Hutto v. South Carolina Retirement System
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22931
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Public employees allege the 2005 Act requires post-retirement reemployment contributors to fund pension plans without additional service credits or benefits.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, injunctions, an accounting, return of contributions, and fees against two pension plans, the Trust, and state officials.
- District court dismissed on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds as to all institutional and individual defendants.
- This Court affirms immunity for the Pension Plans and the Trust as arms of the State, and for state officials in official capacity for both retrospective and prospective relief.
- Ex parte Young is not available to plaintiffs for prospective injunctive relief because the officials lack enforcement authority over deductions and the action concerns the state treasury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to the Plans and Trust? | Retirement System and Trust are non-state entities. | System and Trust are arms of the State with treasury liability. | Yes; both are arms of the State and protected. |
| Do state officials have Eleventh Amendment immunity for prospective relief? | Ex parte Young allows prospective relief against enforcement of federal-law violations. | Officials have no enforcement role over the statute here. | Immune; Ex parte Young not applicable. |
| Does Eleventh Amendment preclude takings claim in federal court? | Takings claim should proceed; state immunity does not bar takings. | Eleventh Amendment bars takings claims against the states in federal court. | Takings claim barred; Eleventh Amendment applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30 (1994) ( Eleventh Amendment requires state treasury implications for immunity)
- Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425 (1997) (state liability analysis focuses on potential liability rather than actual payment)
- Oberg v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 745 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 2014) (treats potential liability and treasury risk in deciding immunity)
- Ram Ditta v. Md. Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 822 F.2d 456 (4th Cir. 1987) (alter-ego/state-entity factors for immunity analysis)
- Almond v. Boyles, 612 F. Supp. 223 (E.D.N.C. 1985) (rejected strict 'inevitable' funding test for immunity)
- Wehle v. S.C. Retirement System, 611 S.E.2d 240 (S.C. 2005) (constitutionally funded obligations and funding remedies)
- Pub. Sch. Ret. Sys. v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 640 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2011) (retirement systems treated as state entities in immunity analysis)
- Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2005) (state function and funding sources influence immunity outcome)
- McGinty v. New York, 251 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2001) (state entities with statewide functions receive immunity considerations)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (establishes connection requirement for prospective relief against states)