Alabama v. Pugh
| Decision Date | 03 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1107,77-1107 |
| Citation | 57 L.Ed.2d 1114,438 U.S. 781,98 S.Ct. 3057 |
| Parties | State of ALABAMA et al. v. Jerry Lee PUGH et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Respondents, inmates or forme inmates of the Alabama prison system, sued petitioners, who include the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections as well as a number of Alabama officials responsible for the administration of its prisons, alleging that conditions in Alabama prisons constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The United States District Court agreed and issued an order prescribing measures designed to eradicate cruel and unusual punishment in the Alabama prison system. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed but modified some aspects of the order which it believed exceeded the limits of the appropriate exercise of the court's remedial powers. 559 F.2d 283.
Among the claims raised here by petitioners is that the issuance of a mandatory injunction against the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections is unconstitutional because the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against States and their agencies. The Court of Appeals did not address this contention, perhaps because it was of the view that in light of the numerous individual defendants in the case dismissal as to these two defendants would not affect the scope of the injunction. There can be no doubt, however, that suit against the State and its Board of Corrections is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, unless Alabama has consented to the filing of such a suit. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974); Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 65 S.Ct. 347, 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945); Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley, 302 U.S. 292, 58 S.Ct. 185, 82 L.Ed. 268 (1937). Respondents do not contend that Alabama has consented to this suit, and it appears that no consent could be given under Art. I, § 14, of the Alabama Constitution, which provides that "the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity." Moreover, the question of the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity is not merely academic. Alabama has an interest in being dismissed from this action in order to eliminate the danger of being held in contempt if it should fail to comply with the mandatory injunction.1 Consequently, we grant the petition for certiorari limited to Question 2 presented by petitioners,2 reverse the judgment in part, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals with instructions to order the dismissal of the State of Alabama and the Alabama Board of Corrections from this action.
So ordered.
This Court is much too busy to spend its time correcting harmless errors. Nothing more is accomplished by the summary action it takes today.*
The Court does not question the propriety of the injunctive relief entered by the District Court and upheld by the Court of Appeals. Striking the State's name from the list of parties will have no impact on the effectiveness of that relief. If the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. DELAWARE LAW SCH. OF WIDENER UNIVERSITY
...are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978). This immunity extends as well to departments and agencies of the state. Mount Healthy City Board of Education v. D......
-
Coffin v. South Carolina Dept. of Social Services
...— such as DSS and its governing body, the Board of DSS — which functions as an arm or alter ego of the state. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978); United States v. State of South Carolina, 445 F.Supp. 1094, 1099-1100 (D.S.C.1977) (three judge court), aff'd, ......
-
NAACP v. State of Cal.
... ... Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 700, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 2578, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) and Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 56 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978). See also Spicer v. Hilton, supra, at 237. It is clear after Hutto v. Finney, supra ... ...
-
Office of Hawai`Ian Affairs v. Department of Educ.
...barred by the Eleventh Amendment." Shaw, 788 F.2d at 603. This is true regardless of the relief sought. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978) (per curiam). Because the DOE and BOE are state agencies, Plaintiffs' claims against them are barred in federal court ......
-
Table of Cases
...re, 2008 WL 5958061 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), 34 Airport Car Rental Antitr. Litig., In re, 474 F. Supp. 1072 (N.D. Cal. 1979), 83 Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978), 126 A.L.A. Schechter Poultry v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1934), 225 Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999), 126 Alexander v. Nat’l ......
-
The jurisprudence of the PLRA: inmates as "outsiders" and the countermajoritarian difficulty.
...system-wide relief in Texas); Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283, 289-90 286 (5th Cir. 1977), rev'd in part sub nom. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (ordering system-wide relief in Alabama); Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. 956, 986-89 (D.R.I. 1977), remanded to 599 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1......
-
Fee Shifting and Sovereign Immunity After Seminole Tribe
...lacks sufficient tex-tual clarity to abrogate state sovereign immunity. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 338 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 781-82 (1978). This is true whether the action is brought in state or in federal court. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,......
-
The State Action Doctrine and Litigation Against State and Local Governments
...of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997); Pennhurst St. Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam). Municipalities, counties, and other political subdivisions do not enjoy Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Ald......