Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Alabama v. Pugh

Ala. v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1978-07-03
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • 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
  • 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, 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

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Alabama v. Pugh. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
1890 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Eleventh Amendment A suit against a State and its agency is barred by the Eleventh Amendment unless the State has consented to the filing of such a suit.
  2. Constitutional Law — Eleventh Amendment Where a State's constitution prohibits the State from ever being made a defendant in any court of law or equity, the State cannot consent to suit, and its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court is unaffected.
  3. Constitutional Law — Eleventh Amendment A State has a cognizable interest in being dismissed from an action in which a mandatory injunction has been issued against it, so as to eliminate the danger of being held in contempt for failing to comply with the injunction; the question of the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity is therefore not merely academic.
  4. Civil Procedure — Preservation of Eleventh Amendment Defense The Eleventh Amendment defense sufficiently partakes of the nature of a jurisdictional bar that it need not be raised in the trial court in order to be considered on appeal.
  5. Civil Procedure — Appellate Review of Remedial Orders Where a court of appeals affirms a district court's injunctive order but modifies aspects it believes exceed the limits of the court's remedial powers, the Supreme Court may grant certiorari limited to the question whether the injunction violates the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity or exceeds the jurisdiction granted federal courts by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, reverse the judgment in part, and remand with instructions to order dismissal of the State and its board of corrections from the action.
Per Curiam.

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 *782 the numerous individual defendants in the case dismissal as to these two defendants would not affect the scope of the injunction. There can be no doubt, however, that suit against the State and its Board of Corrections is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, unless Alabama has consented to the filing of such a suit. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974); Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U. S. 459 (1945); Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley, 302 U. S. 292 (1937). Respondents do not contend that Alabama has consented to this suit, and it appears that no consent could be given under Art. I, § 14, of the Alabama Constitution, which provides that “the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.” Moreover, the question of the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity is not merely academic. Alabama has an interest in being dismissed from this action in order to eliminate the danger of being held, in contempt if it should fail to comply with the mandatory injunction.1 Consequently, we grant the petition for certio-rari limited to Question 2 presented by petitioners,2 reverse the judgment in part, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals with instructions to order the dismissal of the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections from this action.

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 *783 Amendment immunity or exceeds the jurisdiction granted federal courts by 42 U. S. C. § 1983.”