*1 DELLMUTH, ACTING SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MUTH et al. THE CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT Argued February No. 87-1855. 1989 Decided June *2 Attorney Deputy Vickers, General Parisi Chief Maria petitioner. argued Pennsylvania, With her on the cause for Attorney LeRoy Zimmerman, former S. the briefs were Attorney Preate, Jr., General, John G. D. General, Ernest Attorney Gregory Deputy R. General, and III, Knorr Chief Attorney Deputy General. Neuhauser, Senior respondents argued the cause for Martha A. Field respondent a D. filed Muth. Joanne Sommer a for filed brief * respondent District. Bucks School Central brief for Jr., General, Speas, M. Attorney and Edioin Thornburg, *Lacy H. General, for the State of North Caro- Attorney filed a brief Special Deputy urging reversal. curiae lina as amicus Semmel, Sullivan, Kotkin, Elizabeth Herbert A. Kathleen Minna J. Liberties Union the American Civil a brief for filed Lottman Schneider urging affirmance. curiae al. as amici et opinion delivered the Kennedy of the Court. Justice question The before us is whether the Education of the Handicapped abrogates Act the States’ Eleventh Amend- ment from suit in the federal courts.
I Handicapped (EHA), The Education of the Act 84 Stat. (1982 §1400 seq. amended, as U. S. C. et ed. and V.), comprehensive a enacts scheme to assure that public ap- children receive free education propriate to their needs. achieve To these ends, Act procedural requirements participating mandates certain *3 agencies. particular, state and local educational In the Act guaranteеs parents right participate develop- to the in the (IEP) program” ment of an “individualized education for their handicapped challenge appropriateness child, and to the of hearing their child’s IEP in an administrative with subse- (1982 quent judicial § review. U. See 20 S. C. 1415 ed. and V); Burlington Department School Committee of of (1985). Education Massachusetts, of (hereinafter respondent Muth, Alex the son Muth Russell respondent), bright is a child, but one within the meaning by language learning disability of the EHA a and as- problems. public sociated emotional Alex was enrolled Pennsylvania in the school Central Bucks School District respondent In 1983. the summer of re- quested statutory hearing challenge a administrative the September, shortly IEP district’s for Alex. before the hearing respondent private convened, enrolled Alex a school learning coming year. for disabled for the children school hearing original The examiner found Alex’s IEP was inappropriate and made a number of recommendations. respondent appealed.the Both and the school district then secretary provided decision the education, as under 13.32(24)(1988). Pennsylvania law, see Pa. Code The secretary hearing the the with in- remanded case to examiner IEP Alex’s district to revise structions to the school hearing a issued deci- the examiner so, did After the district secretary- appropriate, declaring the IEP sion the revised year than a more 24, 1984, on October affirmed that decision hearing. original process after the due underway, proceedings re- were While the administrative Pennsyl- spondent brought District of this suit the Eastern secretary against and the state school district vania the petitioner amended, here. As whose successor education, complaint alleged IEP respondent’s for that the district’s inappropriate admin- and that the Commonwealth’s Alex was procedural require- proceedings had violated istrative assignment respects: the of review EHA in two ments of the delays secretary, allegedly partial officer; and the to the hearing secretary’s exam- remand to the occasioned declaratory injunctive Respondent requested re- iner. private-school tuition for Alex’s lief, reimbursement attorney’s fees. 1983-1984, and procedural infirmities various found The District Court summary Pennsylvania’s and entered administrative scheme procedural judgment respondent’s held claims. The court on remaining hearing in the case and to issues to resolve remedy procedural proper violations. determine the proposed IEP that, while the district’s The court concluded meaning appropriate been within the *4 for 1983-1984had respondent Alex’s entitled to reimbursement for was delayed year procedural the flaws had tuition that because process. further The District Court the administrative district and the Commonwealth determined that the school severally agreeing Pennsylvaniа jointly liable, and of were Pennsylvania’s abrogated respondent the EHA with that immunity suit. The court Amendment Eleventh severally jointly attorney’s fees, assessed also awarded against district and the Commonwealth. the school Appeals of for the Third Circuit States Court
The United Dist., F. 2d Bucks 839 Muth v. Central School affirmed.
