Ex Parte Young

Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart

Issues

Whether the Eleventh Amendment’s notion of state sovereign immunity prevents a state-created agency from suing state officials in federal court to seek conformity with federal law.

 

The Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy ("VOPA"), an independent state agency, advocates for individuals with mental illnesses and developmental disabilities. In accordance with federal funding requirements, Virginia law authorizes VOPA to access an individual's records if VOPA believes an individual was abused. During an investigation, a state facility denied VOPA access to the records of three individuals, and VOPA sued three state officials alleging that they violated federal law. The Eleventh Amendment provides that states cannot be sued in federal court by residents of one of the United States or of a foreign state. However, the Supreme Court, in Ex parte Young, recognized an exception to the Eleventh Amendment allowing a party to sue state officials for injunctive or declaratory relief to correct an ongoing violation of federal law. The Fourth Circuit held that, because the plaintiff in this suit was a state-created agency rather than a private individual, the suit could not proceed under the Ex parte Young exception and that allowing it to proceed in federal court would be a violation of Virginia’s sovereign immunity. This decision may affect the ability of independent agencies to protect vulnerable individuals from neglect and has the potential to increase legal conflict between state agencies.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Eleventh Amendment categorically precludes an independent state agency from bringing an action in federal court against state officials for prospective injunctive relief to remedy a violation of federal law under the doctrine of Ex parte Young.

The Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy ("VOPA") is an independent state agency that advocates for individuals with mental illnesses and developmental disabilities. See Virginia v. Reinhard, 568 F.3d 110, 113 (4th Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

· Annotated U.S. Constitution: Eleventh Amendment

· Richmond Times, Michael Martz: Watchdog Group Faults Lynchburg Facility for Mentally Retarded (Jan. 6, 2006)

· Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Steve Vladeck: VOPA v. Reinhard and Ex parte Young: Why Cert. Should (and Will) Be Granted (May 20, 2010)

Submit for publication
0

Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson

Issues

Can states avoid federal court review of a law that prohibits the right to abortion by delegating the enforcement of that law to the public through conferral of a civil cause of action?

This case asks the Court to determine whether the enforcement scheme of S.B. 8, Texas’s law prohibiting abortion providers from performing abortions once a fetal heartbeat has been detected, shields the law from review in federal court. S.B. 8 delegates the enforcement of the law to private citizens, allowing them to file civil claims against abortion providers. Petitioner Whole Woman’s Health challenges the law in federal court, seeking to enjoin Texas state officials—including judges and judicial clerks —from enforcing the law, because as members of the judiciary they would be required to adjudicate S.B. 8 claims. Respondents Judge Austin Jackson, and other state officials, reply that, because the law explicitly delegates enforcement to private citizens, they cannot be enjoined from performing judicial functions under the doctrine of state sovereign immunity. The case has significant implications for accessing abortions and for protecting constitutional rights. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.

In 2021, Texas enacted a law which, in part, prohibits physicians from performing abortions on pregnant women once the fetus has a discernable heartbeat. Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson I, at 4–5. The law, referred to as Senate Bill 8 (“S.B.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Deborah Dinner, Riley Keenan, and Michael Dorf for their insight and guidance in this case.

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Ex Parte Young