dellmuth
muth
argued
february
decided
june
education
handicapped
act
eha
enacts
comprehensive
scheme
assure
handicapped
children
may
achieve
free
public
education
appropriate
needs
provides
inter
alia
parents
may
challenge
appropriateness
child
individualized
education
program
iep
administrative
hearing
subsequent
judicial
review
respondent
muth
hereinafter
respondent
requested
hearing
contest
local
school
district
iep
son
alex
handicapped
within
meaning
eha
hearing
convened
respondent
enrolled
alex
private
school
alex
iep
revised
declared
appropriate
hearing
examiner
decision
affirmed
pennsylvania
secretary
education
one
year
original
hearing
administrative
proceedings
way
respondent
brought
suit
federal
district
school
district
secretary
challenging
appropriateness
iep
validity
administrative
proceedings
seeking
among
things
reimbursement
alex
tuition
attorney
fees
found
revised
iep
appropriate
procedural
flaws
delayed
administrative
process
since
eha
abrogated
commonwealth
eleventh
amendment
immunity
suit
school
district
commonwealth
jointly
severally
liable
reimbursement
alex
tuition
attorney
fees
appeals
affirmed
held
eha
abrogate
eleventh
amendment
immunity
suit
thus
amendment
bars
respondent
attempt
collect
tuition
reimbursement
pennsylvania
pp
congress
may
abrogate
immunity
making
intention
unmistakably
clear
language
statute
atascadero
state
hospital
scanlon
pp
respondent
nontextual
arguments
abrogation
necessary
meet
eha
goals
amendments
rehabilitation
act
though
retroactively
applicable
respondent
suit
evince
previous
intention
abrogate
immunity
eha
suits
bearing
abrogation
analysis
since
congressional
intent
must
unmistakably
clear
statute
language
although
nontextual
evidence
might
weight
normal
exercise
statutory
construction
generally
irrelevant
judicial
inquiry
whether
congress
intended
abrogate
eleventh
amendment
argument
application
atascadero
standard
unfair
case
congress
foreseen
application
premised
unrealistic
view
legislative
process
unlikely
congress
taking
careful
stock
state
eleventh
amendment
law
drop
coy
hints
stop
short
making
intention
manifest
pp
eha
provisions
relied
appeals
preamble
statement
purpose
amendments
dealing
attorney
fees
authorization
judicial
review
address
abrogation
even
oblique
terms
statutory
structure
unlike
atascadero
statute
makes
frequent
references
lends
force
permissible
inference
logical
defendants
unequivocal
declaration
congressional
intent
abrogate
pp
kennedy
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
scalia
joined
scalia
filed
concurring
opinion
post
brennan
filed
dissenting
opinion
marshall
blackmun
stevens
joined
post
blackmun
post
stevens
post
filed
dissenting
opinions
maria
parisi
vickers
chief
deputy
attorney
general
pennsylvania
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
leroy
zimmerman
former
attorney
general
ernest
preate
attorney
general
john
knorr
iii
chief
deputy
attorney
general
gregory
neuhauser
senior
deputy
attorney
general
martha
field
argued
cause
respondents
filed
brief
respondent
muth
joanne
sommer
filed
brief
respondent
central
bucks
school
district
lacy
thornburg
attorney
general
edwin
speas
special
deputy
attorney
general
filed
brief
state
north
carolina
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
minna
kotkin
kathleen
sullivan
herbert
semmel
elizabeth
lottman
schneider
filed
brief
american
civil
liberties
union
et
al
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
question
us
whether
education
handicapped
act
abrogates
eleventh
amendment
immunity
suit
federal
courts
education
handicapped
act
eha
stat
amended
et
seq
ed
supp
enacts
comprehensive
scheme
assure
handicapped
children
may
receive
free
public
education
appropriate
needs
achieve
ends
act
mandates
certain
procedural
requirements
participating
state
local
educational
agencies
particular
act
guarantees
parents
right
participate
development
individualized
education
program
iep
handicapped
child
challenge
appropriateness
child
iep
administrative
hearing
subsequent
judicial
review
see
ed
supp
school
committee
burlington
department
education
massachusetts
alex
muth
son
respondent
russell
muth
hereinafter
respondent
bright
child
one
handicapped
within
meaning
eha
language
learning
disability
associated
emotional
problems
alex
enrolled
public
school
central
bucks
school
district
pennsylvania
summer
respondent
requested
statutory
administrative
hearing
challenge
district
iep
alex
september
shortly
hearing
convened
respondent
enrolled
alex
private
school
learning
disabled
children
coming
school
year
hearing
examiner
found
alex
original
iep
inappropriate
made
number
recommendations
respondent
school
district
appealed
decision
secretary
education
provided
pennsylvania
law
see
code
secretary
remanded
case
hearing
examiner
instructions
school
district
revise
alex
iep
district
hearing
examiner
issued
decision
declaring
revised
iep
appropriate
secretary
affirmed
decision
october
year
original
due
process
hearing
administrative
proceedings
underway
respondent
brought
suit
eastern
district
pennsylvania
school
district
state
secretary
education
whose
successor
petitioner
amended
respondent
complaint
alleged
district
iep
alex
inappropriate
commonwealth
administrative
proceedings
violated
procedural
requirements
eha
two
respects
assignment
review
secretary
allegedly
partial
officer
delays
occasioned
secretary
remand
hearing
examiner
respondent
requested
declaratory
injunctive
relief
reimbursement
alex
tuition
attorney
fees
district
found
various
procedural
infirmities
pennsylvania
administrative
scheme
entered
summary
judgment
respondent
procedural
claims
held
hearing
resolve
remaining
issues
case
determine
proper
remedy
procedural
violations
concluded
district
proposed
iep
appropriate
within
meaning
eha
respondent
entitled
reimbursement
alex
tuition
year
procedural
flaws
delayed
administrative
process
district
determined
school
district
commonwealth
pennsylvania
jointly
severally
liable
agreeing
respondent
eha
abrogated
pennsylvania
eleventh
amendment
immunity
suit
also
awarded
attorney
fees
assessed
jointly
severally
school
district
commonwealth
appeals
third
circuit
affirmed
muth
central
bucks
school
pertinent
case
appeals
agreed
district
eleventh
amendment
bar
reimbursement
award
commonwealth
concluded
text
eha
legislative
history
leave
doubt
congress
intended
abrogate
amendment
immunity
resolve
conflict
among
circuits
granted
certiorari
sub
nom
gilhool
muth
question
whether
eha
abrogates
sovereign
immunity
eleventh
amendment
compare
david
dartmouth
school
committee
finding
abrogation
gary
new
trier
high
school
dist
doe
maher
miener
missouri
finding
abrogation
reverse
ii
recognized
congress
acting
exercise
enforcement
authority
fourteenth
amendment
may
abrogate
eleventh
amendment
immunity
fitzpatrick
bitzer
stressed
however
abrogation
sovereign
immunity
upsets
fundamental
constitutional
balance
federal
government
atascadero
state
hospital
scanlon
placing
considerable
strain
principles
federalism
inform
eleventh
amendment
doctrine
pennhurst
state
school
hospital
halderman
quoting
hutto
finney
temper
congress
acknowledged
powers
abrogation
due
concern
eleventh
amendment
role
essential
component
constitutional
structure
applied
simple
stringent
test
congress
may
abrogate
constitutionally
secured
immunity
suit
federal
making
intention
unmistakably
clear
language
statute
atascadero
supra
concluding
eha
contains
requisite
clear
statement
congressional
intent
appeals
rested
principally
three
textual
provisions
first
cited
act
preamble
congress
finding
national
interest
federal
government
assist
state
local
efforts
provide
programs
meet
education
needs
handicapped
children
order
assure
equal
protection
law
second
important
appeals
act
judicial
review
provision
permits
parties
aggrieved
administrative
process
bring
civil
action
state
competent
jurisdiction
district
without
regard
amount
controversy
finally
appeals
pointed
amendment
eha
act
provision
reduction
attorney
fees
shall
apply
finds
state
local
educational
agency
unreasonably
protracted
final
resolution
action
proceeding
violation
section
supp
view
appeals
amendment
represented
express
statement
congress
understanding
parties
civil
actions
brought
eha
respondent
supplements
points
nontextual
arguments
notably
respondent
argues
abrogation
necessary
achieve
eha
goals
brief
respondent
muth
amendments
another
statute
rehabilitation
act
stat
supp
iv
expressly
abrogate
state
immunity
suits
brought
eha
brief
respondent
muth
connection
latter
argument
respondent
recognizes
rehabilitation
act
amendments
expressly
apply
violations
occur
whole
part
october
supp
iv
respondent
contends
however
lthough
amendment
became
effective
muth
initially
filed
suit
overwhelming
support
amendment
shows
reflects
congress
intent
originally
enacting
eha
brief
respondent
muth
turn
first
respondent
nontextual
arguments
easier
dismiss
far
certain
eha
function
retain
immunity
amendments
rehabilitation
act
useful
guide
congressional
intent
indeed
language
amendments
rehabilitation
act
appears
cut
respondent
without
intending
way
prejudge
rehabilitation
act
amendments
note
comparison
language
amendments
language
eha
serves
underscore
difference
two
statutes
absence
clear
statement
abrogation
eha
amendments
rehabilitation
act
read
pertinent
part
state
shall
immune
eleventh
amendment
constitution
suit
federal
violation
several
enumerated
provisions
provisions
federal
statute
prohibiting
discrimination
recipients
federal
financial
assistance
supp
iv
importantly
however
respondent
contentions
beside
point
opinion
atascadero
left
doubt
conclude
congress
intended
abrogate
sovereign
immunity
intention
unmistakably
clear
language
statute
atascadero
lest
atascadero
thought
contain
ambiguity
reaffirm
today
area
law
evidence
congressional
intent
must
unequivocal
textual
respondent
evidence
neither
particular
reject
approach
appeals
according
hile
text
federal
legislation
must
bear
evidence
intention
legislative
history
may
still
used
resource
determining
whether
congress
intention
lift
bar
made
sufficiently
manifest
legislative
history
generally
irrelevant
judicial
inquiry
whether
congress
intended
abrogate
eleventh
amendment
congress
intention
unmistakably
clear
language
statute
recourse
legislative
history
unnecessary
congress
intention
unmistakably
clear
recourse
legislative
history
futile
definition
rule
atascadero
met
gist
justice
brennan
dissent
argument
appears
application
governing
law
atascadero
unfair
case
dissent
complains
resor
interpretative
standard
congress
anticipated
aid
particularly
effective
crystal
ball
post
complaint
appears
premised
unrealistic
cynical
view
legislative
process
find
difficult
believe
congress
taking
careful
stock
state
eleventh
amendment
law
decided
drop
coy
hints
stop
short
making
intention
manifest
rather
salient
point
view
said
perfect
confidence
congress
fact
intended
abrogate
sovereign
immunity
imperfect
confidence
suffice
given
special
constitutional
concerns
area
cf
johnson
robison
federal
statute
construed
preclude
judicial
review
constitutional
challenges
absent
clear
convincing
evidence
congressional
intent
turn
attention
proper
focus
inquiry
congressional
abrogation
sovereign
immunity
language
statute
agree
textual
provisions
appeals
relied
provisions
eha
demonstrate
unmistakable
clarity
congress
intended
abrogate
immunity
suit
eha
makes
reference
whatsoever
either
eleventh
amendment
sovereign
immunity
cf
supra
provision
cited
appeals
address
abrogation
even
oblique
terms
much
less
clarity
atascadero
requires
general
statement
legislative
purpose
act
preamble
simply
nothing
sovereign
immunity
amendment
eha
deals
attorney
fees
alter
speak
parties
subject
suit
respondent
conceded
much
oral
argument
acknowledging
eha
amendments
directly
relevant
concerned
attorney
fees
tr
oral
arg
finally
centerpiece
appeals
textual
analysis
provides
judicial
review
aggrieved
parties
way
intimates
sovereign
immunity
abrogated
made
plain
atascadero
general
authorization
suit
federal
kind
unequivocal
statutory
language
sufficient
abrogate
eleventh
amendment
core
respondent
attempt
distinguish
case
atascadero
appears
reduce
proposition
eha
replete
references
whereas
atascadero
statutory
language
issue
include
mention
brief
respondent
muth
recognize
eha
frequent
reference
delineation
important
role
securing
appropriate
education
handicapped
children
make
along
local
agencies
logical
defendants
suits
alleging
violations
eha
statutory
structure
lends
force
inference
intended
subject
damages
actions
violations
eha
permissible
inference
whatever
logical
force
remain
permissible
inference
unequivocal
declaration
affirm
today
necessary
determine
congress
intended
exercise
powers
abrogation
iii
hold
statutory
language
eha
evince
unmistakably
clear
intention
abrogate
constitutionally
secured
immunity
suit
eleventh
amendment
bars
respondent
attempt
collect
tuition
reimbursement
commonwealth
pennsylvania
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
respondent
also
offers
us
another
avenue
