597 U.S. 580
SCOTUS
2022
Read the full case

Background

  • LeRoy Torres, an Army Reservist, served in Iraq and returned with service-related constrictive bronchitis; he sought reemployment accommodations from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) and was refused.
  • Torres sued Texas in state court under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which authorizes private damages suits to enforce veterans’ reemployment rights.
  • Texas invoked sovereign immunity; the trial court denied dismissal, but the Texas Court of Appeals reversed, relying on precedent limiting Article I-based private suits by or against nonconsenting States.
  • After the court of appeals decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided PennEast (intervening precedent addressing structural waiver under the eminent domain power) and granted certiorari in Torres to resolve whether USERRA’s damages remedy against States is constitutional.
  • The Supreme Court held that by ratifying the Constitution the States surrendered sovereign immunity sufficient to permit Congress, pursuant to its Article I war powers (to raise and support armies and provide and maintain a navy), to authorize private damages suits against nonconsenting States under USERRA.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Torres) Defendant's Argument (Texas / Dissent) Held
Whether States waived sovereign immunity in the constitutional "plan of the Convention" for Congress' Article I war powers so Congress may authorize private damages suits against nonconsenting States (USERRA suits). The war powers are "complete in themselves"; by joining the Union States agreed their sovereignty would yield to the national power to raise and support the armed forces, so Congress may authorize private suits against States to enforce military-related statutes. Article I does not generally permit subjecting nonconsenting States to private suits in their own courts (Alden); any waiver must be found only in narrow historical/structural contexts (Bankruptcy Clause, eminent domain) and PennEast/Katz do not justify extending waiver to war-power damages suits. The Court held States surrendered immunity for the war powers under the plan of the Convention; Congress may authorize private damages suits against States under USERRA.
Whether USERRA’s text unambiguously authorizes private damages suits against nonconsenting States in state court despite state immunity doctrines. USERRA’s enforcement provision and §4302(b) (superseding state laws that abridge USERRA rights) show Congress intended to subject States to suit and prevent state-law immunity rules from defeating federal rights. The statute’s requirement that actions be brought "in accordance with the laws of the State" suggests Congress allowed state-law limitations (including immunity) to govern state-court suits; Congress did not clearly override state sovereign immunity. The Court concluded USERRA’s text and Supremacy Clause principles allow federal rights to be enforced in state courts and that state immunities cannot be used to defeat congressionally authorized USERRA suits.

Key Cases Cited

  • Central Va. Cmty. Coll. v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006) (recognized structural waiver of state immunity under the Bankruptcy Clause)
  • Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (Article I generally does not permit Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity absent a clear basis)
  • Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (States retain immunity from private suits in their own courts absent surrender in the plan of the Convention)
  • United States v. Texas, 143 U.S. 621 (1892) (United States may sue a State; example of structural waiver between sovereigns)
  • Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397 (1872) (federal military authority cannot be questioned by state authority)
  • Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976) (Congress may abrogate state immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment)
  • Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 (1991) (recognition that States entered the Union with sovereign immunity intact)
  • Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875) (if federal eminent domain power exists it "must be complete in itself")
  • Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918) (historical discussion of national power to raise armies and the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation)
  • United States v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 643 (1961) (federal war-power statutes displace ordinary state-law assumptions)
  • Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (federal courts may enjoin state officials to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law)
  • Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 (1947) (state courts must apply federal law despite state procedural rules that conflict)
Read the full case