pennhurst state school hosp halderman argued february decided january respondent halderman resident petitioner pennhurst state school hospital pennsylvania institution care mentally retarded brought class action federal district pennhurst certain officials pennsylvania department public welfare various state county officials also petitioners alleged conditions pennhurst violated various federal constitutional statutory rights class members well rights pennsylvania mental health mental retardation act act ultimately district awarded injunctive relief based part act held provide right adequate habilitation appeals affirmed holding act required state adopt least restrictive environment approach care mentally retarded rejecting petitioners argument eleventh amendment barred federal considering pendent claim reasoned since amendment bar federal granting prospective injunctive relief state officials basis federal claims citing ex parte young result obtained respect pendent claim held eleventh amendment prohibited district ordering state officials conform conduct state law pp principle sovereign immunity constitutional limitation federal judicial power established art iii constitution eleventh amendment bars suit state officials state real substantial party interest regardless whether suit seeks damages injunctive relief ex parte young supra recognized important exception general rule suit challenging federal constitutionality state official action one state pp edelman jordan recognized need promote supremacy federal law basis young must accommodated constitutional immunity thus declined extend young doctrine encompass retroactive relief effectively eliminate constitutional immunity edelman distinction prospective retroactive relief fulfilled young underlying purpose vindicating authority federal law time preserving important degree constitutional immunity need reconcile competing interests wholly absent plaintiff alleges state official violated state law case entire basis doctrine young edelman disappears federal grant relief state officials basis state law whether prospective retroactive vindicate authority federal law federal instructs state officials conform conduct state law conflicts directly principles federalism underlie eleventh amendment pp dissenters view allegation official conduct contrary state statute suffice override state protection injunctive relief eleventh amendment conduct ultra vires official authority view rests fiction wrong law emasculate eleventh amendment least insofar injunctive relief sought error law state officers acting official capacity suffice override sovereign immunity state relief effectively larson domestic foreign commerce dissenter view ultra vires doctrine narrow questionable exception swallow general rule suit state relief run pp principle claim state officials violated state law carrying official responsibilities claim state protected eleventh amendment applies well claims brought federal pendent jurisdiction pp may applying eleventh amendment pendent claims results federal claims brought state bifurcation claims considerations policy override constitutional limitation authority federal judiciary adjudicate suits state pp judgment sustained basis obligation petitioner county officials since relief granted officials basis act partial incomplete best ineffective enforcement state law appear serve purposes efficiency convenience fairness must inform exercise pendent jurisdiction pp powell delivered opinion burger white rehnquist joined brennan filed dissenting opinion post stevens filed dissenting opinion brennan marshall blackmun joined post bartow farr iii allen warshaw reargued cause petitioners briefs thomas kittredge joel klein leroy zimmerman robert hoffman debra wallet alan davis mark aronchick david ferleger reargued cause filed brief respondents halderman et al thomas gilhool reargued cause respondents pennsylvania association retarded citizens et al brief frank laski michael churchill solicitor general lee assistant attorney general reynolds deputy assistant attorneys general cooper wilkinson brian landsberg frank allen filed brief brief amici curiae filed state alabama et al francis bellotti attorney general massachusetts thomas kiley first assistant attorney general carl valvo william pardee judith yogman assistant attorneys general joined attorneys general respective jurisdictions follows charles gradick alabama robert corbin arizona anthony ching solicitor general macfarlane colorado carl ajello connecticut richard gebelein delaware michael bowers georgia tyrone fahner illinois linley pearson indiana thomas miller iowa steven beshear kentucky frank kelley michigan john ashcroft missouri paul douglas nebraska richard bryan nevada gregory smith new hampshire irwin kimmelman new jersey rufus edmisten north carolina robert wefald north dakota hector reichard puerto rico david wilkinson utah bronson la follette wisconsin steven freudenthal wyoming aviata american samoa justice powell delivered opinion case presents question whether federal may award injunctive relief state officials basis state law litigation second time concerns conditions care petitioner pennhurst state school hospital pennsylvania institution care mentally retarded see pennhurst state school hospital halderman although litigation history set forth detail prior opinion see necessary purposes decision review history suit originally brought respondent terri lee halderman resident pennhurst district eastern district pennsylvania ultimately plaintiffs included class consisting persons might become residents pennhurst pennsylvania association retarded citizens parc defendants pennhurst various pennhurst officials pennsylvania department public welfare several officials various county commissioners county mental retardation administrators officials five pennsylvania counties surrounding pennhurst respondents amended complaint charged conditions pennhurst violated class members rights eighth fourteenth amendments rehabilitation act stat developmentally disabled assistance bill rights act stat et seq pennsylvania mental health mental retardation act act stat tit purdon supp damages injunctive relief sought following lengthy trial district rendered decision halderman pennhurst state school hospital supp noted prior opinion findings undisputed conditions pennhurst dangerous residents often physically abused drugged staff members also inadequate habilitation retarded indeed found physicial intellectual emotional skills residents deteriorated pennhurst omitted district held conditions violated resident right minimally adequate habilitation due process clause act see freedom harm eighth fourteenth amendments see nondiscriminatory habilitation equal protection clause rehabilitation act see furthermore found due process demands state undertakes habilitation retarded person must least restrictive setting consistent individual habilitative needs emphasis added concluding large size pennhurst prevented providing necessary habilitation least restrictive environment ordered immediate steps taken remove retarded residents pennhurst petitioners ordered provide suitable community living arrangements class members appointed special master power duty plan organize direct supervise monitor implementation orders ibid appeals third circuit affirmed district judgment halderman pennhurst state school hospital en banc agreed respondents right habilitation least restrictive environment grounded right solely bill rights provision developmentally disabled assistance bill rights act see consider constitutional issues rehabilitation act affirmed district holding act provides right adequate habilitation see decide whether state right encompassed right treatment least restrictive setting question remedy appeals affirmed except district order pennhurst closed observed patients unable adjust life outside institution determined none legal provisions relied respondents precluded institutionalization therefore remanded individual determinations district special master appropriateness improved pennhurst patient guided presumption favor placing individuals community living arrangements ibid remand district established detailed procedures determining proper residential placement patient team consisting patient parents guardian case manager must establish individual habilitation plan providing habilitation patient designated community living arrangement plan subject review special master second master called hearing master available conduct hearings upon request resident parents advocate question whether services pennhurst beneficial resident community living arrangement provided resident plan hearing master determines patient reside subject possible review district see app order apr reversed judgment appeals finding create substantive rights pennhurst state school hospital halderman remanded case appeals determine remedial order supported basis state law constitution rehabilitation act see also remanded consideration whether relief available provisions developmentally disabled assistance bill rights act see discussing supp remand appeals affirmed prior judgment entirety en banc determined recent decision pennsylvania spoken definitively holding act required state adopt least restrictive environment approach care mentally retarded citing schmidt appeals concluded state statute fully supported prior judgment therefore reach remaining issues federal law also rejected petitioners argument eleventh amendment barred federal considering pendent claim noted amendment bar federal granting prospective injunctive relief state officials basis federal claims see citing ex parte young concluded result obtained respect pendent claim reasoned siler louisville nashville important case development doctrine pendent jurisdiction also involved state officials eleventh amendment exception rule finally rejected petitioners argument abstained deciding claim principles comity see refused consider petitioners objections district use special master see three judges dissented part arguing principles federalism comity establishment special master supervise compliance abuse discretion see seitz joined hunter dissenting part ibid garth concurring part dissenting relief see also aldisert concurring seriously questioning propriety order appointing special master concluding retroactive reversal order meaningless granted certiorari reverse remand ii petitioners raise three challenges judgment appeals eleventh amendment prohibited district ordering state officials conform conduct state law ii doctrine comity prohibited district issuing injunctive relief iii district abused discretion appointing two masters supervise decisions state officials implementing state law need reach latter two issues find eleventh amendment challenge dispositive article iii constitution provides federal judicial power extends inter alia controversies state citizens another state relying language assumed original jurisdiction suit brought citizen south carolina state georgia chisholm georgia dall decision created shock surprise eleventh amendment proposed adopted monaco mississippi amendment provides judicial power shall construed extend suit law equity commenced prosecuted one citizens another state citizens subjects foreign state state may sued without consent fundamental rule jurisprudence important bearing upon construction constitution become established repeated decisions entire judicial power granted constitution embrace authority entertain suit brought private parties state without consent given one brought citizens another state citizens subjects foreign state eleventh amendment even one brought citizens fundamental rule amendment exemplification ex parte state new york emphasis added decisions thus establish unconsenting state immune suits brought federal courts citizens well citizens another state employees supra may question however whether particular suit fact suit state clear course absence consent suit state one agencies departments named defendant proscribed eleventh amendment see florida dept health rehabilitative services florida nursing home per curiam alabama pugh per curiam jurisdictional bar applies regardless nature relief sought see missouri fiske expressly applying suits equity well law amendment necessarily embraces demands enforcement equitable rights prosecution equitable remedies asserted prosecuted individual state suit brought state officials question arises whether suit suit state although prior decisions entirely consistent issue certain principles well established eleventh amendment bars suit state officials state real substantial party interest ford motor department treasury indiana see ayers louisiana jumel thus general rule relief sought nominally officer fact sovereign decree operate latter hawaii gordon per curiam state named defendant suit state officials fact suit state barred regardless whether seeks damages injunctive relief see cory white recognized important exception general rule suit challenging