FITZPATRICK V. BITZER

'''Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer''', 427 U.S. 445 (1976), 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

Issue

Result

See also

External links

Facts

In 1972, Congress amended Title VII to allow individuals to sue state governments for money damages for discrimination based on race, color, religion , sex, national origin. The plaintiffs, 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 recent 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 then-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.

See also

★ List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 427

External links

★

★ Brennan's opinion concurring in the judgment on Findlaw.com (427 U.S. 445, 457)

★ Stevens's opinion concurring in the judgment on Findlaw.com (427 U.S. 445, 458)