affirm
result
overrule
longstanding
holding
hans
louisiana
unconsenting
state
immune
liability
damages
suit
brought
federal
one
citizens
decline
recent
invitation
overrule
opinion
hans
grant
certiorari
also
embraced
question
whether
eha
precluded
petitioner
hearing
administrative
appeals
since
conclude
commonwealth
subject
suit
eha
since
school
district
petition
review
appeals
decision
occasion
reach
question
oral
argument
respondent
filed
motion
remand
suit
district
consolidation
another
related
action
light
disposition
today
respondent
motion
denied
justice
scalia
concurring
join
opinion
understanding
reasoning
preclude
congressional
elimination
sovereign
immunity
statutory
text
clearly
subjects
suit
monetary
damages
though
without
explicit
reference
state
sovereign
immunity
eleventh
amendment
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
justice
stevens
join
dissenting
respectfully
dissent
holding
commonwealth
pennsylvania
immune
suit
federal
courts
violations
education
handicapped
act
eha
et
seq
ed
supp
reasons
set
elsewhere
see
welch
texas
dept
highways
public
transportation
brennan
dissenting
atascadero
state
hospital
scanlon
brennan
dissenting
accept
respondent
muth
invitation
overrule
hans
louisiana
case
interpreted
recent
decisions
even
hold
view
nevertheless
affirm
decision
appeals
ground
congress
eha
abrogated
state
immunity
applying
standard
method
ascertaining
congressional
intent
conclude
appeals
text
eha
legislative
history
leave
doubt
congress
intended
abrogate
amendment
immunity
muth
central
bucks
school
eha
imposes
substantial
obligations
well
local
education
authorities
might
expected
act
authorizing
federal
financial
aid
assist
localities
provide
education
handicapped
children
eligible
federal
assistance
state
must
develop
plan
education
handicapped
children
establish
procedural
safeguards
mandated
state
educational
agency
responsible
assuring
requirements
eha
subchapter
ii
dealing
federal
assistance
education
handicapped
children
carried
educational
programs
handicapped
children
within
state
including
programs
administered
state
local
agency
general
supervision
persons
responsible
educational
programs
handicapped
children
state
educational
agency
see
smith
robinson
responsibility
providing
required
education
remains
board
education
hendrick
hudson
central
school
dist
rowley
accord
overarching
responsibility
placed
upon
eha
contemplates
number
situations
local
education
authority
provide
appropriate
educational
services
handicapped
state
directly
see
ii
state
assure
provision
services
local
authority
barred
receiving
federal
funds
failed
submit
proper
application
state
provide
special
education
related
services
directly
handicapped
children
residing
area
served
local
educational
agency
unable
unwilling
establish
maintain
programs
merged
local
agencies
enable
handicapped
children
best
served
regional
state
center
event
local
education
authority
entitled
less
eha
funding
fiscal
year
state
may
distribute
funds
must
use
funds
ensure
provision
appropriate
services
moreover
state
may
choose
administer
percent
federal
funding
rather
distributing
funds
local
education
authorities
use
funds
provide
direct
services
handicapped
eha
confers
upon
disabled
students
enforceable
substantive
right
public
education
participating
conditions
federal
financial
assistance
upon
state
compliance
substantive
procedural
goals
act
honig
doe
emphasis
added
citation
omitted
see
also
smith
robinson
supra
thus
provides
party
aggrieved
findings
decision
made
administrative
process
shall
right
bring
civil
action
state
competent
jurisdiction
district
without
regard
amount
controversy
provision
makes
distinction
civil
actions
based
upon
type
relief
sought
hence
plainly
contemplates
actions
see
school
committee
burlington
department
education
massachusetts
light
pervasive
role
eha
clarity
statute
imposes
procedural
substantive
obligations
trouble
inferring
text
eha
congress
intended
state
named
opposing
party
sole
party
proceeding
brought
whatever
remedy
sought
congress
thereby
abrogated
eleventh
amendment
immunity
suit
federal
david
dartmouth
school
cert
denied
indeed
situations
state
elected
provide
educational
services
handicapped
directly
eha
required
provide
direct
services
state
appear
proper
defendant
federal
action
enforce
eha
rights
clear
parent
guardian
may
present
complaint
alleging
state
local
educational
agency
refused
provide
services
child
may
entitled
alleging
state
local
educational
agency
erroneously
classified
child
handicapped
child
cong
rec
emphasis
added
ii
seem
disagree
analysis
actual
congressional
intent
even
without
benefit
reference
legislative
history
confirms
obvious
interpretation
text
makes
congress
purpose
undeniably
clear
history
spurned
devised
case
novel
rule
egislative
history
generally
irrelevant
judicial
inquiry
whether
congress
intended
abrogate
eleventh
amendment
ante
able
recognize
eha
frequent
reference
delineation
important
role
securing
appropriate
education
handicapped
children
make
along
local
agencies
logical
defendants
suits
alleging
violations
eha
statutory
structure
lends
force
inference
intended
subject
damages
actions
violations
eha
ante
dispute
conclusion
text
eha
equivocal
mind
immunity
unequivocally
textually
abrogated
state
amenability
suit
logical
inference
language
structure
text
cf
edelman
jordan
clear
declaration
state
consent
suit
federal
require
express
language
may
found
overwhelming
implications
text
leave
room
reasonable
construction
quoting
murray
wilson
distilling
reaches
conclusion
requires
unequivocal
text
far
removed
real
concern
discern
clear
manifest
statement
congressional
intent
rice
santa
fe
elevator
otherwise
looked
inquiring
meaning
congressional
action
even
traditionally
sensitive
areas
legislation
affecting
federal
balance
bass
fact
concerned
congress
intent
adopted
strict
drafting
regulations
devises
today
ruling
resort
legislative
history
apparently
also
barring
inferential
reasoning
text
structure
justification
rule
abrogation
immunity
upsets
fundamental
constitutional
balance
federal
government
placing
considerable
strain
principles
federalism
inform
eleventh
amendment
doctrine
stringent
test
necessary
temper
congress
acknowledged
powers
abrogation
due
concern
eleventh
amendment
role
essential
component
constitutional
structure
ante
maintain
makes
one
basic
error
simply
constitutional
principle
state
sovereign
immunity
atascadero
brennan
dissenting
quite
apart
never
explained
constitutional
principle
created
require
novel
approach
ascertaining
congressional
intent
said
atascadero
special
rules
statutory
drafting
justified
justifiable
efforts
determine
genuine
intent
congress
reason
advanced
ordinary
canons
statutory
construction
inadequate
ascertain
intent
congress
entirely
fail
see
example
clear
manifest
purpose
congress
article
vi
historic
police
powers
rice
supra
may
found
many
various
ways
eleventh
amendment
context
insists
setting
drafting
regulations
congress
must
followed
though
congress
aware
requirements
acted
order
abrogate
immunity
genuine
concern
identify
congress
purpose
lead
consider
logical
inferences
drawn
text
structure
eha
cf
edelman
jordan
supra
statute
legislative
history
see
employees
missouri
dept
public
health
welfare
examining
legislative
history
order
determine
whether
congress
abrogated
eleventh
amendment
immunity
deciding
whether
congress
intended
subject
suit
federal
though
special
strict
drafting
regulations
foisted
congress
unjustifiable
still
worse
retroactive
application
new
rules
one
thing
tell
congress
future
measure
congress
intent
least
ensure
congress
operating
rules
time
makes
sense
whatsoever
test
congressional
intent
using
set
interpretative
rules
congress
conceivably
foreseen
time
acted
rules
altogether
different
much
stringent
congress
reasonably
relying
upon
opinions
believed
working
see
atascadero
supra
brennan
dissenting
effect
retroactively
applying
peculiar
rule
override
congressional
intent
abrogate
immunity
though
intent
absolutely
clear
principles
statutory
interpretation
established
time
enactment
retroactive
application
new
drafting
regulations
circumstances
simply
unprincipled
cf
welch
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
congress
enacted
statutes
based
assumption
reasonably
derived
cases
ven
find
assumption
wrong
reason
interpret
statutes
though
assumption
never
existed
congress
already
cause
complain
changing
interpretative
rules
midcourse
held
atascadero
rehabilitation
act
contained
unmistakable
language
abrogating
eleventh
amendment
immunity
congress
enacted
amendment
act
providing
state
shall
immune
eleventh
amendment
constitution
suit
federal
violation
enumerated
provisions