constitutionality state official action one state holding ex parte young federal enjoined attorney general state minnesota bringing suit enforce state statute allegedly violated fourteenth amendment held eleventh amendment prohibit issuance injunction theory case unconstitutional enactment void therefore impart officer immunity responsibility authority since state authorize action officer stripped official representative character subjected person consequences individual conduct ibid rule permitting suits alleging conduct contrary authority survived theory young provided expansive interpretation thus edelman jordan emphasized eleventh amendment bars forms injunctive relief state officials violation federal law particular edelman held plaintiff sues state official alleging violation federal law federal may award injunction governs official future conduct one awards retroactive monetary relief theory young suit one state since allegation strip state officer official authority nevertheless retroactive relief barred eleventh amendment iii principles mind turn question whether claim petitioner violated state law carrying official duties pennhurst one state therefore barred eleventh amendment respondents advance two principal arguments support judgment first contend doctrine edelman jordan supra suit state courts ordered prospective injunctive relief second assert claim properly decided doctrine pendent jurisdiction respondents rely decisions awarding relief state officials basis pendent claim see siler louisville nashville first address contention respondents claim barred eleventh amendment seeks prospective relief defined edelman jordan supra appeals held judgment rested federal law entered petitioner state officials doctrine established edelman young even though prospective financial burden substantial ongoing see assumed respondents assert reasoning applies well official acts violation state law argument misconstrues basis doctrine established young edelman discussed injunction young justified notwithstanding obvious impact state view sovereign immunity apply official acts unconstitutionally stripped official representative character young rationale course created irony official unconstitutional conduct constitutes state action fourteenth amendment eleventh amendment florida dept state treasure salvors opinion stevens nonetheless young doctrine accepted necessary permit federal courts vindicate federal rights hold state officials responsible authority young supra justice brennan observed ex parte young culmination efforts harmonize principles eleventh amendment effective supremacy rights powers secured elsewhere constitution perez ledesma concurring part dissenting part decisions repeatedly emphasized young doctrine rests need promote vindication federal rights see quern jordan scheuer rhodes georgia railroad banking redwine also recognized however need promote supremacy federal law must accommodated constitutional immunity significance edelman jordan supra recognized prospective relief authorized young permitted civil war amendments constitution serve sword rather merely shield designed protect declined extend fiction young encompass retroactive relief effectively eliminate constitutional immunity accordingly concluded although difference permissible impermissible relief many instances day night award retroactive relief necessarily fall afoul eleventh amendment basic constitutional provision conceived present force quoting rothstein wyman mcgowan sitting designation cert denied sum edelman distinction prospective retroactive relief fulfills underlying purpose ex parte young time preserving important degree constitutional immunity need reconcile competing interests wholly absent however plaintiff alleges state official violated state law case entire basis doctrine young edelman disappears federal grant relief state officials basis state law whether prospective retroactive vindicate authority federal law contrary difficult think greater intrusion state sovereignty federal instructs state officials conform conduct state law result conflicts directly principles federalism underlie eleventh amendment conclude young edelman inapplicable suit state officials basis state law contrary view justice stevens dissent rests fiction wrong law important emasculate eleventh amendment view allegation official conduct contrary state statute suffice override state protection amendment theory conduct contrary official instructions thus ultra vires authority accordingly official action based reasonable interpretation statute might interpretation turned erroneous provide basis injunctive relief actors official capacities case officials major state department clearly acting within scope authority found improved conditions state institution adequately state law dissent result state forfeited constitutionally provided immunity theory touch reality dissent dispute general criterion determining suit fact sovereign effect relief sought see supra post according dissent relief sought ordered effect major state institution closed smaller state institutions created expansively funded operate state view make law pretense judge history litigation advanced theory dissent underlying view named defendants acting beyond contrary authority reconciled reality record district case held individual defendants acted utmost good faith within sphere official responsibilities therefore entitled immunity damages emphasis added named defendants nothing gain personally conduct found acted willfully even negligently see ibid expressly noted individual defendants apparently took every means available reduce incidents abuse injury constantly faced staff shortages ibid also found individual defendants dedicated professionals field retardation given little accomplish habilitation retarded pennhurst ibid result relief ordered courts institutional official character extent violation state law case case state fulfilling legislative promises dissent bases view numerous cases turn century earlier cases provide support dissent claims find many simply miscited example perhaps one exception none eleventh amendment cases said hold injunctive relief ordered state officials failing carry duties state statutes federal sovereign immunity cases dissent relies analogy far uniform make clear suit may predicated violations state statutes command purely discretionary duties since doubted statutes issue gave petitioners broad discretion operating pennhurst see supra see also conduct alleged case ultra vires even standards dissent cases thus language early cases advances theory advocated dissent theory never pressed far justice stevens case expansive approach dissent advanced plainly explicitly rejected larson domestic foreign commerce faced argument allegation government official committed tort sufficed distinguish official sovereign therefore argument went suit injunction remedy injury sovereign rejected argument noting make doctrine sovereign immunity superfluous plaintiff need claim invasion legal rights order override sovereign immunity view argument confuse doctrine sovereign immunity requirement plaintiff state cause action dissent theory suffers like confusion dissent view plaintiff need claim denial rights protected provided statute order override sovereign immunity except rare cases make constitutional doctrine sovereign immunity nullity crucial element dissent theory also plaintiff central contention larson sovereign like principal authorize agent violate law agent acting sovereign post see also post cf larson supra argued commission tort authorized sovereign contention respondent position fundamentally rests view agency law larson explicitly rejected larson thus made clear least insofar injunctive relief sought error law state officers acting official capacities suffice override sovereign immunity state relief effectively resulting disadvantage plaintiff outweigh ed necessity permitting government carry functions unhampered direct judicial intervention anything public need even greater questions federalism involved see supra dissent larson made many argument advanced justice stevens dissent today asserted many cases overruled ignored see frankfurter dissenting arguments rejected cases supporting moribund since larson decided opinion member cited cases dissent primarily relies proposition broad language dissent quotes many cases relied upon eleventh amendment context cited relied upon propositions one today quarrels plain fact dissent broad theory ever accepted full extent pressed law least generation reason obvious dissent view ultra vires doctrine eleventh amendment force rare case plaintiff foolishly attempts sue state name produce state statute violated asserted injury thus ultra vires doctrine narrow questionable exception swallow general rule suit state relief run result gives dissent pause presumably view eleventh amendment sovereign immunity undoubtedly ru counter modern democratic notions moral responsibility state post quoting great northern life insurance read frankfurter dissenting argument adopted see great northern life insurance read supra efforts force suits officials performance promises state collide directly necessity sovereign must free judicial compulsion carrying policies within limits constitution larson government representative community whole stopped tracks moreover argument substantially misses point respect eleventh amendment sovereign immunity justice marshall observed eleventh amendment restriction federal judicial power based large part problems federalism inherent making one sovereign appear courts employees missouri dept public health welfare concurring result dissent totally rejects eleventh amendment basis federalism reasoning recent decisions sovereign immunity thus leads conclusion federal suit state officials basis state law contravenes eleventh amendment relief sought ordered impact directly state reaching contrary conclusion appeals relied principally separate line cases dealing pendent jurisdiction crucial point appeals granted relief state officials basis pendent claim see therefore must consider relationship pendent jurisdiction eleventh amendment long held generally federal obtains jurisdiction federal claim may adjudicate related claims otherwise jurisdiction see mine workers gibbs osborn bank wheat also held federal may resolve case solely basis pendent claim see siler fact usually order avoid federal constitutional questions see ashwander tva brandeis concurring case decided either two grounds one involving constitutional question question statutory construction general law decide latter pendent jurisdiction doctrine inferred general language art iii question presented whether doctrine may viewed displacing explicit limitation federal jurisdiction contained eleventh amendment appeals noted siler subsequent cases concerning pendent jurisdiction relief granted state officials basis claims pendent federal constitutional claims none cases however much mention eleventh amendment connection claim rather appears assumed jurisdiction established claim doctrine pendent jurisdiction establish power hear claims well addressed whether doctrine different scope applied suits state illustrated greene louisville interurban plaintiff railroads sued state officials alleging certain tax assessments excessive fourteenth amendment first rejected officials argument eleventh amendment barred federal constitutional claim held ex parte young applied allegations challenging constitutionality official action regardless whether state statute officials purported act constitutional unconstitutional see determined eleventh amendment deprive federal jurisdiction fourteenth amendment question declared jurisdiction extended determination questions involved case including questions state law irrespective disposition may made federal question whether found necessary decide case decided solely grounds accord louisville nashville greene cases thus directly confront question us hen questions jurisdiction passed prior decisions sub silentio never considered bound subsequent case finally brings jurisdictional issue us hagans lavine therefore view question open one noted implicit view cases seems jurisdiction established basis federal question eleventh amendment inquiry necessary respect claims raised case erroneous view contrary principles established eleventh amendment decisions eleventh amendment explicit limitation judicial power missouri fiske deprives federal power decide certain claims otherwise within scope art iii grant jurisdiction example lawsuit state officials alleges constitutional claim federal barred awarding damages state treasury even though claim arises constitution see quern jordan similarly action alleging constitutional claim brought directly state eleventh amendment bars federal granting relief claim see alabama pugh per curiam amendment thus specific constitutional bar hearing even federal claims otherwise within jurisdiction federal courts constitutional bar applies pendent claims well noted pendent jurisdiction doctrine expediency efficiency derived general art iii language conferring power hear cases arising federal law diverse parties see mine workers gibbs see also hagans lavine supra terming pendent jurisdiction doctrine discretion eleventh amendment construed apply less force implied form jurisdiction explicitly granted power hear federal claims history adoption development amendment see supra confirms independent limitation exercise art iii power entire judicial power granted constitution embrace authority entertain suit brought private parties state without consent given ex parte state new york hold otherwise federal award damages state basis pendent claim decision edelman jordan makes clear pendent jurisdiction permit evasion immunity guaranteed eleventh amendment held district correct exercising pendent jurisdiction plaintiffs statutory claim concluded eleventh amendment barred award retroactive relief basis pendent claim sum contrary view implicit decisions greene louisville interurban neither pendent jurisdiction basis jurisdiction may override eleventh amendment federal must examine claim case see jurisdiction claim barred eleventh amendment concluded claim state officials violated state law carrying official responsibilities claim state protected eleventh amendment see supra hold principle applies well claims brought federal pendent jurisdiction respondents urge application eleventh amendment pendent claims disruptive effect litigation state officials argue considerations judicial economy convenience fairness litigants underlie pendent jurisdiction see gibbs supra counsel result may cause litigants split causes action state federal courts also contend policy avoiding unnecessary constitutional decisions contravened plaintiffs choose forgo claims sue federal alternatively policy ex parte young hindered plaintiffs choose forgo right federal forum bring claims state may applying eleventh amendment pendent claims results federal claims brought state bifurcation claims uncommon area edelman jordan supra suit state officials retroactive monetary relief whether based federal state law must brought state challenges validity state tax systems also must brought state fair assessment real estate mcnary abstention doctrine unclear issues state law commonly split referred state courts case answer respondents assertions considerations policy override constitutional limitation authority federal judiciary adjudicate suits state see missouri fiske considerations convenience open avenue escape amendment restriction litigant choice forum reduced long understood part tension inherent system federalism employees missouri dept public health welfare marshall concurring result iv respondents contend regardless applicability eleventh amendment state claims petitioner state officials judgment may still upheld petitioner county officials persuaded even assuming officials immune suit challenging actions act clear without injunction state institutions officials case order entered grounds necessarily limited relief substantially concerns pennhurst arm state operated state officials moreover funding county mental retardation programs comes almost entirely state see stat tit purdon supp costs masters borne state see finally act contemplates state county officials cooperate operating mental retardation programs see schmidt short present judgment sustained basis obligations petitioner county officials indeed relief granted county officials basis state statute partial incomplete best ineffective enforcement state law appear serve purpose efficiency convenience fairness must inform exercise pendent jurisdiction appeals upheld judgment district solely basis pennsylvania act hold federal courts lacked jurisdiction enjoin petitioner state institutions state officials basis state law district also rested decision eighth fourteenth amendments rehabilitation act see supra remand appeals may consider extent judgment may sustained bases also may consider whether relief may granted respondents developmentally disabled assistance bill rights act ed supp judgment appeals reversed case remanded proceedings consistent opinion ordered footnotes companion case appeals affirmed district denial pennhurst association motion intervene purpose appeal finding denial harmless error see halderman pennhurst state school hospital en banc association subsequently granted leave intervene petitioner july pennsylvania enacted appropriations bill providing paid masters expenses fiscal year july june district held pennsylvania department public welfare secretary contempt imposed fine per day pennsylvania paid fines contempt purged january appeal appeals affirmed contempt order halderman pennhurst state school hospital cert pending three justices dissented construction act concluded district adopted remedy appointing special master decide pennhurst inmates remain moved facilities assumed task managing pennhurst white joined brennan marshall dissenting part appeals also noted intervening plaintiff even state successfully plead eleventh amendment bar jurisdiction counties even juridical entities fall within coverage eleventh amendment defendants even money damages may awarded citation omitted justice brennan notes dissent post judge gibbons expanded views eleventh amendment recent law review article gibbons eleventh amendment state sovereign immunity reinterpretation colum rev judge gibbons author first second opinions appeals case office special master abolished december see app order hearing master remains operation see employees missouri dept public health welfare marshall concurring result eleventh amendment clarif ied intent framers concerning reach federal judicial power restore original understanding made unwilling defendants federal see also nevada hall blackmun dissenting rehnquist dissenting limitation deprives federal courts jurisdiction entertain claims thus may raised point proceeding eleventh amendment declares policy sets forth explicit limitation federal judicial power compelling force consider issue arising amendment even though urged first time ford motor department treasury indiana reason consistently held state waiver sovereign immunity courts waiver eleventh amendment immunity federal courts see florida dept health rehabilitative services florida nursing home per curiam consonant dual system federal courts read consent embrace federal well state courts clear declaration state intention submit fiscal problems courts creation must found great northern life insurance read see nevada hall vitally interested whether subject suit federal courts debates state immunity focused question federal judicial power cf blackmun dissenting sovereign immunity guarantee implied essential component federalism sufficiently fundamental federal structure implicit constitutional dimension rehnquist dissenting ratified eleventh amendment thought putting end possibility individual unconsenting defendants foreign jurisdictions general rule suit sovereign judgment sought expend public treasury domain interfere public administration effect judgment restrain government acting compel act dugan rank citations omitted respondents dispute relief sought awarded operated state foregoing respects suggest however suit considered state purposes eleventh amendment say petitioners acting ultra vires authority respondents rely largely florida dept state treasure salvors turn founded upon larson domestic foreign commerce cases provide support argument modern cases make clear state officer may said act ultra vires acts without authority whatever treasure salvors opinion stevens accord white concurring judgment part dissenting part test whether colorable basis exercise authority state officials larson explained ultra vires claim rests officer lack delegated power claim error exercise power therefore sufficient larson supra petitioners actions operating mental health institution plainly beyond delegated authority sense act gave broad discretion provide adequate mental health services stat tit purdon essence respondents claim petitioners provided services adequately dissent justice stevens advances far broader unprecedented version ultra vires doctrine discuss infra reject respondents additional contention pennsylvania waived immunity suit federal time suit filed suits pennsylvania permitted expressly authorized legislature see freach commonwealth respondents referred us provision expressly waiving pennsylvania eleventh amendment immunity state statute governing sovereign immunity including express preservation immunity suit federal federal courts nothing contained subchapter shall construed waive immunity commonwealth suit federal courts guaranteed eleventh amendment constitution cons stat also agree respondents presence plaintiff case removes eleventh amendment consideration although eleventh amendment bar suing state federal see monaco mississippi presence case purpose eliminate state immunity purposes example fact federal award injunctive relief federal constitutional claims mean order state pay damages plaintiffs case think clear standing assert claims third parties reasons applicability eleventh amendment respondents claim unaffected participation case decide whether district jurisdiction reasoning grant prospective relief basis federal law note scope relief constrained principles comity federalism exercise authority state officials attacked federal courts must constantly mindful special delicacy adjustment preserved federal equitable power state administration law rizzo goode quoting stefanelli minard prompted respond length justice stevens dissent part broad charge repudiates least cases post decisions dissent relies upon simply support sweeping characterization see nn infra case example rested finding state law required habilitation least restrictive environment dicta schmidt decision issued seven years suit filed four years trial ended part findings judgment appealed see halderman pennhurst state school hospital see also whole staff pennhurst appears dedicated trying hard cope inadequacies institution parties defendant suit individuals included well pennsylvania department public welfare major department state pennhurst state school hospital state institution dissent apparently arguing defendants group including state institutions state county officials acting ultra vires since institutions said violated law individual defendants district findings never since questioned plainly exonerate defendants dissent claim acted beyond scope authority truth dissent theoretical argument seems unaware plight many mental institutions country district case found history replete misunderstanding mistreatment retarded accord message president kennedy relative mental illness mental retardation doc nation long neglected mentally ill mentally retarded common knowledge insane asylums known middle century usually underfunded understaffed easy persuade competent people work institutions particularly professionals physical facilities due consistent underfunding state legislatures grossly inadequate especially light advanced knowledge techniques treatment mentally see generally president committee mental retardation mr edge change president committee mental retardation changing patterns residential services mentally retarded kugel wolfensberger eds scheerenberger history mental retardation recently commenced move correct widespread deplorable conditions responsibility district recognized protracted trial rested state dissent appears confused argument see post course true dissent says finding petitioners acted good faith therefore immune damages affect whether injunction might issued possessed jurisdiction point courts jurisdiction relief ordered plainly ran state one questions petitioners operating pennhurst acting official capacity questioned judgments review commanded action taken petitioners official capacity course state provided necessary funding evident dissent vest federal courts authority acting solely state law ignore sovereignty eleventh amendment adopted protect article iii confers jurisdiction strip explicit amendment constitution substantive meaning contrary dissent view see post injunction based federal law stands different footing particularly light civil war amendments explained cases vested constitutional duty vindicate authority ex parte young corresponding mandate enforce state law see rolston missouri fund commissioners rolston however state officials ordered comply plain ministerial duty see great northern life insurance read far cry case see infra cases collected dissent post several cases rest eleventh amendment holding example federal jurisdiction fact held lacking martin lankford lack diversity fair reading south carolina wesley cases cities makes clear ruling purely procedural point party pressing appeal party proceeding two cases allegation state officer agency acted unconstitutionally rather merely contrary state law atchison hopkins clemson agricultural college johnson lankford relief sought injunctive relief money damages individual officer see infra none cases said overruled holding today noted infra greene cases discuss eleventh amendment connection claim tindal wesley scully bird closely analogous cases old cases however allegation defendants committed torts failed carry affirmative duties assigned statute see tindal supra distinguishing suits brought enforce discharge defendants specific duty enjoined state tr record tindal wesley complaint alleged defendants wrongfully entered said premises ousted plaintiff damage plaintiff ten thousand dollars scully supra allegation defendant injuriously affect ed reputation sale plaintiff products tort cases explicitly overruled larson domestic foreign commerce see infra see philadelphia stimson complaint ask interfere official discretion secretary war challenged authority things complaint made santa fe pacific fall see also kendall stokes public officer liable action falls error case act done merely ministerial one one relation duty exercise judgment discretion even although individual may suffer mistake noble union river logging belknap schild eleventh amendment injunctive relief permitted officer commits tort contrary plain official duty requiring exercise discretion wells roper larson domestic foreign commerce suit challenging incorrect decision law fact barred officer making decision empowered frankfurter dissenting noting cases involve orders comply nondiscretionary duties opinions make clear question discretion went sovereign immunity mandamus powers generally see philadelphia supra rationale appears discretionary duties greater impact sovereign brin operation governmental machinery play larson supra frankfurter dissenting event eleventh amendment cases see supra dissent also wrong say federal sovereign immunity cases cites post today overruled many actions damages tort individual officer little barreme cranch wise withers cranch mitchell harmony bates clark belknap schild belknap drew careful distinction actions suits relief run directly state disallowed injunctive relief officers basis contrary view dissent post nothing opinion touches cases larson similarly distinguished cases seeking money damages individual officer tort seeking injunctive relief officer official capacity held latter sought relief sovereign former might nn language cases suggests actions alleging torts statutory violations see philadelphia stimson supra sloan shipyards shipping bd emergency fleet land dollar remainder clearly distinguish cases like present one involving statutes command discretionary duties see supra case larson explicitly limited precedential value cases see malone bowdoin fact dissent argument larson allegation tortious activity overrides sovereign immunity essentially dissent argument allegation conduct contrary statute overrides sovereign immunity see post result case larson recognized turns whether defendant state official empowered whether even acted erroneously action within scope authority see larson controversy merits concerned whether officer interpreted government contract correctly frankfurter dissenting cases alleging tort official seeks screen behind sovereign dissent fails note larson explicitly rejected view dissent also advances officer given power make decisions given power make correct decisions larson made crystal clear officer might make errors still acting within scope authority ibid question defendants given power make decisions operation pennhurst see supra dissent view state officers discretion commit tort post reconciled plain holding larson said special sense matter agency law principal may never lawfully authorize commission tort agent statement usual context way saying agent liability torts committed avoided pleading direction authorization principal agent liable whether authorized even directed commit tort course mean principal liable tortious action may regarded action principal omitted larson noted similar argument one time advanced connection corporate agents effort avoid corporate liability torts decisively rejected ibid see fletcher cyclopedia law private corporations rev ed corporation liable torts committed agent within scope authority even though act contrary violation instructions orders given offending agent crimes dissent strained interpretation larson post simply ignores language dissent quotes important note ultra vires cases relief granted without impleading sovereign officer lack delegated power claim error exercise power therefore sufficient discussed supra edelman jordan also shows broad ultra vires theory enunciated ex parte young cases quoted dissent discarded edelman although state officers alleged acting contrary law therefore stripped authority theory dissent held action barred eleventh amendment dissent attempts distinguish edelman ground retroactive relief unlike injunctive relief run agent post say injunctive relief state officials acting official capacity run state resort fictions characterize dissent theories unlike english sovereign perhaps american state act officials true edelman recognized retroactive relief often least sometimes greater impact state treasury injunctive relief see suggestion damages alone thought run state injunctive relief noted theory young fiction narrowly construed light may well wondered principled basis ultra vires doctrine set forth larson florida dept state treasure salvors doctrine excepts eleventh amendment bar suits officers acting official capacities without statutory authority even though relief operate state bottom doctrine based fiction young opinion dissent method merely take fiction extreme dissent result may logical sense difficult draw principled lines short end view virtually eliminate constitutional doctrine sovereign immunity result larson wisely recoiled today present purposes however question continued vitality ultra vires doctrine eleventh amendment context hold extent doctrine consistent analysis opinion narrow exception allow suit standards set forth supra dissent appears believe larson consistent prior law see post view ignores fact larson understood required resolve conflict doctrine since recognized larson represented watershed law sovereign immunity malone bowdoin justice stewart opinion observed reconcile completely decisions field prior procrustean task opinion continued larson decision makes unnecessary however undertake task larson aware called upon resolve conflict doctrine thoroughly reviewed many prior decisions made informed carefully considered choice seemingly conflicting precedents ibid included many cases upon dissent relies list cases rejected larson see rolston missouri fund commissioners never cited scully bird never cited hopkins clemson agricultural college never cited johnson lankford never cited land dollar cited proposition judgment expend public treasury interfere public administration suit cunningham macon brunswick cited proposition suit alleging unconstitutional conduct barred eleventh amendment state sued without consent poindexter greenhow suit suit state reagan farmers loan trust prior florida dept state treasure salvors supra tindal wesley cited proposition suit alleging unconstitutional conduct barred eleventh amendment plurality opinion treasure salvors discussed tindal length noted rule tindal clarified larson see also white concurring judgment part dissenting part noted supra cases also cited rejected malone bowdoin supra case argued way eleventh amendment argument briefs confined federal constitutional claims see brief louisville nashville nos pp jurisdiction federal claims pendent jurisdiction state claims indeed state brief somewhat curiously closes concession federal courts jurisdiction brief state board officers nos see reply brief nos pointing concession thus state position jurisdiction federal claims somewhat unclear state never argued might jurisdiction claims found jurisdiction federal question case cases cited justice stevens dissent post discuss eleventh amendment connection claims moreover since larson decided making clear mere violations state law override eleventh amendment cases cited proposition general matter federal decide case grounds possible avoid federal constitutional question nothing decision meant cast doubt desirability applying siler principle cases federal jurisdiction decide issues see edelman jordan opportunity fully consider eleventh amendment issue briefing argument disapprove eleventh amendment holdings certain prior cases extent inconsistent holding today see monaco mississippi lthough case may arise constitution laws judicial power extend suit sought prosecuted state without consent one citizens missouri fiske see missouri fiske supra less suit state bill ancillary supplemental moreover allowing claims state officials based state law brought federal courts necessarily foster policies judicial economy convenience fairness litigants mine workers gibbs pendent jurisdiction founded example federal decision state law obtained federal construction often uncertain ephemeral cases ongoing oversight state program may extend years case federal intrusion likely extensive duplication effort inconvenience uncertainty may well result see burford sun oil delay misunderstanding local law needless federal conflict state policy inevitable product double system review case example federal courts effectively undertaking operate major state institution based inference drawn dicta opinion decided four years suit begun state opportunity review federal courts construction opinion choice remedies sure escape erroneous interpretation state law presumably rather cumbersome route legislation waste delay may also result abstention often called state law unclear see baggett bullitt abstention operates require piecemeal adjudication many courts thereby delaying ultimate adjudication merits undue length time citations omitted dismissals basis comity special force relief sought grounds see gibbs supra hawks hamill cf aldinger howard although considerations judicial economy served permitting jurisdiction addition completely new party run counter principle federal courts opposed state trial courts general jurisdiction courts limited jurisdiction marked congress held eleventh amendment apply counties similar municipal corporations mt healthy city bd ed doyle see lincoln county luning time applied amendment bar relief county officials order protect state treasury liability essentially practical consequences judgment state lake country estates tahoe regional planning agency see edelman jordan eleventh amendment bars suit state county officials retroactive award welfare benefits courts appeals general agreement suit officials county governmental entity barred relief obtained runs state see moore tangipahoa parish school board carey quern incarcerated men allen county jail fair harris tooele county school district given actions county commissioners administrators dependent funding state may relief granted county officials exercising functions act effectively runs state cf farr chesney supp md holding pennsylvania county commissioners acting members board county office mental health retardation may sued backpay eleventh amendment need decide issue light disposition fourteenth amendment issue consider youngberg romeo decision available district issued decision justice brennan dissenting fully agree justice stevens dissent nevertheless write separately explain view continued belief eleventh amendment bars federal suits citizens yeomans kentucky brennan dissenting hold petitioners entitled invoke protections amendment suit citizens pennsylvania see employees missouri dept public health welfare brennan dissenting edelman jordan brennan dissenting view hans louisiana upon today relies ante recognized eleventh amendment terms erects limited constitutional barrier prohibiting suits citizens another state decision however accords nonconsenting nonconstitutional immunity suit citizens employees missouri dept public health welfare supra brennan dissenting emphasis added scholarly discussions supporting view see gibbons eleventh amendment state sovereign immunity reinterpretation colum rev field eleventh amendment sovereign immunity doctrines part one rev extent nonconstitutional sovereign immunity may apply petitioners agree justice stevens since petitioners conduct prohibited state law protections sovereign immunity extend justice stevens justice brennan justice marshall justice blackmun join dissenting case illuminated character institution record demonstrates pennhurst state school hospital operated violation state law three years litigation district entered detailed findings fact abundantly support conclusion four years litigation ordered appeals third circuit decide whether law pennsylvania provides independent adequate ground support district remedial order appeals sitting en banc unanimously concluded disagree conclusion rather reverses appeals precisely ordered error committed appeals faithful obedience command remarkable result product equally remarkable misapplication ancient