227 (1988). pertinent Ap- case, 113 Most for this the Court of peals agreed with the District the Eleventh against not bar the reimbursement award Amendment did The court concluded that “the the Commonwealth. text of history legislative EHA and its leave no doubt that abrogate immunity intended to the 11th amendment Id., states.” at 128. among granted Circuits, a conflict
To resolve
we
certio-
(1988),
Muth,
nom.
v.
488
rari sub
Gilhool
U. S. 815
on the
question
abrogates
sovereign
EHA
whether the
the States’
Compare
under the Eleventh Amendment.
David
(CA1
Committee,
D. v. Dartmouth
II recognized Congress, acting We have in the exercise §5 authority under of the Fourteenth of its enforcement may abrogate Amendment,1 Eleventh States’ Amend- immunity. Fitzpatrick Bitzer, 445, v. 427 U. S. 456 ment (1976). abrogation stressed, however, that We have sovereign immunity upsets “the fundamental constitutional and the States,” balance between the Federal Government Hospital Scanlon, 234, Atascadero v. 473 U. S. 238 State (1985), placing principles “‘[t]he on a considerable strain inform Eleventh doctrine,’” federalism that Amendment Hospital Halderman, Pennhurst State v. 465 School (1984), quoting Finney, Hutto 100 (1978). powers temper Congress’ acknowledged To pursuant EHA Petitioner concedes that the was enacted Amendment, authority the Fourteenth and that has under power respect Eleventh Amendment with to the Act. 14-15; Scanlon, Hospital v. Arg. Tr. of Oral see Atascadero State 234, 244-245, assumptions. We S. n. decide the case on these U. *5 abrogation the Eleventh Amendment’s concern for with due component structure, of our constitutional role as an essential stringent “Congress simple applied test: we but have constitutionally secured the States’ only by making intention unmistak- suit federal court ably language Atascadero, of the statute.” in the clear supra, at 242. requisite concluding clear EHA the
In that the contains Appeals intent, the Court statement of provisions. principally The court three textual on rested Congress’ finding preamble, which states first cited the Act’s govern- that the Federal interest that “it is the national provide programs to efforts to and local ment assist State to children order needs of meet the education 1400(b)(9). § equal protection of the law.” 20 U. S. C. assure Appeals, important was for the Court Second, and most ag- permits parties provision, judicial which the Act’s review “bring process grieved by a civil action the administrative competent jurisdiction inor a dis- ... court of State regard the amount without States trict court of the United 1415(e)(2). § Finally, controversy.” the Court C. Appeals pointed whiсh a 1986amendment to attorney’s provision for a reduction of states that the Act’s apply or local “if court finds that the State fees shall not unreasonably protracted agency the final resolu- educational proceeding a violation of or there was tion of the action or 1415(e)(4)(G)(1982 ed., this section.” 20 U. S. C. V). Appeals, this amendment the view of represented express understand- statement of brought parties ing under in civil actions can be States the EHA. points
Respondent supplements with some non- these argues notably, respondent arguments. Most textual goals,” “necessary abrogation achieve the EHA’s ... Respondent that the 1986 amend- 37; Muth Brief for Act, 100 Stat. statute, Rehabilitation ments to another *6 (1982 §2000d-7 Suрp. IV), 1845, U. C. expressly S. ed., brought state from suits under the Respondent Brief for Muth 30. connection with the latter argument, respondent recognizes that the Rehabilitation Act expressly apply only amendments to “violations that occur part in whole or in after October 1986.” 42 U. S. C. §2000d-7(b) (1982 IV). Supp. Respondent ed., contends, “[a]lthough however, that the amendment became effective initially after Muth overwhelming filed support suit, . . . the the amendment shows that it reflects intent in originally enacting [in 1975].” Respond- the EHA Brief for ent Muth 32, n. 48.2 respondent’s arguments,
We turn first to nontextual be- they cause are the easier to dismiss. It is far from certain that the EHA immunity, cannot if function the States retain or that the 1986amendments to the Rehabilitation Act are a guide useful intent in 1975. Indeеd, the lan- guage of the 1986 ap- amendments to the Rehabilitation Act pears against respondent. cut intending any Without way prejudge the Rehabilitation Act amendments, we note comparison language that a of the in the amendments with language only of the EHA serves to underscore the dif- ference in any the two statutes, and the absence of clear abrogation statement of in the EHA. The amendments pertinent part: the Rehabilitation Act read in “A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States [several from suit Federal court for violation of enu- provisions] provisions merated or the other Fed- prohibiting by eral statute recipients discrimination 2Respondent also оffers us below, another avenue to affirm the result which is to overrule the longstanding holding Louisiana, Hans (1890), U. 1S. that an unconsenting liability State is immune from for dam ages in brought a suit federal court one of its own citizens. We de cline this most recent invitation opinion to overrule our in Hans. §2000d-7(a)
Federal financial assistance.” U. S. C. (1) (1982 IV). ed., against explicit
When measured such consideration of' ab- rogation of the Eleventh Amendment, the EHA’s treatment question appears ambiguous at best. importantly, respondent’s
More however, contentions are point. opinion beside Our Atascadero should have left *7 Congress abrogate no doubt that we will conclude intended to sovereign immunity only “unmistakably if its intention is ” language clear in the оf the statute. Atascadero, 473 S.,U. thought any ambigu- at 242. Lest Atascadero be to contain ity, today we reaffirm this area law, of the evidence of congressional unequivocal intent must be both and textual. Respondent’s particular, reject evidence is neither. we approach Appeals, according of the Court of to which, “[w]hile legislation the text of the federal must bear evidence legislative history may intention, of such an still be used determining Congress’ as a resource in whether intention to sufficiently lift the bar has been made 2d, manifest.” 839 F. Legislative history generally at 128. will be irrelevant to a judicial inquiry Congress abrogate into whether intended to the Eleventh Amendment. If intention is “unmis- takably language leg- clear in stаtute,” of the recourse to history unnecessary; Congress’ islative will be if intention is unmistakably legislative history not clear, recourse to will be by futile, because definition the rule of Atascadero will not be met. gist argument appears The of Justice dissent’s Brennan’s application governing
to be that law in Atascadero is complains “resor[t] unfair this case. The dissent that we interpretative Congress standard that could have antici- pated only particularly crystal with the aid of a effective ball.” complaint appears premised Post, at 241. This to be anon cynical legislative process. unrealistic and view ofthe We find Congress, taking it difficult to believe that the 94th care- ful stock of the state of Eleventh law, Amendment decided it drop coy stop making would hints but short of its intention point manifest. Rather, the salient our view is that it can- perfect not be said with confidence that in fact in- abrogate sovereign immunity, imper- tended in 1975 to given special fect confidencewill not suffice constitutional concerns this area. Cf. Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. (1974)(federal 361, 373-374 statute will not be construed to preclude judicial challenges review of constitutional absent intent). convincing clear and evidence of proper inquiry We now turn our attention to the focus of an congressional abrogation sovereign immunity, into the lan- guage agree pro- of the statute. We cannot that the textual Appeals visions on which the Court оf relied, or other provisions of the EHA, demonstrate with unmistakable clar- ity intended to the States’ from suit. The EHA makes no reference whatsoever to sovereign either the Eleventh Amendment or the States’ im- munity. supra, any provision Cf. at 228. Nor does cited Appeals abrogation oblique the Court of address in even *8 clarity requires. terms, much less with the Atascadero The general legislative purpose pream- statement of in the Act’s simply nothing sovereign ble has to do with the States’ immu- nity. only The 1986 amendment EHA to the deals with at- torney’s speak parties fees, and does not alter or to what are subject Respondent argu- to suit. conceded as much at oral acknowledging ment, EHA that “the 1986 Amendments . . . directly they [here] оnly are not relevant because concerned attorney’s Arg. Finally, fees.” Tr. of Oral 28. 20 U. S. C. 1415(e)(2), centerpiece Appeals’ of the Court of textual analysis, provides judicial aggrieved parties, for review but way sovereign immunity in no intimates that the States’ is abrogated. plain general As we made Atascadero: “A au- unequiv- thorization for suit in federal court is not the kind of statutory language abrogate ocal sufficient to the Eleventh S., Amendment.” 473 U. at 246. respondent’s attempt distinguish core,
At its this case appears proposition from Atascadero to reduce to the replete the EHA states,” “is with references to the whereas statutory language in “Atascadero . . . the at issue did not in- Respondent cludе Brief mention of states.” Muth 32-33. recognize frequent We the EHA’s reference to the important States, and its delineation of the States’ role se- curing appropriate children, education for along agencies, logical States, make the with local defendants alleging statutory in suits violations of the EHA. This structure lends force to the inference that in- the States were subject damages tended to be actions for violations of the permissible logical EHA. But such a inference, whatever its just permissible force, would remain that: a inference. It unequivocal would not be the today, declaration which, we reaffirm necessary before we will determine that powers abrogation. intended to exercise
H hH I—I statutory language We hold that the EHA does not unmistakably evince an clear intention to constitutionally States’ secured from suit.3 The respondent’s attempt Eleventh Amendment bars to collect Pennsyl- tuition reimbursement from the Commonwealth of judgment Appeals vania. The of the Court of is reversed, proceedings and the case is remanded for consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered. grant question 3 Our of certiorari also embraced the whether the EHA precluded petitioner hearing appeals. administrative Since we con *9 clude that subject the Commonwealth is not to suit under the petition Appeals since the school district did not for review of the Court of decision, question. we have no oсcasion to reach this argument, respondent After oral filed a motion to remand this suit to the District for with light consolidation another related action. of disposition today, respondent’s our motion is denied.
