Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-1261 In Re: Nelson v. La Crosse County District Attorney

By: dmc-admin//August 26, 2002//

01-1261 In Re: Nelson v. La Crosse County District Attorney

By: dmc-admin//August 26, 2002//

Listen to this article

“The Supreme Court has stated that in ‘exercising its Article I powers Congress may subject the States to private suits in their own courts only if there is “compelling evidence” that the States were required to surrender this power to Congress pursuant to the constitutional design.’ Alden, 527 U.S. at 730-31 (citing Blatchford, 501 U.S. at 781). However, in noting this particular limit on Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court identified only two examples where the States had done so: ‘suits brought by other States or by the Federal Government.’ 527 U.S. at 755. See also Blatchford, 501 U.S. at 781-82 (rejecting plan of convention argument; States by entering into the Constitution did not consent to suit by Indian tribes). Since Seminole Tribe, the Supreme Court has not referred to any part of the constitutional design or structure that would permit a private party to bring suit against a State under a law enacted by Congress pursuant to any of its Article I legislative powers.

Nor has Mrs. Nelson presented us with ‘compelling evidence’ that the States’ were required to surrender such immunity in the bankruptcy context.

“We reject the bankruptcy court’s and Mrs. Nelson’s ‘plan of convention’ argument because it is clearly untenable under Seminole Tribe and its progeny. In Seminole Tribe, the Court noted that ‘[u]nder the rationale of Union Gas, if the States’ partial cession of authority over a particular area [there, interstate commerce] includes cession of the immunity from suit, then their virtually total cession of authority over a different area [i.e., the Indian Commerce Clause] must also include cession of the immunity from suit.’

Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 62. In rejecting this rationale, and thus overruling Union Gas, the Court held, that ‘[e]ven when the Constitution vests in Congress complete lawmaking authority over a particular area, the Eleventh Amendment prevents congressional authorization of suits by private parties against unconsenting States.’ Id. at 72. These cases make clear that the States, by ceding certain enumerated legislative powers, did not relinquish their immunity from suit in those areas. And, as we have previously noted, there is nothing in these decisions indicating that bankruptcy should be treated differently than any other Article I power. While the ratification of the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I by the States illustrates that they clearly surrendered their power to enact bankruptcy laws, there is nothing in the text of that clause or in the structure of the Constitution indicating that the States consented to being sued in bankruptcy court.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Shabaz, J., Manion, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests