Guttman v. Khalsa, 669 F.3d 1101

This appeal centers on whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a Title II ADA damages claim against New Mexico for revoking a physician's medical license as an asserted imminent danger to the public.
The district court dismissed the Title II claim against New Mexico; it also addressed constitutional challenges and later remanded for injunctive-relief issues.
Guttman, a physician with depression and PTSD, had his license summarily suspended in 2000 and revoked in 2001 after IPC findings and hearings.
Guttman challenged the Board's actions in state court and then filed federal suit asserting Title II, § 1983, and related claims.
On appeal, the panel affirmed some rulings, reversed others, and remanded for further consideration of injunctive relief against individual defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Title II validly abrogate sovereign immunity here?	Guttman asserts Title II authorizes damages against states for disability discrimination.	New Mexico argues Congress lacks a proper history and tailored remedy in professional licensing to abrogate immunity.	Title II does not validly abrogate immunity in professional licensing.
Is Guttman's Title II claim precluded by collateral estoppel?	Board determinations regarding competency could preclude ADA liability.	Prior findings necessarily decide the disability/qualification issue.	Collateral estoppel does not bar the Title II claim.
Did New Mexico waive sovereign immunity?	Defendants' discovery plan implied waiver.	No unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity occurred.	No waiver; sovereign immunity preserved.
Did the Board's process violate procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment?	Guttman lacked a predeprivation hearing before suspension.	Postdeprivation process plus quick action satisfied due process.	Predeprivation hearing not required; due process satisfied under postdeprivation framework.
May Ex parte Young allow injunctive relief against individual officials for ADA violations?	Ex parte Young claims could permit prospective relief against officials.	Official-capacity claims were barred by immunity.	Remanded to determine preservation; Ex parte Young claim potentially viable against individuals.

United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (three-step Boerne framework; abrogation depends on right, history, congruence)
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (Title II applies to access to courts; heightened scrutiny context)
Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (Title I abrogation insufficient; rational-basis concerns for disability cases)
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (congruence and proportionality limits on §5 remedial legislation)
Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003) (FMLA as applied to states; heightened scrutiny context)