[233] alia, concurring. Sc Justice understanding opinion join that Court,
I with reasoning preclude congressional elimination of does not statutory clearly subjects immunity sovereign text that monetary damages, though ex- without to suit for States sovereign plicit or the Eleventh reference to state Amendment. Marshall, Jus- Brennan, with whom Justice
Justice Blackmun, join, dissenting. and Justice Stevens tice holding respectfully that the I dissent from the Court’s Pennsylvania immune from suit of Commonwealth of the Handi violations the Education federal courts for (1982 (EHA), seq. capped et ed. and Act 20 U. 1400 S. C. V). elsewhere, I see Welch For reasons have set out Transportation, Dept. Highways Public Texas v. (1987) dissenting); J., 468, U. 509-511 S. (Brennan, Hospital Scanlon, Atascadero State (1985) dissenting), accept I would re J., 258-302 (Brennan, spondent Louisiana, Hans v. Muth’s invitation to overrule (1890), interpreted in has been this as that case view, I hold that I Even if did not recent decisions. Court’s Ap of the Court of affirm the decision would nevertheless abrogated ground peals in the EHA that on the immunity. state
I ascertaining congres- Applying for the standard method Appeals, conclude, I with the Court intent, sional history legislative “[t]he leave no doubt EHA and its text of im- 11th amendment intended to munity Dist., Bucks School the states.” Muth v. Central (CA3 1988). F. 2d obligations imposes States, on the as substantial
The EHA might expected in be authorities, as local education well as on authorizing “to assist States and federal financial aid an Act provide chil- the education of all localities *10 1400(c). § eligible dren.” 20 U. S. C. To be for federal as- develop plan sistance, a State must a for the education of all handicapped procedural safeguards children and establish the (5). § 1412(2), §§ mandated in 1415. It is the state educa- agency “responsible tional assuring that is for that the re- quirements [EHA Subchapter dealing of II, with federal as- handicapped children] sistance for education of are carried programs out handicapped and that all educational for chil- including dren рrograms within State, all such adminis- by any agency, [are] gen- tered other State or local under the supervision persons responsible eral for educational programs handicapped for children the State educational 1412(6). § agency.” See Smith v. Robinson, 468 (1984) (“The responsibility providing required States”); education remains on the Board Education Rowley, Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. 176, 182-183 overarching responsibility placed upon accord with this contemplates
the States, the EHA that in a number of situa- authority tions pro- where a local education cannot or will not appropriate vide handicapped, educational services to the (c)(4)(A)(ii) directly. § State will do so See 20 U. S. C. 1411 (State provision authority assure of services where local receiving barred federal funds because it has failed to 1414(d)(State proper application); provide submit a spe- “to directly cial education and related services residing by [a] children agency” in the area served local educational unwilling
that is unable or to establish or maintain programs, merged agencies or to be with other local to enable “handicapped it to do or so, that has children who can best be center”). by regional served or State event, And authority where a local education would be entitled to less funding than year, may $7,500 in EHA for a fiscal the State not distribute the funds, but must use the funds itself to en- provision apрropriate 1411(c)(4)(A)(i), §§ sure services. (c)(4)(B). up choose to administer Moreover, a State funding percent itself, rather than dis- its federal to 25 *11 tributing authorities, and use these funds to local education handicapped. provide to the funds to direct services such (c)(2). 1411(c)(1), §§ upon
“[T]he
disabled students an
EHA confers
enforceable
public
participating
right
in
to
education
States
substantive
upon a
com
federal financial assistance
State’s
and conditions
goals
procedural
pliance
Act.”
