13,094
edits
Changes
mLine 3:
Line 3: − + − + − + − + − +
Text replacement - "http://" to "https://"
==Origin==
==Origin==
[[Latin]] abrogatus, past participle of abrogare, from ab- + rogare to ask, [[propose]] a [[law]] — more at [[right]]. To repeal, to disregard, ignore, repudiate, to cancel, revoke, to take away
[[Latin]] abrogatus, past participle of abrogare, from ab- + rogare to ask, [[propose]] a [[law]] — more at [[right]]. To repeal, to disregard, ignore, repudiate, to cancel, revoke, to take away
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century 1526]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century 1526]
==Definitions==
==Definitions==
*1: to [[abolish]] by [[authoritative]] [[action]] : annul
*1: to [[abolish]] by [[authoritative]] [[action]] : annul
*2: to treat as nonexistent <abrogating their [[responsibilities]]>
*2: to treat as nonexistent <abrogating their [[responsibilities]]>
==Description==
==Description==
The '''Abrogation''' [[doctrine]] is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution constitutional law] doctrine expounding when and how the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress Congress] may waive a [[state]]'s [[sovereign]] immunity and subject it to lawsuits to which the state has not [[consent]]ed (i.e., to "abrogate" their immunity to such suits).
The '''Abrogation''' [[doctrine]] is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution constitutional law] doctrine expounding when and how the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress Congress] may waive a [[state]]'s [[sovereign]] immunity and subject it to lawsuits to which the state has not [[consent]]ed (i.e., to "abrogate" their immunity to such suits).
In [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Tribe_v._Florida Seminole Tribe v. Florida], 517 U.S. 44 (1996) the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States Supreme Court] ruled that the Congress's [[authority]], under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution Article One of the United States Constitution], could not be used to abrogate state sovereign immunity. However, the Congress can authorize [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit lawsuits] seeking monetary damages against [[individual]] U.S. states when it [[acts]] pursuant to powers delegated to it by amendments subsequent to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Eleventh Amendment]. This is most frequently done pursuant to Section 5 of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Fourteenth Amendment], which explicitly allows the Congress to enforce its guarantees on the states and thus overrides states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.
In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Tribe_v._Florida Seminole Tribe v. Florida], 517 U.S. 44 (1996) the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States Supreme Court] ruled that the Congress's [[authority]], under [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution Article One of the United States Constitution], could not be used to abrogate state sovereign immunity. However, the Congress can authorize [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit lawsuits] seeking monetary damages against [[individual]] U.S. states when it [[acts]] pursuant to powers delegated to it by amendments subsequent to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Eleventh Amendment]. This is most frequently done pursuant to Section 5 of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Fourteenth Amendment], which explicitly allows the Congress to enforce its guarantees on the states and thus overrides states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The [[doctrine]] was first announced by the Supreme Court in a unanimous [[decision]] written by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzer Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer], 427 U.S. 445 (1976). Bitzer "continued the line of reasoning that Rehnquist had acknowledged in Fry v. United States ... that cases involving Congress’ authority under Section 5 present different problems than cases involving the Congress’s [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause Commerce Clause] [[authority]]." The [[doctrine]] has since [[developed]] a number of nuances and [[limitations]]. In particular, later cases explained that the Court would not infer Congressional [[intent]] to abrogate [[sovereign]] immunity, but would only uphold abrogations where the Congress has "unequivocally expressed its [[intention]] to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment bar to suits against states in federal court." In order to do this, the Congress must "mak[e] its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atascadero_State_Hospital_v._Scanlon Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon], 473 U.S. 234 (1985).
The [[doctrine]] was first announced by the Supreme Court in a unanimous [[decision]] written by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzer Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer], 427 U.S. 445 (1976). Bitzer "continued the line of reasoning that Rehnquist had acknowledged in Fry v. United States ... that cases involving Congress’ authority under Section 5 present different problems than cases involving the Congress’s [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause Commerce Clause] [[authority]]." The [[doctrine]] has since [[developed]] a number of nuances and [[limitations]]. In particular, later cases explained that the Court would not infer Congressional [[intent]] to abrogate [[sovereign]] immunity, but would only uphold abrogations where the Congress has "unequivocally expressed its [[intention]] to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment bar to suits against states in federal court." In order to do this, the Congress must "mak[e] its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atascadero_State_Hospital_v._Scanlon Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon], 473 U.S. 234 (1985).
Another [[limitation]] that the [[courts]] have read into Congressional power to abrogate is the "congruence and proportionality" test, first discussed in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores City of Boerne v. Flores], 521 U.S. 507 (1997). Because the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress to take "appropriate" [[action]] to enforce [[rights]], the Court has determined that such [[action]] must be congruent and [[proportional]] to the deprivation of the right that the Congress is seeking to remedy. An example of a case where an act of the Congress failed the Boerne test is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimel_v._Florida_Board_of_Regents Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents], 528 U.S. 62 (2000). An example where an act passed the Boerne test is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Department_of_Human_Resources_v._Hibbs Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs], 538 U.S. 721 (2003).
Another [[limitation]] that the [[courts]] have read into Congressional power to abrogate is the "congruence and proportionality" test, first discussed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores City of Boerne v. Flores], 521 U.S. 507 (1997). Because the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress to take "appropriate" [[action]] to enforce [[rights]], the Court has determined that such [[action]] must be congruent and [[proportional]] to the deprivation of the right that the Congress is seeking to remedy. An example of a case where an act of the Congress failed the Boerne test is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimel_v._Florida_Board_of_Regents Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents], 528 U.S. 62 (2000). An example where an act passed the Boerne test is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Department_of_Human_Resources_v._Hibbs Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs], 538 U.S. 721 (2003).
==References==
==References==
# But see Central Virginia Community College v. Katz (state sovereign immunity not implicated by the exercise of in rem jurisdiction by bankruptcy courts established under Article I's Bankruptcy Clause).
# But see Central Virginia Community College v. Katz (state sovereign immunity not implicated by the exercise of in rem jurisdiction by bankruptcy courts established under Article I's Bankruptcy Clause).