Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart

• Citation: 563 U.S. 247,131 S.Ct. 1632,179 L.Ed.2d 675
• Decision Date: 19 April 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–529.,09–529.
• Parties: VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY, Petitioner, v. James W. STEWART III, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, et al.
• Court: United States Supreme Court

563 U.S. 247

131 S.Ct. 1632

179 L.Ed.2d 675

VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY, Petitioner,

v.James W. STEWART III, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, et al.

No. 09–529.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Dec. 1, 2010.

Decided April 19, 2011.

Seth M. Galanter, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Ginger D. Anders, for United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting petitioner.

Solicitor General Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., Richmond, VA, for respondents.

Justice Kagan recused.

Paul J. Buckley, Managing Attorney, Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy, Richmond, VA, Deanne E. Maynard, Seth M. Galanter, Counsel of Record, Brian R. Matsui, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General of Virginia, E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Wesley G. Russell, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, William E. Thro, Special Counsel, Charles E. James, Jr., Chief Deputy Attorney General, Stephen R. McCullough, Senior Appellate Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Respondents.

Justice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), allows a federal court to hear a lawsuit for prospective relief against state officials brought by another agency of the same State.

I

A

The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act), 114 Stat. 1677, 42 U.S.C. § 15001 et seq.,

offers States federal money to improve community services, such as medical care and job training, for individuals with developmental disabilities. See §§ 15023(a), 15024. As a condition of that funding, a State must establish a protection and advocacy (P & A) system "to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with developmental disabilities." § 15043(a)(1). The P & A system receives separate federal funds, paid to it directly. § 15042(a) and (b). A second federal law, the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (PAIMI Act), 100 Stat. 478, 42 U.S.C. § 10801 et seq., increases that separate funding and extends the mission of P & A systems to include the mentally ill. §§ 10802(2), 10803, 10827. At present, every State accepts funds under these statutes.

Under the DD and PAIMI Acts, a P & A system must have certain powers. The system "shall ... have the authority to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect ... if the incidents are reported to the system or if there is probable cause to believe that the incidents occurred." § 15043(a)(2)(B) ; § 10805(a)(1)(A). Subject to certain statutory requirements, it must be given access to "all records" of individuals who may have been abused, see § 15043(a)(2)(I)(iii)(II) ; § 10805(a)(4)(B)(iii), as well as "other records that are relevant to conducting an investigation," § 15043(a)(2)(J)(i). The Acts also require that a P & A system have authority to "pursue legal, administrative, and other appropriate remedies or approaches to ensure the protection of" its charges. § 15043(a)(2)(A)(i) ; see § 10805(a)(1)(B). And in addition to pressing its own rights, a P & A system may "pursue administrative, legal, and other remedies on behalf of" those it protects. § 10805(a)(1)(C); see § 15044(b).

A participating State is free to appoint either a state agency or a private nonprofit entity as its P & A system. § 15044(a); § 10805(c)(1)(B). But in either case, the designated entity must have certain structural features that ensure its independence from the State's government. The DD Act prohibits the Governor from appointing more than one-third of the members of the system's governing board, § 15044(a)(2), and restricts the State's ability to impose hiring freezes or other measures that would impair the system's ability to carry out its mission, § 15043(a)(2)(K). Once a State designates an entity as its P & A system, it may not change its selection without "good cause." § 15043(a)(4)(A).

Virginia is one of just eight States that have designated a government entity as their P & A system. The Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (VOPA) is an "independent state agency." Va.Code Ann. § 51.5–39.2(A) ( Lexis 2009). Its board consists of eleven "nonlegislative citizen members," of whom only three are appointed by the Governor. § 51.5–39.2(B). The remaining eight are appointed by components of the legislature: five by the Speaker of the House of Delegates, and three by the Senate Committee on Rules. Ibid. VOPA itself nominates candidates for consideration, and the statute instructs the appointing officials that they "shall seriously consider the persons nominated and appoint such persons whenever feasible." Ibid. Board members serve for fixed terms and are removable only by a court and only for specified reasons. See § 51.5–39.2(C) and (F) ; § 24.2–233 and 234 (Lexis 2006).

VOPA enjoys authority to litigate free of executive-branch oversight. It operates independently of the Attorney General of Virginia and employs its own lawyers, who are statutorily authorized to sue on VOPA's behalf. § 51.5–39.2(A) ; § 2.2– 510(5) (Lexis 2008). And Virginia law specifically empowers VOPA to "initiate any proceedings to secure the rights" of disabled individuals. § 51.5–39.2(A).

B

In 2006, VOPA opened an investigation into the deaths of two patients and injuries to a third at state-run mental hospitals. It asked respondents—state officials in charge of those institutions—to produce any records related to risk-management or mortality reviews conducted by the hospitals with respect to those patients. Respondents refused, asserting that the records were protected by a state-law privilege shielding medical peer-review materials from disclosure.

VOPA then brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the DD and PAIMI Acts entitled it to the peer-review records, notwithstanding any state-law privilege that might apply. It sought a declaration that respondents' refusal to produce the records violated the DD and PAIMI Acts, along with an injunction requiring respondents to provide access to the records and refrain in the future from interfering with VOPA's right of access to them. Respondents moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court denied the motion. In its view, the suit was permitted by the doctrine of Ex parte Young, which normally allows federal courts to award prospective relief against state officials for violations of federal law. Virginia v. Reinhard, 2008 WL 2795940, *6 (E.D.Va., July 18, 2008).

The Court of Appeals reversed. Virginia v. Reinhard, 568 F.3d 110 (C.A.4 2009). Believing VOPA's lawsuit to be an "intramural contest" that "encroaches more severely on the dignity and sovereignty of the states than an Ex parte Young action brought by a private plaintiff," the Court of Appeals concluded it was not authorized by that case. Id., at 119–120 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We granted certiorari. 561 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 3493, 177 L.Ed.2d 1054 (2010).

II

A

Sovereign immunity is the privilege of the sovereign not to be sued without its consent. The language of the Eleventh Amendment¹ only eliminates the basis for our judgment in the famous case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793), which involved a suit against a State by a noncitizen of the State. Since Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890), however, we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to confirm the structural understanding that States entered the Union with their sovereign immunity intact, unlimited by Article III's jurisdictional grant. Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 779, 111 S.Ct. 2578, 115 L.Ed.2d 686 (1991) ; see Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). Our cases hold that the States have retained their traditional immunity from suit, "except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional amendments."

Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999). A State may waive its sovereign immunity at its pleasure, College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 675–676, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999), and in some circumstances Congress may abrogate it by appropriate legislation.² But absent waiver or valid abrogation, federal courts may not entertain a private person's suit against a State.

B

In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714, we established an important limit on the sovereign-immunity principle. That case involved a challenge to a Minnesota law reducing the freight rates that railroads could charge. A railroad shareholder claimed that the new rates were un-constitutionally confiscatory, and obtained a federal injunction against Edward Young, the Attorney General of Minnesota, forbidding him in his official capacity to enforce the state law. Perkins v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 155 F. 445 (C.C.D.Minn.1907). When Young violated the injunction by initiating an enforcement action in state court, the Circuit Court held him in contempt and committed him to federal custody. In his habeas corpus application in this Court, Young challenged his confinement by arguing that Minnesota's sovereign immunity deprived the federal court of jurisdiction to enjoin him from performing his official duties.

We disagreed. We explained that because an unconstitutional legislative enactment is "void," a state official who enforces that law "comes into conflict with the superior authority of [the] Constitution," and therefore is "stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to...