08-1438 Sossamon v. Texas

Listen to this article

Constitutional Law
Sovereign immunity

States, in accepting federal funding, do not consent to waive their sovereign immunity to private suits for money damages under RLUIPA.

Sossamon mistakenly contends that Congress’ enactment of RLUIPA §3 pursuant to the Spending Clause put the States on notice that they would be liable for damages because Spending Clause legislation operates as a contract and damages are always available for a breach of contract. While acknowledging the contract-law analogy, this Court has been clear “not [to] imply . . . that suits under Spending Clause legislation are suits in contract, or that contract-law principles apply to all issues that they raise,” Barnes, supra, at 188, n. 2, or to rely on that analogy to expand liability beyond what would exist under nonspending statutes, much less to extend monetary liability against the States. Applying ordinary contract principles here would also make little sense because contracts with a sovereign are unique: They do not traditionally confer a right of action for damages to enforce compliance. More fundamentally, Sossamon’s implied-contract remedy cannot be squared with the rule that a sovereign immunity waiver must be expressly and unequivocally stated in the relevant statute’s text.

560 F. 3d 316, affirmed.

Local effect:    The opinion is consistent with governing Seventh Circuit precedent. Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 884-885 (7th Cir. 2009).

08-1438 Sossamon v. Texas

Thomas, J.; Sotomayor, J., dissenting.

Full Text