Concurrence Brennan End date 1976 | Concurrence Stevens | |
Full case name Fitzpatrick, et al. v. Bitzer, Chairman, State Employees' Retirement Commission, et al. (75-251) consolidated with Bitzer, Chairman, State Employees' Retirement Commission, et al. v. Matthews, et al. (75-283) Citations 427 U.S. 445 (more)
96 S. Ct. 2666; 49 L. Ed. 2d 614; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 160; 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1586; 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10,999; 1 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1040 Prior history Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Majority Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell Ruling court Supreme Court of the United States Similar Chisholm v Georgia, City of Boerne v Flores, Katzenbach v Morgan, Oregon v Mitchell, South Carolina v Katzenbach | ||
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976),[1] was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the U.S. Congress has the power to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity of the states, if this is done pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment power to enforce upon the states the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Contents
Facts
In 1972, Congress amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e, Chapter 21, Subchapter VI) to allow individuals to sue state governments for money damages for discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin. The plaintiffs, a group of male retirees, sued the state of Connecticut for sex discrimination against them in its retirement policies. Connecticut invoked its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and the District Court, and Court of Appeals both allowed only injunctive relief, denying monetary recovery (although the Court of Appeals permitted attorney's fees). Both of those courts pointed to Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), a prior United States Supreme Court case which had held that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from ordering a U.S. state to pay money to an individual wronged by the state. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Can Congress abrogate state sovereign immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Result
The Court, in an opinion by Justice William Rehnquist, distinguished previous cases where individuals had attempted to sue the states for money damages (or the equivalent) — including Edelman v. Jordan — because those cases had not involved an express provision by Congress permitting such a lawsuit. The Court ruled that Congress has the power under the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate sovereign immunity of states, because the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted specifically to limit the power of the states, with the purpose of enforcing civil rights guarantees against them.