Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The other reviewed opinions applied Pennhurst's state-law and sovereign-immunity rules, invoked its express exceptions, reported another authority's history, rejected arguments that a later case had overruled Pennhurst, or used nearby adverse language for immunity abrogation and unrelated precedent. David D. v. Dartmouth School Committee applied Pennhurst's own state-law-as-state-law boundary and therefore produces no entry.
8,937 later cases cite Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman; 2,574 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 2,565 of them have been read, and the text of 9 citing opinions could not be retrieved, so those remain unread. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Criticized
-
The Seventh Circuit criticized Pennhurst's description of state sovereign immunity as a constitutional limit on Article III, reasoning that the Court's decisions instead rested on comity and that Pennhurst's distinction between unauthorized conduct and conduct violating state law was arbitrary.
McVey Trucking, Inc. v. Secretary of State of Illinois · Seventh Circuit · filed
The Supreme Court has often employed language that suggests that state sovereignty imposes a limit on the Article III power of the federal courts. See, e.g., Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 98, 104 S.Ct. at 907. Despite such broad language, however, the Supreme Court's decisions not to assert federal judicial authority over the states appear to be based on principles of comity. Although such abstention is often highly desirable in a federal system, it does not appear to be constitutionally mandated. Therefore, when Congress acts under its plenary powers, it may authorize the federal courts to enter money judgments against the states.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace