Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents

E494918

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that held Congress lacked authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to subject nonconsenting states to private suits for money damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

All labels observed (1)

Label Occurrences
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents canonical 4

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (49)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
federal court case ⓘ
areaOfLaw constitutional law ⓘ
employment discrimination law ⓘ
federal courts ⓘ
citation 120 S. Ct. 631 ⓘ
145 L. Ed. 2d 522 ⓘ
528 U.S. 62 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
country United States ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate 2000-01-11 ⓘ
defendant Board of Regents of the State of Florida ⓘ
Florida Board of Regents ⓘ
dissentingJustices David H. Souter ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ
Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
docketNumber 98-791 ⓘ
holding Congress lacked authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to subject nonconsenting states to private suits for money damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ⓘ
Private individuals may not recover money damages from nonconsenting states for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ⓘ
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act is not a valid exercise of Congress’s Section 5 enforcement power as applied to the states ⓘ
impact Limited Congress’s ability to subject states to private damages suits under federal anti-discrimination statutes ⓘ
issue Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
jurisdiction federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
language English ⓘ
legalSubject Age Discrimination in Employment Act ⓘ
Eleventh Amendment ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 enforcement power ⓘ
state sovereign immunity ⓘ
majorityJustices Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ
Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
plaintiff J. Daniel Kimel Jr. ⓘ
relatedCase Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett ⓘ
City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida ⓘ
relatedDoctrine congruence and proportionality test ⓘ
relatedStatute Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ⓘ
result State employers gained immunity from private suits for money damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ⓘ
statuteInterpreted 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ⓘ
term October Term 1999 ⓘ
topic federalism in the United States ⓘ
state liability for employment discrimination ⓘ
vote 5-4 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (4)

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

Alden v. Maine → relatedCase → Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents ⓘ
United States sovereign immunity law → keyCase → Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents ⓘ
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs → relatedCase → Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents ⓘ