913 F.3d 736
8th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (indigent criminal defendants, seeking class treatment) sued Missouri, the governor, MSPD director and MSPD commissioners alleging the State’s underfunding of the Missouri State Public Defender (MSPD) system violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and seeking declaratory and prospective injunctive relief (not damages).
- The State removed the case to federal court; defendants asserted sovereign immunity (and the governor additionally asserted legislative immunity); district court denied immunity and allowed the suit to proceed against the governor in his official capacity.
- Plaintiffs sought a court order declaring the Sixth Amendment violated and requiring a remedial plan to address MSPD caseload/funding issues.
- The State argued (1) Missouri’s state sovereign immunity bars suits for prospective equitable relief absent a clear statutory waiver or recognized common-law exception, (2) removal did not waive Missouri’s broader common-law sovereign immunity, and (3) the governor is immune under Ex parte Young and/or legislative immunity for budgetary acts.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed sovereign-immunity questions de novo and reversed the district court, holding sovereign immunity and legislative immunity bar suit against the State/governor as pleaded; the MSPD director and commissioners did not appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Missouri waived state sovereign immunity by removing the case to federal court or by implication for suits seeking prospective equitable relief to enforce state duties | Lapides-waiver on removal or Missouri common-law allows equitable suits to enforce affirmative state duties | Removal only waives Eleventh Amendment immunity; broader state sovereign immunity remains unless expressly waived by statute or recognized common-law exception | Reversed: removal did not waive Missouri’s broader state sovereign immunity; no express statutory waiver or recognized common-law exception permits suit for prospective equitable relief against the State |
| Whether a recognized common-law/Equity exception (Ex parte Young–style historic equity against Crown) permits injunctive suit against the State for failure to meet constitutional obligations | Historical equity and federal precedents (Young, Armstrong) allow equity to restrain state officers enforcing unconstitutional acts; thus plaintiffs can sue to enforce Sixth Amendment obligations | Missouri’s Supreme Court is custodian of state common law and has not recognized an exception; sovereign immunity is the rule absent statute or established exception | Held: Missouri common law does not supply an exception; plaintiffs’ historical/common-law arguments do not overcome sovereign immunity |
| Whether the governor is an Ex parte Young defendant (i.e., has "some connection" to enforcement of the challenged Sixth Amendment obligation) | Governor has enforcement role: general constitutional duty to execute laws, statutory authorities, appoints MSPD Commission, and has previously withheld MSPD appropriations — sufficient connection | Governor’s general enforcement duties and appointment authority are administrative/policy functions lacking a specific enforcement mechanism; prior appropriation actions are distinct/legislative | Reversed: governor lacks the necessary "some connection" via general enforcement or appointment power; appropriation-withholding is legislative, not a Young-type enforcement act |
| Whether legislative immunity shields the governor from suit for his appropriation/ budget actions that allegedly led to MSPD underfunding | Plaintiffs: appropriation withholding is an executive/policy action subject to suit and not categorically legislative immunity-protected | Governor: withholding funds and budget decisions are legislative in form/substance and thus entitled to absolute legislative immunity from suit | Held: appropriation-reduction is a legislative act and legislative immunity bars suit against the governor for that conduct; legislative immunity is an immunity from suit, not merely a defense to certain remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (Sixth Amendment guarantees right to counsel for indigent criminal defendants)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permitting suits against state officers for prospective relief to stop ongoing violations of federal law)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (States retain sovereign immunity beyond the Eleventh Amendment; waiver rules)
- Federal Maritime Comm’n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743 (2002) (sovereign immunity’s preeminent purpose is sovereign dignity; immunity is an immunity from suit)
- Lapides v. Board of Regents, 535 U.S. 613 (2002) (removal of a case to federal court can waive Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Bellefontaine Neighbors v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 476 S.W.3d 913 (Mo. banc 2016) (Missouri Supreme Court: sovereign immunity is the rule; suits against public entities barred absent statutory waiver or recognized common-law exception)
- Calzone v. Hawley, 866 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2017) (a governor’s general duty to execute laws is insufficient to establish Ex parte Young connection absent an enforcement mechanism)
- Consumers Union v. Supreme Court of Virginia, 446 U.S. 719 (1980) (legislative immunity can bar suits for injunctive relief when the suit challenges legislative rulemaking; enforcement actions may expose officials to suit)
- Balogh v. Lombardi, 816 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 2016) (appointment or administrative selection authority is ministerial/administrative and does not alone establish Ex parte Young enforcement connection)