rehabilitation
act
provisions
federal
statute
prohibiting
discrimination
recipients
federal
financial
assistance
supp
iv
perfectly
clear
today
ignores
congress
actual
intent
abrogate
state
immunity
intent
even
plainer
case
lacked
eha
frequent
reference
obligations
instead
resorting
interpretative
standard
congress
anticipated
aid
particularly
effective
crystal
ball
enacted
present
form
edelman
jordan
employees
missouri
dept
public
health
welfare
supra
established
consider
legislative
history
make
inferences
text
structure
determining
whether
congress
intended
abrogate
eleventh
amendment
immunity
indeed
quern
jordan
evidently
remained
view
legislative
history
might
taken
account
cf
hutto
finney
later
still
pennhurst
state
school
hospital
halderman
still
requiring
unequivocal
expression
congressional
intent
citing
cases
support
edelman
quern
discuss
legislative
history
assessing
whether
congress
intended
abrogate
immunity
obviously
rule
sort
devised
case
fail
understand
theory
justifies
gauging
congress
intent
using
rule
iii
though
hold
pennsylvania
immune
suit
federal
breaches
obligations
eha
find
unnecessary
go
consider
second
question
upon
certiorari
granted
whether
appeals
erred
ruling
pennsylvania
secretary
education
precluded
deciding
special
education
administrative
appeals
employee
commonwealth
alternative
ground
appeals
judgment
pennsylvania
secretary
remand
hearing
officer
following
respondent
administrative
appeal
respondent
deprived
timely
final
judgment
entitled
cfr
petitioner
predecessor
seek
review
appeals
decision
alternative
ground
appears
adequate
support
judgment
purpose
served
considering
whether
secretary
participation
appeal
violation
eha
procedural
requirements
thus
affirm
judgment
moreover
even
clear
situations
state
proper
defendant
action
always
brought
state
even
state
michigan
dept
state
police
ante
seems
suggest
rule
interpretation
applies
decide
whether
eleventh
amendment
immunity
abrogated
also
used
determine
whether
federal
statute
requires
state
allow
sued
state
see
ante
brennan
dissenting
eha
guarantee
state
sued
somewhere
previous
statements
statute
provides
enforceable
rights
mockery
view
congress
believed
abrogated
state
immunity
eha
confirmed
legislative
history
handicapped
children
protection
act
congress
complained
ongressional
intent
ignored
handed
decision
smith
robinson
held
eha
repealed
availability
sections
rehabilitation
act
title
individuals
seeking
free
appropriate
public
education
litigants
longer
obtain
attorney
fees
quoting
smith
supra
brennan
dissenting
correct
error
congress
enacted
amendment
codified
supp
providing
award
attorney
fees
eha
statement
house
report
amendment
actions
proceedings
parents
guardian
prevail
one
local
state
agency
may
named
respondent
cases
expected
apportion
award
attorneys
fees
expense
based
relative
culpability
agencies
clearly
demonstrates
belief
congress
abrogated
eleventh
amendment
immunity
eha
express
amazement
statement
comparison
language
rehabilitation
act
amendments
language
eha
serves
underscore
difference
two
statutes
ante
omission
eha
rehabilitation
act
amendments
provision
state
shall
immune
eleventh
amendment
actually
tells
us
something
congress
intent
enacted
eha
amendment
response
atascadero
tailored
overrule
decision
misinterpreted
congress
intent
rehabilitation
act
abrogate
state
immunity
congress
reaction
atascadero
tells
us
anything
congress
prior
decision
believed
effectively
express
intent
abrogate
immunity
without
resorting
degree
textual
clarity
demands
case
justice
blackmun
dissenting
join
justice
brennan
opinion
correctly
ascertains
unmistakable
intent
congress
subject
state
agencies
liability
awards
education
handicapped
act
see
also
school
committee
burlington
department
education
massachusetts
indeed
justice
brennan
convincingly
demonstrates
statute
passes
even
stringent
test
set
forth
atascadero
state
hospital
scanlon
resorting
stricter
standard
yet
able
reach
result
never
started
road
certainly
take
today
additional
step
justice
stevens
dissenting
join
justice
brennan
dissent
adhere
view
statute
amend
constitution
pennsylvania
union
gas
ante
concurring
opinion
case
deals
judicially
created
doctrine
sovereign
immunity
rather
real
eleventh
amendment
limitation
federal
judicial
power
congressional
decision
confer
jurisdiction
federal
courts
must
prevail