Tati King v. Glenn Youngkin
122 F.4th 539
4th Cir.2024Background
- Plaintiffs King and Johnson are unable to register to vote in Virginia due to felony convictions, pursuant to Virginia’s constitutional prohibition on felon voting unless rights are restored by the Governor.
- Plaintiffs challenge this disenfranchisement under the Virginia Readmission Act, a federal statute enacted when the Commonwealth rejoined Congress post-Civil War, claiming Virginia’s constitution now unlawfully bars them from voting for crimes not felonies at common law.
- Plaintiffs sued various state election officials, the Governor, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, seeking an injunction to halt enforcement against them.
- The district court dismissed most claims but allowed the Readmission Act challenge to proceed, declining to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds.
- Defendants appealed, asserting they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment; the court examines this interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Ex parte Young doctrine | Ex parte Young allows suit for ongoing federal law violations. | Only applies to individual rights or challenges to new enforcement. | Ex parte Young applies to plaintiffs’ prospective relief. |
| Whether suit is barred as a claim on state, not federal, law | They seek enforcement of a federal statute, not state law. | Suit improperly enforces Virginia’s 1869 Constitution, a state law. | Plaintiffs seek enforcement of federal law; suit is proper. |
| Whether Congress foreclosed equitable relief under the Act | No exclusive enforcement mechanism exists in the Act. | Act implicitly limits relief to congressional remedies only. | No explicit or implicit foreclosure; relief available. |
| Proper defendants under Ex parte Young | All named officials play a role in the challenged process. | Governor/Secretary lack direct enforcement responsibility. | Governor/Secretary dismissed; others remain as defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (allows federal courts to hear suits against state officials for prospective relief from ongoing violations of federal law despite state sovereign immunity)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (official capacity suits for injunctive relief permitted under Ex parte Young, distinguishable from suits for damages)
- Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) (state sovereign immunity bars suits against states by citizens without consent)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (federal courts may not order state officials to comply with state law under Ex parte Young)
- Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320 (2015) (federal equitable relief limited where Congress provides alternative remedial schemes)
- Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (2002) ("straightforward inquiry" suffices to determine Ex parte Young applicability)