Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett

E403298

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited Congress’s power to subject states to damages suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act by narrowing the scope of its enforcement authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.

All labels observed (1)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (47)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
landmark disability law case ⓘ
areaOfLaw civil rights ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ
disability law ⓘ
federal courts ⓘ
citation 121 S. Ct. 955 ⓘ
148 L. Ed. 2d 866 ⓘ
531 U.S. 356 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
country United States ⓘ
decisionDate 2001-02-21 ⓘ
dissentingOpinionBy Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
dissentJoinedBy David H. Souter ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ
docketNumber 99-1240 ⓘ
doctrine Eleventh Amendment immunity ⓘ
congruence and proportionality test ⓘ
state sovereign immunity ⓘ
holding Congress did not validly abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for money damages suits by state employees under Title I of the ADA ⓘ
Title I of the ADA, as applied to the states, is not a valid exercise of Congress’s enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment for purposes of damages suits ⓘ
state employees may not recover money damages from state employers in federal court under Title I of the ADA ⓘ
impact limited Congress’s power to subject states to damages suits under the ADA ⓘ
narrowed the scope of Congress’s enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
restricted remedies available to state employees alleging disability discrimination under Title I of the ADA ⓘ
joinedByInMajority Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ
Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
jurisdiction Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
legalIssue whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity under Title I of the ADA ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
party Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama ⓘ
Milton Ash ⓘ
Patricia Garrett ⓘ
precedentReliedOn City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents ⓘ
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida ⓘ
remedyStillAvailable prospective injunctive relief against state officials under Ex parte Young ⓘ
result judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed in part ⓘ
statuteInterpreted Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ⓘ
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act ⓘ
subsequentCitationBy Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs ⓘ
Tennessee v. Lane ⓘ
term October Term 2000 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (7)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment → interpretedByCase → Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett ⓘ
United States sovereign immunity law → keyCase → Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett ⓘ
Tennessee v. Lane → followsCaseLawFrom → Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett ⓘ
Tennessee v. Lane → distinguishesCase → Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett ⓘ
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs → relatedCase → Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett ⓘ
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents → relatedCase → Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett ⓘ
United States disability rights law → includesCaseLaw → Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett ⓘ