doctrine sovereign immunity completely unprecedented holding today concludes pennsylvania sovereign immunity prevents federal enjoining conduct pennsylvania prohibited rational view sovereign immunity supports result contrary question whether federal may award injunctive relief basis state law answered affirmatively many times past yet repudiates least cases spanning well century jurisprudence proclaiming instead federal courts power enforce enjoining conduct violates state law new pronouncement require federal courts decide federal constitutional questions despite availability grounds decision result inimical sound principles judicial restraint nothing eleventh amendment conception state sovereignty embodies history institution requires justifies perverse result conduct petitioners attributes state pennsylvania order find protected eleventh amendment described detail district findings noted prior opinion pennhurst state school hospital halderman majority today ante findings undisputed conditions pennhurst dangerous residents often physically abused drugged staff members also inadequate habilitation retarded indeed found physical intellectual emotional skills residents deteriorated pennhurst omitted concluded pennhurst actually hazardous residents organized programs training education inadequate entirely unavailable programs treatment training developed residents visited pennhurst shocked parents residents find children bruised drugged unattended conditions often led deterioration condition residents placed pennhurst terri lee halderman example learning talk entered pennhurst residing lost verbal skills every stage litigation petitioners conceded pennhurst fails provide even minimally adequate habilitation residents see halderman pennhurst state school hospital en banc supp ed district held conditions violated resident rights due process equal protection clauses fourteenth amendment rehabilitation act stat pennsylvania mental health mental retardation act stat tit purdon supp act en banc appeals third circuit affirmed district judgment grounded decision solely bill rights provision developmentally disabled assistance bill rights act consider constitutional issues rehabilitation act affirmed district holding act provides right adequate habilitation decide whether state right justified relief granted district petitioners sought review asserting appeals erred construction federal state statutes granted certiorari reversed holding created substantive rights accept respondents contention possibility appeals analysis state statute influenced erroneous reading federal law concluding unclear whether state law provides independent adequate ground support remedial order remand ed issue reconsideration light decision ibid declined consider effect pennsylvania recent decision schmidt issues case expressly stating remand appeals consider issues light pennsylvania recent decision remand en banc appeals noting remanded reconsideration issue examined impact schmidt according appeals unanimous point state spoken definitively duties state act holding state required provide care mentally retarded least restrictive environment since act fully justified relief issued appeals prior judgment reinstated prior judgment basis petitioners violation state law thus district found petitioners operating pennhurst facility way forbidden state law federal statute federal constitution en banc appeals third circuit unanimously concluded state law provided clear adequate basis upholding district necessary address federal questions decided action conformed precisely directive issued case petitioners urge make unprecedented hold eleventh amendment prohibited appeals ordered instructed decide whether respondents entitled relief state law course petitioners correct error committed appeals merely obeyed instruction rather ordered appeals consider issues case petitioners position utterly without support eleventh amendment doctrine sovereign immunity embodies never interpreted deprive jurisdiction grant relief government officials engaged conduct forbidden sovereign contrary repeatedly consistently exercised power enjoin state officials violating state law ii majority proceeds previous occasion consider eleventh amendment argument made petitioners contends ex parte young application suit seeking injunctive relief basis state law simply case rejected argument eleventh amendment precludes injunctive relief basis state law twice two terms ago florida dept state treasure salvors four justices concluded suit possession property hands state officials barred eleventh amendment inasmuch state even colorable claim property state law see opinion stevens joined burger marshall blackmun four additional justices accepted proposition state officers conduct violation state statute eleventh amendment bar action white concurring judgment part dissenting part joined powell rehnquist one short paragraph cory white thrice restated settled rule eleventh amendment bar suits state officers alleged acting federal state law two recent extraordinarily long line cases firmly established conduct state officials color office tortious matter state law protected eleventh amendment see reagan farmers loan trust poindexter greenhow cunningham macon brunswick cf belknap schild rule adopted sovereign immunity stanley schwalby hopkins clemson agricultural college explained relationship cases doctrine sovereign immunity mmunity suit high attribute sovereignty prerogative state availed public agents sued torts eleventh amendment intended afford freedom liability case color office injured one state citizens grant immunity create privileged class free liability wrongs inflicted injuries threatened besides neither state individual confer upon agent authority commit tort excuse perpetrator cases law agency application wrongdoer treated principal individually liable damages inflicted subject injunction commission acts causing irreparable injury answer otherwise assert think whatever officer even contravention laws state state action identifies makes redress sought claim state therefore prohibited eleventh amendment surely officer state may delinquent without involving state delinquency indeed may injure state delinquency well resident state amenable significantly rule expressly reaffirmed case decided term ex parte young published volume reports appellants scully bird brought diversity suit seeking injunctive relief dairy food commissioner state michigan ground cover office maliciously engaged course conduct designed ruin plaintiffs business state circuit dismissed complaint eleventh amendment grounds appeal plaintiffs contended eleventh amendment apply suit brought defendants claiming act officers state color statute valid constitutional wrongfully administered commit threaten commit acts wrong injury rights property plaintiff make administration statute illegal burden exaction upon plaintiff ibid agreed noted complaint alleged action dereliction duties enjoined statutes state concluded manifest summary allegations bill suit state finally greene louisville interurban companion cases louisville nashville greene illinois central greene plaintiffs challenged conduct state officials federal state law citing inter alia young clemson held eleventh amendment bar injunctive relief basis state law noting plaintiffs federal claim sufficiently substantial justify exercise pendent jurisdiction plaintiffs claims since violations federal state law alleged appropriate federal issue injunctive relief basis state law without reaching federal claims despite strictures eleventh amendment short greene approved precisely methodology employed appeals case none cases contain implicit sub silentio holdings explicitly consider reject claim eleventh amendment prohibits federal courts issuing injunctive relief based state law therefore basis majority assertion issue presented case open one ante tries explain away cases arguing applicable state statutes gave petitioners broad discretion pennhurst actions ultra vires ante however dispute appeals conclusion state statutes gave petitioners discretion whatsoever disregard duties respect institutionalization retarded petitioners acted outside lawful discretion every bit much government officials cases discussed hold official commits act prohibited law acts beyond authority protected sovereign immunity common sense conclude authorize officers violate legal duties also relies heavily fact district found petitioners immune damages liability acted utmost good faith within sphere official responsibilities ante emphasis original quoting confuses two distinct concepts official act good faith therefore immune damages liability despite fact done law prohibits point recognized recently harlow fitzgerald nevertheless immunity damages liability irrelevant availability injunctive relief see wood strickland state officials acted nothing less good faith within sphere official responsibilities asserting florida claim treasure treasure salvors said bank commissioner actions safeguarding bank deposits challenged johnson lankford fund commissioner decision sell property mortgaged state challenged rolston state food dairy commissioner decision prosecute appellant violating state food impurity act challenged scully give examples yet cases state officers conduct enjoined greene makes point perfectly clear state officers nothing carry responsibilities clearly assigned statute conduct nevertheless enjoined held conduct violated state constitution despite fact reliance statute made perfectly clear conduct good faith reasonable see michigan defillippo today rule simple conduct exceeds scope official lawful discretion conduct sovereign authorized hence subject injunction whether conduct also gives rise damages liability entirely separate question iii face eleventh amendment applies suits state brought citizens foreign nations textual limitation upon scope immunity suit federal set aside hans louisiana hans suit state louisiana brought citizen louisiana seeking recover interest state bonds stated arguments favoring sovereign immunity made process amendment ratification become part judicial scheme created constitution result concluded constitution prohibited suit citizen state called upon elaborate monaco mississippi explained eleventh amendment simply prohibit suits brought citizens one state another state rather exemplified broader ancient doctrine sovereign immunity operates bar suit brought citizen state without consent subsequently adhered interpretation eleventh amendment example quern jordan referred eleventh amendment incorporating traditional sovereign immunity similarly fitzpatrick bitzer referred eleventh amendment principle state sovereignty embodies see also nevada hall rehnquist dissenting thus cases doctrine sovereign immunity rather text amendment critical analysis eleventh amendment problem doctrine sovereign immunity developed england thought king sued however courts applying doctrine traditionally distinguished king agents theory king never authorize unlawful conduct therefore unlawful acts king officers treated acts sovereign see blackstone commentaries early century holdsworth writes servants king held liable unlawful acts see holdsworth history english law century rule law used extensively curb king authority king officers wrong committed wrongs whether course employment made legally liable command instruction king protect king really given commands instructions must deceived omitted natural applying principles sovereign immunity recognized distinction suit state one officer example inquire whether suit essence sovereign soon became settled law eleventh amendment bar suits state officials official capacities challenging unconstitutional conduct see smyth ames pennoyer mcconnaughy poindexter greenhow rule reconciled sovereign immunity principles use traditional rule action agent sovereign acted unlawfully considered sovereign official acts pursuant unconstitutional statute reasoned absence valid authority leaves official ultra vires authority thus private actor stripped status representative sovereign ex parte young merely restating settled principle wrote act enforced alleged unconstitutional use name state enforce unconstitutional act injury complainants proceeding without authority one affect state sovereign governmental capacity simply illegal act upon part state official attempting use name state enforce legislative enactment void unconstitutional act state attorney general seeks enforce violation federal constitution officer proceeding enactment comes conflict superior authority constitution case stripped official representative character subjected person consequences individual conduct young distinguished state attorney general latter violating constitution engaged conduct sovereign authorize pivotal consideration conduct violated federal law since nothing jurisprudence eleventh amendment permits suit sovereign merely federal law issue indeed least since hans louisiana law settled eleventh amendment applies even though