Posted on 02/07/2017 7:02:02 PM PST by CWW
There is an effective method for putting pressure on sanctuary cities and states to rethink their current positions. Congress can enact a law that eliminates states' and cities' 11th amendment immunity rights. This would allow victims and their families to sue cities and states and elecr d officials acting in their officia capacities for wrongful death and other causes of action for damages arising out of sanctuary city policies. Take away their immunity, and their hearts will soon follow!
Good Idea. I like arresting city mayors for obstruction of justice.
Sounds good on the surface, but it is a can of worms, IMO.
Congress cannot overturn a constitutional amendment with a law. They would need another amendment.
The 11th amendment is part of the Constitution. Congress cannot change it by passing a law.
Actually, 11th Amendment immunity only applies to the states if expressly provided for within a federal statute. So, Congress has the authority to pass a sanctuary city bill that expresssly provides that federal 11th amendment immunity does not apply to cities and states sued under the statute.
#1: These would be civil actions, not criminal, as some mistakenly suggest.
#2: A strict constructionist would agree there is a generally complete bar against civil litigation by a citizen of ANOTHER state, but no such bar exists against litigation by a citizen of the state where the damages occurred. These would be tough cases to get big damages on , but some court, somewhere, would see it this way.
Please see #8.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but congress cannot do that.
I think people are confused about this. The 11th amendment does not have anything to do with this.
It is the doctrine of “sovereign immunity” applicable in all states and a part of many state constitutions, that prevents a suit. It can be waived by legislatures. Most states have waived it for many things such as auto accidents involving state or city vehicles, etc.
Ohio has a bill pending to waive the sovereign immunity.
cool. needs to be done.
of course courts will block it.
trump needs to mov to fast track cases given the lefts strategy to file lawsuits against everything he does and turn the courts into total partisan political instruments of obstruction.
and lefties, take note, we will use these same exact tactics against you.
Seems unnecessary to me.
When Arizona wanted to enforce our immigrations laws, because Obama wouldn’t, Obama file suit against Arizona and eventually won at the Supreme Court which ruled that immigration is the job of the feds, not a state. It seems like to me that by extension counties and cities should not be able to act independently of the feds either. So I think we should file suit against them all.
All the eleventh amendment does is say that the federal courts have no jurisdiction in lawsuits against a state by a citizen of another state or country. It upholds the sovereign power of the states that was assumed at the time of founding but ignored by an early court decision. It effectively corrected that bad decision. There is nothing in it that gives such power to congress. In fact Congress isn’t even mentioned.
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
There are three ways that states waive their immunity: (1) by state legislation explicitly waiving immunity from suit; (2) by accepting federal funds that have been provided on the condition that sovereign immunity is waived; and (3) by removing state court litigation to federal court.
The Supreme Court held some time ago, in South Dakota v. Dole, that Congress may impose conditions on states in exchange for the provision of federal funds.58 Citing Dole, the Court recently stated that “Congress has broad power to set the terms on which it disburses federal money to the States."59 Congress may require that the states waive their sovereign immunity as a condition of receiving federal funds.60 However, there must be clear notice to the states of the consequences of accepting the money.61
The Court has stated that Congress "craft[ed] an unambiguous waiver of the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7.62 This statutory provision applies to suits under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (discrimination based on race and ethnicity), the Age Discrimination in Federally Assisted Programs Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (gender discrimination in education), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 (discrimination based on disability). Although expressed in terms of abrogation, Section 2000d-7 applies to the states as a waiver of immunity arising from a state accepting federal funds.63 If sovereign immunity is waived under statutes enacted as part of the spending power, a private plaintiff may sue the state or state agency as a named defendant and may recover damages to the extent that they are allowed by the underlying statute; the private plaintiff also may obtain injunctive and other relief.
Laws that waive sovereign immunity based on the acceptance of federal funds have a wide applicability. Because most state agencies receive some federal funds, it is generally not difficult to establish the state's acceptance of federal assistance.64 The Rehabilitation Act, in particular, provides that if one part of a department or agency receives federal financial assistance, the entire entity is considered to receive federal assistance and must conform to the Act’s requirements.65 Even state agencies that merely distribute federal assistance are covered by the Rehabilitation Act.66
Whatever the 11th amendment means, Congress can’t change it with a law. As to suits against a State by its own citizens, that is governed by the laws of that State, and no federal law can override that State law. These days, the strict sovereign immunity of the common law (inherited by all the States save Louisiana) has been modified by State law to some extent.
Actually, Confress can do this and has done it many times. They can condition the acceptance of federal monies on a waiver of immunity. I’ve been practicing law for 30 years in this area. This isn’t a WAG.
Bingo.
Without the return of our right to sue when they break the law and cause people harm, they can change the law all day long and it won’t mean anything.
Someone looking at original intent would realize that it was assumed states had sovereign power. Sure a citizen can sue his own state—under that state’s laws, not federal law. SCOTUS had recently intervened in Chisholm v. Georgia, a case by a citizen of South Carolina, and the 11th was passed to reestablish states’ sovereignty in legal matters. It certainly didn’t intend to give that power to Congress, and it doesn’t.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eleventh-Amendment
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
