A watershed term for federalism.

• Author: Savage, David G.
• Position: Includes related article on sovereign status of states from federal discrimination lawsuits - Sovereign status of states affirmed by series of Supreme Court rulings

The Supreme Court's slim 5-4 majority continues to side with the cause of state authority even when it comes into direct conflict with federal authority.

This was the year of the states in the Supreme Court. In a remarkable trio of rulings in late June, the justices proclaimed the states had a "sovereign status" that shields them from private lawsuits seeking to enforce most federal laws. Congress cannot waive a state's legal immunity, the Court said, nor can state agencies be forced to pay damages for allegedly violating federal laws.

Constitutional scholars and state lawyers called it a watershed term for federalism. Led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the high court in recent years has championed the cause of federalism and regularly sided with the states. But this year, the justices went further in setting out their broad view of the states' sovereign authority, even when it comes into direct conflict with federal authority.

"Congress has vast power, but not all power," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the 5-4 majority. "When Congress legislates in matters affecting the states, it may not treat these sovereign entities as mere prefectures or corporations. [The states] are joint participants in a federal system, one beginning with the premise of sovereignty in both the central government and the separate states."

At issue this year was not whether Congress had the power to pass a particular law affecting the states. Instead, the key question was whether or not private parties can bring suit against state agencies to enforce a federal law.

IMMUNITY FROM PRIVATE SUITS

The first ruling, in Alden vs. Maine, threw out a lawsuit brought by a group of state probation officers who were seeking overtime wages as required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. At first, the probation officers brought their claim in federal court in Portland, Maine. But in the 1996 case of Seminole Tribe vs. Florida, the Supreme Court said the 11th Amendment shields states from being sued in federal court. The probation officers then turned to the state courts in Maine, but they were turned away there too.

On a 5-4 vote, the high court agreed Maine's sovereign immunity protected it from this lawsuit. "The states' immunity from a suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the states enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution and which they retain today," Kennedy said. "We hold that the states retain immunity from private suits in their own courts, an immunity beyond the congressional power to abrogate by Article I legislation." Kennedy referred to Congress's power in Article I of the Constitution to regulate commerce among the states.

As a practical matter, the ruling appears to strip the 4.7 million state workers of their federal guarantees of minimum wages and overtime pay. The decision also casts doubt on whether federal environmental laws can be enforced in private suits against state agencies. In the fall, the Court will consider whether to shield the states from the federal antidiscrimination laws on age and disability. (See page 19.)

In the second case, the justices shielded the state of Florida from a patent infringement suit filed by a New Jersey bank. The College Savings Bank, based in Princeton, developed a prepaid tuition plan that it had marketed widely. When Florida and several other states adopted similar plans, the bank sued.

Its lawyers relied on the Patent Remedy Act of 1992 in which Congress made clear states could be sued for a patent infringement. But in the case of College Savings Bank vs. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense, the high court struck down the laws and said Congress did not have the authority to waive the state's shield of immunity.

The third ruling came to the same conclusion for trademark violations and allegations of false advertising, both of which are covered by the federal Lanham Act. The College Savings Bank had also sued the Florida agency for false advertising...