state accused violating federal constitution hans held eleventh amendment applies cases within jurisdiction federal courts including brought require compliance federal law bars suit state proper defendant sovereign immunity principles long line cases endorsed proposition holding irrespective need vindicate federal law suit barred eleventh amendment state proper defendant clear today state divested immunity mere ground case one arising constitution laws parden terminal railway docks quoting hans pivotal consideration young conduct sovereign issue rule unlawful acts officer attributed sovereign deep roots history sovereign immunity makes young reconcilable principles sovereign immunity found eleventh amendment rather merely unprincipled accommodation federal state interests ignores principles contained eleventh amendment rule plainly applies conduct state officers violation state law young significance charge unconstitutional conduct renders state official conduct simply illegal act hence officer entitled sovereign immunity since state officer conduct violation state law certainly less illegal violation federal law either case official committing illegal act stripped official representative character example one young predecessors held suit challenging unconstitutional attempt virginia legislature disavow state contract barred eleventh amendment reasoning inasmuch constitution also law virginia contract made became thereby unchangeable irrepealable state subsequent act january like acts deny obligation contract forbid performance acts state virginia true real commonwealth contracted obligation incapable law anything derogation whatever effect operative attempted done work government acting without authority violation fundamental law must looked upon courts justice never state virginia done none things defence charges defendant error officer agent representative matter complained acted without authority contrary express commands poindexter greenhow emphasis supplied suit officers state enjoin enforcing unconstitutional statute one state impossible see suit individuals recover possession property belonging plaintiff illegally withheld defendants deemed suit state follows basis young rule present officer sued violated law sovereign cases conduct type permitted sovereign hence attributable sovereign traditional sovereign immunity principles case sovereign interest lies seek enforce laws rather violated ublic officials may become exceeding limits authority unlawfully seize hold citizen realty chattels recoverable appropriate action law equity dominant interest sovereign side victim may bring possessory action reclaim wrongfully withheld land dollar moreover majority rule nothing basic reason eleventh amendment added constitution general agreement amendment passed fearful federal courts force pay revolutionary war debts leading financial ruin entertaining suit injunctive relief based state law implicates none concerns framers since injunctive relief sought threat state treasury type concerned framers see milliken bradley edelman jordan state wishes avoid federal injunction easily simply changing law possibility left helpless face disruptive federal decrees led passage eleventh amendment simply presented case indeed framers doubt preferred federal courts base decisions state law state free reexamine rather forcing courts decide cases federal grounds leaving litigation beyond state control light preceding come surprise absolutely authority majority position rule young inapplicable violations state law cases majority cites ante proposition young limited vindication federal law consider question whether young permits injunctive relief basis state law cases question neither presented briefed argued decided curious say least majority disapproves reliance cases issue face today decided sub silentio see ante yet willing rely cases issue decided fact precedent majority position demonstrated part ii supra avalanche precedent squarely contrary doctrine sovereign immunity protect conduct prohibited sovereign clearly demonstrated case petitioners chiefly rely larson domestic foreign commerce larson opinion teaches actions state officials attributable state ultra vires two different types situations official engaged conduct sovereign authorized engaged conduct sovereign forbidden sovereign like principal authorize agent violate law agent actions considered ultra vires liable conduct law agency types ultra vires conduct clearly identified larson may course suits specific relief officers sovereign suits sovereign officer purports act individual official suit directed action suit sovereign war assets administrator completed sale personal home presumably enjoined later conveying third person similar theory officer powers limited statute actions beyond limitations considered individual sovereign actions officer business sovereign empowered way sovereign forbidden actions ultra vires authority therefore may made object specific relief important note cases relief granted without impleading sovereign officer lack delegated power claim error exercise power therefore sufficient since jurisdiction hear case may depend recently recognized upon decision ultimately reaches merits necessary plaintiff set complaint statutory limitation relies emphasis supplied following analysis larson cases considering question whether state official entitled sovereign immunity grouped two categories cases like larson malone bowdoin florida dept state treasure salvors usually involve state functioning proprietary capacity ultra vires issue resolved solely reference law agency since specific limitation powers officers general limitations authority question need asked whether acted completely beyond authority state placed specific limitations manner state officials may perform duties often regulatory administrative contexts considered scully bird johnson lankford ultra vires inquiry also involves question whether officials acted way state law forbids sovereign authorize officials violate law official larson indicates conduct ultra vires protected sovereign immunity larson confirms disposition case ordering appeals consider respondents claims fully harmonious established sovereign immunity principles jurisdiction federal established federal claim appeals therefore jurisdiction resolve case grant injunctive relief either federal state grounds respondents pleaded specific statutory limitation way petitioners entitled run pennhurst district appeals found petitioners operated pennhurst way sovereign forbidden specifically courts concluded petitioners placed residents pennhurst without consideration limitations institutional confinement found state law failed create community living programs mandated state law short dispute petitioners ran pennhurst way sovereign forbidden second track larson analysis petitioners acting ultra vires acting way sovereign statute forbidden petitioners readily concede brief oral argument eleventh amendment bar suit state officers acted ultra vires majority makes similar concession ante yet ignore fact cases especially larson set analysis ultra vires conduct conduct completely beyond scope officer authority conduct sovereign forbidden fact majority goes far quote passage larson indicating state official acts ultra vires completely lacks power delegated state ante quotation ignores sentences immediately preceding following quoted passage stating terms official violates statutory prohibition acts ultra vires protected sovereign immunity omission understandable since petitioners conduct case clearly falls category conduct sovereign specifically forbidden statute petitioners told pennsylvania run pennhurst dispute disobeyed instructions yet without explanation repudiates analysis larson holds sovereign immunity extends conduct sovereign statutorily prohibited thus contrary assertion larson conflict result reached today sum century half eleventh amendment jurisprudence established following suit alleging official acted within authority manner contrary state statutes barred eleventh amendment prohibits suits bar suits state officials actions permitted state law sovereign authorize officers violate law hence action state officer seeking redress conduct permitted state law suit officer sovereign ex parte young concluded explicit fashion possible unconstitutional action state officials action state even purports authorized state law federal constitution strikes shield tort cases plaintiff proves case definition defense shield defendant similarly state officer violates state statute sovereign definition erected shield liability precedents make clear foundation contention majority embraces ex parte young authorizes injunctive relief state officials basis federal law contrary young clear bell eleventh amendment apply shield simple principle control case iv majority decision case especially unwise overrules long line cases order reach result odds usual practices one respected opinions ever written member justice brandeis wrote developed governance cases confessedly within jurisdiction series rules avoided passing upon large part constitutional questions pressed upon decision pass upon constitutional question although properly presented record also present ground upon case may disposed rule found varied application thus case decided either two grounds one involving constitutional question question statutory construction general law decide latter siler louisville nashville ashwander tva concurring opinion case decided without reference questions arising federal constitution course usually pursued departed without important reasons case think much better decide regard question local nature involving construction state statute authority therein given commission make order question rather unnecessarily decide various constitutional questions appearing record siler louisville nashville hagans lavine quoted siler opinion noted characteristically dealt first possibly dispositive state law claims pendent federal constitutional claims added numerous decisions stated general proposition endorsed siler federal properly vested jurisdiction may pass state local law question without deciding federal constitutional issues proceeded dispose case solely nonfederal ground see hillsborough cromwell waggoner estate wichita county chicago kendall gas railroad risty chicago cases illustrate practice wisdom federal policy avoiding constitutional adjudication absolutely essential disposition case siler rule impressive historical pedigree also strongly supported interest avoiding duplicative litigation unnecessary decision federal constitutional questions policy ultimate foundations lie goes make unique place character scheme judicial review governmental action constitutionality found delicacy function particularly view possible consequences others stemming also constitutional roots comparative finality consequences consideration due judgment repositories constitutional power concerning scope authority necessity government function constitutionally keep within power including courts inherent limitations judicial process arising especially largely negative character limited resources enforcement withal paramount importance constitutional adjudication system rescue army municipal contrast rule majority creates today serves none interests state majority prevents federal courts implementing state policies equitable enforcement state law instead federal courts required resolve cases federal grounds state authority undo leaving violations state law unredressed ensuring decisions federal courts may never reexamined hardly comports respect sovereign entities commanded eleventh amendment one basic fact underlies case far immunizing petitioners conduct state pennsylvania prohibited respondents complain conduct state pennsylvania pennsylvania commands seek enforce respondents seek pennhurst run way pennsylvania envisioned run today understood eleventh amendment shield conduct state officers prohibited sovereign throughout history derived strength institutional adherence settled doctrine presumptively correct course departures course occasionally required changes fabric society rather legislature initiates departure special obligation explain justify new course embarked today however casts aside respected doctrine plainly commands affirmance appeals doctrine law case doctrine stare decisis repudiates least cases doctrine sovereign immunity doctrine pendent jurisdiction doctrine judicial restraint sound reason justifies prolongation litigation voyage sea undisciplined lawmaking said outset case illuminated character institution respectfully dissent infectious diseases common minimally adequate health care unavailable residents pennhurst inadequately supervised consequence often injured residents result assaults residents staff members including sexual assaults frequent physical restraints employed lieu adequate staffing often causing injury residents one occasion leading death dangerous psychotropic drugs indiscriminately used purposes