1 including the Arizona Department of Corrections, are not “persons” under § 1983 | finding that summary judgment was not appropriate when an officer admitted to not providing a detainee who had “‘blood all over her legs’” with a sanitary napkin | reversing a lower court's decision to enjoin the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections | reversing a lower court’s decision to enjoin the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections | holding Alabama prison system's living conditions and 39-member Implementation Committee unconstitutional | "Gambling, smuggling, and extortion are several of the abuses fueled by the failure of prison officials to control the possession of currency inside the institution." | holding Alabama prison system's living conditions and 39-member Implementation Committee unconstitutional | “Gambling, smuggling, and extortion are several of the abuses fueled by the failure of prison officials to control the possession of currency inside the institution.” | ruling the Eleventh Amendment barred an action against the State | adopting Report and Recommendation holding “Plaintiff’s claim against the Noble Correctional Institution must therefore be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” | setting forth the factors used to determine whether a governmental entity is “an arm of the state.” | affirming preliminary 4 injunction requiring prison officials to allow plaintiff inmate, after prolonged 5 confinement to his cell with little exercise, a meaningful opportunity for physical 6 exercise | noting jurisdictional nature of defense, which allows it to be raised at any time | discussing sovereign immunity and finding that a suit against the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees and University employees in their official capacities was a suit against the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes | holding, upon consideration of § 1983 claims asserted against Alabama and Alabama’s department of corrections, “[tjhere can be no doubt ... that suit against the state an
Citator
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 1715 opinions
Respondents, inmates or former inmates of the Alabama prison system, sued petitioners, who include the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections as well as a number of Alabama officials responsible for the administration of its prisons, alleging that conditions in Alabama prisons constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The United States District Court agreed and issued an order prescribing measures designed to eradicate cruel and unusual punishment in the Alabama prison system. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed but modified some aspects of the order which it believed exceeded the limits of the appropriate exercise of the court's remedial powers. 559 F. 2d 283.
Among the claims raised here by petitioners is that the issuance of a mandatory injunction against the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections is unconstitutional because the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against States and their agencies. The Court of Appeals did not address this contention, perhaps because it was of the view that in light of
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall dissent.Respondents contend that petitioners failed to raise the Eleventh Amendment issue in the District Court. The Court held in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 678 (1974), however, that “the Eleventh Amendment defense sufficiently partakes of the nature of a jurisdictional bar so that it need not be raised in the trial court . . . .”
“Whether the mandatory injunction issued against the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections violates the State’s Eleventh