behavior control staff convenience staff supervision meals minimal residents often stole food leaving without enough eat unsafe conditions led aggressive behavior part residents punished solitary confinement often urine excrement walls questions raised petition certiorari petitioners ask reexamine appeals conclusion respondents clearly entitled relief state law appropriate reexamine unanimous conclusion en banc appeals question state law see bishop wood therefore found unnecessary decide respondents also entitled relief federal statutory constitutional provisions raised district although struggles mightily distinguish cases foreclose holding today see ante vain effort merely brings stark relief total absence affirmative support holding larson domestic foreign commerce established officer actions limited statute actions beyond limitations considered individual sovereign actions neither edelman jordan deal suit naming state officer defendant alleging violation either federal state law thus occasion opinion cite discuss unanimous opinion worcester county trust riley eleventh amendment bars suits state officers unless alleged acting contrary federal law authority state law edelman hold suits state officers alleged acting federal state law permissible eleventh amendment prospective relief sought emphasis supplied see also worcester county trust riley enerally suits restrain action state officials consistently constitutional prohibition prosecuted action sought restrained without authority state law contravenes statutes constitution eleventh amendment denies citizen right resort federal compel restrain state action preclude suit wrongdoer merely asserts acts within official authority state confer citations omitted worcester held suit barred eleventh amendment stating hence said threatened action respondents involves breach state law laws constitution explained state officer sued tort sued officer government individual ousted jurisdiction asserts authority officer make defence must show authority sufficient law protect cunningham quoted poindexter today majority notes cases involve nondiscretionary duties governmental officers ante overlooks reason characterization officers discretion commit tort true treatment federal sovereign immunity cases discuss see also butz economou officers liable torts unless torts authorized federal law philadelphia stimson officers may enjoined wrongfully interfere property rights justice holmes occasion state sovereign immunity generally extend acts officer sovereign general sued tort immunity extend acted name sloan shipyards shipping bd emergency fleet characterized petitioner argument case sovereign immunity extend unlawful acts agents acting within scope authority dangerous departure one first principles system law sovereign properly called superior suit reasons often explained general rule person within jurisdiction always amenable law instrumentality government might greatest ends agent agent cease answerable acts see also brady roosevelt following sloan also stated corporate agents individual officers state stand better position officers general government often held exemption judicial process protect officers agents civil military time peace personally liable action tort private person whose rights property wrongfully invaded injured even authority belknap schild emphasis supplied language quoted text makes clear incorrect suggest ante clemson dealt unconstitutional conduct conduct violation state tort law see also old colony trust seattle reaffirming rationale clemson action city county officials reagan farmers loan trust held eleventh amendment bar suit alleging state officer wrongfully administered state statute awarded injunctive relief state officers basis state federal law atchison held suit state officers seeking recovery taxes paid duress state since state statute required recovery wrongfully paid taxes see lankford platte iron works assumed eleventh amendment bar suit compel submission officers state laws state accomplishing policy law specific purpose rejected appellees construction state statute see also farish state banking board american water softener lankford martin lankford stated case barred eleventh amendment since claim based seen upon tortious conduct lankford exertion state law violation reasoning johnson lankford therefore applicable conclusion must action one state district erred dismissing want jurisdiction ground true points ante martin went hold federal diversity jurisdiction case denied majority today repudiates reasoning martin treatment johnson lankford ante true johnson sought damages holding case action barred constitution since alleged conduct violation state law utterly odds decision today surely mean rely distinction damages injunctive relief federal grant relief state officers basis state law whether prospective retroactive vindicate authority federal law conclude young edelman inapplicable suit state officials basis state law ante awarding damages violation state law state officers acting within authority inconsistent majority position need vindicate federal law justifies lifting eleventh amendment bar order pay damages wrongful conduct state officer state purposes eleventh amendment additional order form injunction telling officer state doubted today decision overrules johnson finally involved allegation unconstitutional action allegation insufficient lift bar eleventh amendment complaint sought retroactive relief fact relief authorized state law defeated eleventh amendment claim see cases construing sovereign immunity federal government also hold conduct federal officers forbidden statute shielded sovereign immunity even though officer acting completely beyond authority see land dollar ickes fox work louisiana santa fe pacific fall payne central pacific waite macy cited siler louisville nashville discussed part iv infra support proposition unanimous rejection argument eleventh amendment bars claims based state officers violations federal statutes ray atlantic richfield entirely consistent analysis cases majority view represented rather dramatic extension ex parte young encompass federal statutory claims well constitutional claims ray demonstrates maintained young cases permit injunctive relief constitutionality state officers conduct issue ray wrongly decided argument state officer violated federal statute constitute challenge constitutionality officer conduct chapman houston welfare rights swift wickham view eleventh amendment claim ray deserved cursory received since state officials engaged conduct forbidden statute willing adhere settled rules law today eleventh amendment claim rejected summarily majority incredibly claims greene contains implicit holding eleventh amendment question decides today ante plain words greene held eleventh amendment bar consideration pendent claims advanced case considered sustained claims merits contrary treatment cases discussed rely doctrine embraced quotation clemson set officials discretion violate law true federal sovereign immunity cases see land dollar assertion officers government authority act foreclose judicial inquiry lawfulness action determination whether authority rightfully assumed exercise jurisdiction must lead decision merits question payne central pacific course secretary interior statutory authority clothe discretion enlarge curtail rights grantee substitute judgment congress manifested granting act waite macy secretary treasury board must keep within statute see reason restriction enforced injunction philadelphia stimson case injury threatened illegal action officer claim immunity injunction process rather desperate attempt explain cases amici suggest simply realize deciding questions state law since era erie tompkins mine workers gibbs clear diversity cases pendent claims governed state rather federal law suggestion refuted cases discussed held relief issue state officers violated state statutes even construction rules decision act adopted swift tyson pet repudiated erie federal courts bound apply state statutes see black white taxicab transfer brown yellow taxicab transfer swift thus cases indisputably issuing relief state law explicit basis relief granted greene use one example stated federal jurisdiction extends determination questions involved case including questions state law irrespective disposition may made federal question whether found necessary decide granted plaintiffs relief state law concluded declining decide question federal law obvious however view result reached upon questions state law discussed disposition cases affected whatever result might reach upon federal question therefore find unnecessary express opinion upon question raised fourteenth amendment judicial power shall construed extend suit law equity commenced prosecuted one citizens another state citizens subjects foreign state manifestly rest mere literal application words article iii assume letter eleventh amendment exhausts restrictions upon suits behind words constitutional provisions postulates limit control essential postulate controversies contemplated shall found justiciable character also postulate union still possessing attributes sovereignty shall immune suits without consent save surrender immunity plan convention omitted see also ex parte state new york hans louisiana commentators understood eleventh amendment cases taking position constitution incorporates doctrine sovereign immunity see baker federalism eleventh amendment rev field eleventh amendment sovereign immunity doctrines part one rev thornton eleventh amendment endangered species ind tribe intergovernmental immunities litigation taxation regulation separation powers issues controversies federalism harv rev comment private suits federal courts chi rev petitioners treat eleventh amendment equivalent doctrine sovereign immunity see brief petitioners appears agree ante course apply text amendment bar action pennsylvania one citizens see supra rationale principle compelling courts wish confront king immunity suit directly nevertheless found threat liberty posed permitting sovereign abuses go unremedied intolerable since reality king act officers rule permitted suits officers formally preserved sovereign immunity operating one means courts curbed abuses monarch see holdsworth commentators noted influence english doctrines american conception sovereign immunity see jaffe suits governments officers sovereign immunity harv rev note express waiver eleventh amendment immunity rev note developments law remedies officials harv rev fact belknap schild holding officers liable injuries caused unlawful conduct even acting pursuant official duties cited passage feather queen see chief justice marshall writing recognized distinction first case reach concerning application eleventh amendment conduct state official osborn bank wheat see also mcneill southern gunter atlantic coast line prout starr scott donald reagan farmers loan trust tyler ayers hagood southern allen baltimore ohio board liquidation mccomb cf lee sovereign immunity defense suit charging officers unconstitutional conduct true legislative act government virginia law state virginia state passed law certainly contemplation law done constitution contract irrepealable act part law virginia law made duty defendant receive coupons tendered payment taxes declared every step enforce tax thereafter taken without warrant law therefore wrong stands stripped official character confessing personal violation plaintiff rights must personally answer without defence poindexter greenhow see generally orth interpretation eleventh amendment case study judicial power rev adhered formulation present day see florida dept state treasure salvors opinion stevens white concurring judgment part dissenting part ray atlantic richfield scheuer rhodes georgia railroad banking redwine sterling constantin course fragment young quoted ante convey meaning considered context paragraph quoted solicitor general correctly notes brief power create exception constitutional bar federal jurisdiction ex parte young rests instead recognition eleventh amendment simply apply suits seeking restrain illegal acts state officials whether acts illegal violate constitution young federal state law brief citations omitted see quern jordan alabama pugh per curiam edelman jordan employees missouri dept public health welfare smith reeves fitts mcghee ayers hagood southern louisiana jumel see generally jacobs eleventh amendment sovereign immunity distinction sovereign agents explains rationale ex parte young predecessors consistent established sovereign immunity doctrine also explains critical difference actions injunctive relief actions damages recognized edelman jordan since damages remedy sought case required payment state said action ran agents state therefore agents unlawful conduct considered ultra vires hence enjoined remedy run sovereign merely agent fit within ultra vires doctrine hence impermissible damages sought state relief run state official damages permissible remedy eleventh amendment see scheuer rhodes england personification sovereignty person king may possible attempts adopt reasoning resulted postulation abstract state sovereign since ideal state act law whatever state must lawful ground distinction drawn state government consisted officers since state commit illegal act act imputed government officers logically followed suit state officers necessarily suit state note sovereign immunity doctrine recent developments rev footnotes omitted curiously majority appears acknowledge created sovereign immunity broader ever enjoyed king england ante see also barney city new york approach began long poindexter earliest cases rejected sovereign immunity defenses raised officers sovereign accused unlawful conduct involve charges unconstitutional conduct rather simple trespass actions rejecting defense simply noted although officers acting pursuant duties engaged unlawful conduct therefore conduct sovereign see bates clark mitchell harmony wise withers cranch little barreme cranch landmark case osborn bank wheat took beyond argument state officer unlawfully seized property attempt collect taxes believed owed state eleventh amendment bar simple trespass action officer majority strangely takes comfort fact former cases allowed damages actions federal officers ante allowance damages remedy consistent approach allowance injunction see supra effect tindal south carolina wesley majority argues case notes south carolina party proceeding suggests ruling purely procedural ante misses whole purpose procedural point made opinion eleventh amendment immunity may claimed state extend state officers accused violating state law see also florida dept state treasure salvors opinion stevens conduct state officer taken pursuant unconstitutional state statute deemed unauthorized may challenged federal conduct undertaken without authority whatever also entitled eleventh amendment immunity land dollar case dealing sovereign immunity federal government pertinent eleventh amendment present purposes embodiment sovereign immunity principles example cases barring suits individual officers suits state also acknowledged importance authority challenged conduct officer cases frequently noted relief sought unauthorized state law therefore adversely affect state see hagood southern louisiana jumel contrast cases official actions contrary state law federal remedy adversely affect state policy see petty bridge missouri fiske cohens virginia wheat majority cites quern jordan scheuer rhodes edelman jordan georgia railroad banking redwine cases question presented decided whether monetary relief obtained state officials basis federal law except redwine decided suit enjoin collection state tax basis federal law barred eleventh amendment none cases question concerning availability injunctive relief state law considered even dicta addition overruling cases discussed part ii supra majority view young exists simply ensure supremacy federal law indicates number prior cases held eleventh amendment may bar action injunctive relief even state violated federal constitution see alabama pugh per curiam incorrectly decided satisfactory explanation pugh held even federal constitutional claim suit may brought directly state even may brought officials majority view basis distinguishing state officials need vindicate supremacy federal law issuance injunctive relief unless officials acting completely outside authority must treated state however pugh explained simply reference young use ultra vires doctrine respect unconstitutional conduct state officers conduct conduct sovereign authorized sovereign hence officers entitled sovereign immunity suit directly state succeed ultra vires doctrine unavailable without state officer applied pugh makes clear young rests need vindicate federal law traditional distinction sovereign agents doubt respondents federal claims sufficiently substantial justify federal jurisdiction case another case brought resident pennhurst held due process clause fourteenth amendment requires minimum petitioners provide residents reasonable care safety see youngberg romeo uncontested findings district case establish pennhurst neither safe providing reasonable care residents therefore respondents federal claims sufficiently substantial support exercise federal jurisdiction case also almost certainly justified issuance least injunctive relief basis relief unavailable larson administrator war assets administration possession coal plaintiff claimed administrator contractually obligated deliver instead seeking damages breach contract claims plaintiff sought injunction district held administrator acted properly refusing deliver coal instead insisting plaintiff seek remedy claims true allegation administrator acting illegally refusal deliver unauthorized allegations based purport based upon lack delegated power since administrator empowered sovereign administer general sales program encompassing negotiation contracts shipment goods receipt payment normal concomitant powers matter general agency law power refuse delivery agent view delivery called contract power sell goods agent believes still principal sell footnotes omitted thus administrator acted properly agent holding property believed principal insisting claimant sue principal wanted property merely exercising normal duties sales agent congress envisioned exactly remedy provided required claimant sue damages claims rather obtaining property directly administrator one questioned constitutional sufficiency alternative remedy see mccord fault without liability immunity federal employees law forum since plaintiff made affirmative allegation relevant statutory limitation upon administrator powers made claim administrator action amounted unconstitutional taking ruled suit must fail effort enjoin malone bowdoin malone explained similarly cases hold congress empowered governmental official make necessary decisions whether hold property official believes government least pending aggrieved party remedy claims formerly claims tucker act et seq see byse proposed reforms federal nonstatutory judicial review sovereign immunity indispensable parties mandamus harv rev jaffe right judicial review harv rev thus official acts sovereign intends entitled sovereign immunity principles discussed case larson permits injunctive relief case respondents plead specific limitation petitioners powers holding appeals merits respondents claims indicates petitioners exercising normal duties sovereign envisioned unlike administrator larson instead petitioners running pennhurst way sovereign forbidden majority also repudiates justice white recent statement treasure salvors officer actions limited statute actions beyond limitations considered individual sovereign actions four members today majority subscribed statement two terms ago indeed majority senses much admitting reconcile ultra vires doctrine endorsed larson approach see ante majority also incorrect suggesting larson overruled cases contrary position fact larson cited cases approval including hopkins clemson agricultural college tindal wesley poindexter greenhow land dollar larson opinion stated overruling single case goltra weeks see larson simply wreak kind havoc precedents majority today siler decided case grounds even though acknowledged case without benefit construction statute highest state kentucky must proceed absence state adjudication upon subject justice peckham opinion siler rested long line cases dating back chief justice marshall decision osborn bank holding federal jurisdiction issues state well federal presented case properly falls within jurisdiction siler breaking new ground avoiding federal constitutional question deciding grounds santa clara county southern pacific noted importance federal constitutional questions even though treated dispositive lower though main almost questions discussed counsel stated questions belong class decide unless determination essential disposal case arise determined challenged tax assessments authorized state law affirmed judgment solely ground addition routinely applied siler rule cases upholding injunctive relief basis state law municipal officials see hillsborough cromwell cincinnati vester risty chicago bohler callaway lincoln gas electric light city lincoln cases plaintiffs held entitled relief sought see schmidt oakland unified school per curiam railroad california pacific gas electric fuel gas railroad waggoner estate wichita county chicago great western kendall ohio tax cases louisville nashville garrett numerous cases decided cited siler accurate statement law regarding pendent jurisdiction see aldinger howard florida lime avocado growers jacobsen hurn oursler cf matheson citing justice brandeis opinion ashwander tva hutchinson proxmire citing opinion siler cases following siler required decree include provision expressly authorizing reopening event state later decided question state law differently see lee bickell wald transfer storage smith glenn field packing agree stated days ago doctrine stare decisis perhaps never entirely persuasive constitutional question doctrine demands respect society governed rule law akron akron center reproductive health doctrine stare decisis absolutely bind prior opinions decent regard orderly development law administration justice requires directly controlling cases either followed candidly overruled solem helm burger dissenting omitted statement joined four members today majority fifth author opinion city akron especially odd context repudiate settled law changes social fabric favor limitation rather expansion sovereign immunity concept sovereign wrong citizens remediless face abuses relic medieval thought anything else whether immunity absolute survival monarchial privilege manifestation merely power rests abstract logical grounds undoubtedly runs counter modern democratic notions moral responsibility state accordingly courts reflect strong legislative momentum tendency extend legal responsibility government confirm maitland belief expressed nearly fifty years ago wholesome sight see crown sued answering torts great northern life ins read frankfurter dissenting citation omitted even older decision poindexter greenhow observing distinction government state state important observed wrote distinction essential idea constitutional government deny blot obliterates line demarcation separates constitutional government absolutism free based sovereignty people despotism whether one many enables agent state declare decree state say moi avail written constitutions whose bills right security individual liberty written often blood martyrs shed upon battlefield scaffold limitations restraints upon power may overpassed impunity agencies created appointed guard defend enforce sacred authority law compelling obedience entitled respect else principles individual liberty right maintained violated judicial tribunals forbidden visit penalties upon individual offenders instruments wrong whenever interpose shield state doctrine tolerated whole frame scheme political institutions country state federal protest continued existence compatible doctrine absolutism pure simple naked see also gibbons eleventh amendment state sovereign immunity reinterpretation colum rev heart today holding power act ordered appeals consider decide issues case following cases held injunctive relief may issue state officers basis state law explicitly rejecting eleventh amendment defense rolston missouri fund commissioners south carolina wesley tindal wesley scully bird hopkins clemson agricultural college atchison johnson lankford martin lankford greene louisville interurban louisville nashville greene illinois central greene since petitioners position applies also federal sovereign immunity indeed principal case rely larson federal sovereign immunity case following additional cases refused apply sovereign immunity suits federal officers acting within scope authority plaintiff alleged officers engaged unlawful conduct rejected little barreme cranch wise withers cranch mitchell harmony bates clark belknap schild sloan shipyards shipping bd emergency fleet santa fe pacific fall philadelphia stimson land dollar larson cites cases approval disapproves none overruled today fact today repudiates analysis larson since larson stated conduct specifically prohibited statute protected sovereign immunity even performed within scope official duties yet today holds even officer violates statute conduct protected sovereign immunity also overrules cases cited infra cases rarely cited see ante today law thought well settled point english common law larson beyond courts never held prohibited conduct shielded sovereign immunity rule makes good sense since principal authorize unlawful conduct conduct necessity ultra vires reason abandon sensible rule majority also overrules siler louisville nashville progeny including louisville nashville garrett davis wallace chicago great western kendall fuel gas railroad glenn field packing lee bickell railroad california pacific gas electric