the substantive and
with
(1988)(emphasis
Honig
ci
added;
Doe,
v.
310
omitted).
supra, at
Robinson,
also Smith v.
tation
See
1415(e)(2)
“any party aggrieved
§
provides that
Thus,
1010.
proc
findings
[made in an
the
and decision
administrative
right
bring
ess]
in
the
a civil action ...
shall have
to
competent jurisdiction
court of
court of
or
a district
State
regard
in contro
without
to the amount
the United States
versy.”
provision makes no distinction between civil
This
sought
plainly
upon
type
the
relief
and hence
actions based
of
contemplates
actions.
tuition-reimbursement
See School
Burlington Department
v.
Education Mas
Committee
(1985).
light
sachusetts,
In
States’
clarity
pervasive
which the
EHA,
under the
and the
with
role
obligations
imposes
procedural and substantive
both
statute
inferring
from the text of
I have no trouble
States,
on the
“Congress
that the state should be
EHA that
intended
party,
[a]
party,
opposing
if
sole
to
not the
named as
1415(e)(2),
remedy
brought
proceeding”
is
under
whatеver
thereby abrogated
sought,
Eleventh
and that
D.
court. David
from suit
federal
Amendment
(CA1 1985),
775 F. 2d
Comm.,
Dartmouth School
Indeed,
those situa
denied,
This based legislative history. supported by Senator Wil- the statute’s explained Congress primary liams, author of the a that, Act, under the may parent guardian present or
“it clear that a should be alleging complaint a that a or local educational State provide agency to which a child has refused services alleging or a or local educa- be entitled State erroneously agency a has classified child as tional (1975) (em- Cong. child.” Rec. 37415 added). phasis “any aggrieved by emphasized party he addition,
findings process hearing o[r] in the rendered due and decision agency hearing the review of such shall State educational respect origi- right bring to have to a civil action with the the added), (emphasis complaint,” id., is, nal at 37416 that with complaint, respect the administrative which course to allege by legisla- the State.2 The text and EHA violations
1 Moreover, not even clear that where the State it is those situations defendant, alwаys brought against the could the only proper is an action be court; Police, v. Michigan Dept, State for in Will State even state ante, suggest very interpre at that rule of the Court seems to the same immunity it is applies tation here to decide whether Eleventh Amendment abrogated to be determine a federal re is also used to whether statute ante, quires a allow itself to be sued court. See at State to state J., dissenting). EHA (Brennan, guarantee If the does not that the State someivhere, previous pro can be then that the statute sued our statements mockery. rights vides are a enforceable immunity in Congress abrogated The it had state view that believed by legislative history Handicapped Chil the EHA cоnfirmed the of the Congress “[c]ongressional complained dren’s Act of 1985. Protection Supreme it by intent the Court when ... handed down ignored was (1984),” Robinson, where the Court decision Smith “ Re repealed availability [of sections held that ‘the EHA a free seeking 42] Title individuals 1973] [of Act of and 1983 habilitation ” education,’ longer could no obtain appropriate public litigants so that such unmistakably history EHA make it clear that thus tive abrogate immunity Congress state from there intended to suit.
II analysis disagree with this does not seem to The Court Even without benefit of refer- intent. actual legislative history that confirms the obvious ence to the Congress’ purpose interpretation makes unde- of the text and niably history spurned because it has de- clеar— “[legislative history gen- in this case a novel rule vised inquiry erally judicial into whether will be irrelevant to a abrogate Amendment,” the Eleventh intended to ante, at 230—the Court is able
“recognize frequent to the that the EHA’s reference important role States, and its delineation of the States’ securing appropriate education along agencies, log- with local children, States, make the alleging EHA. ical defendants in suits violations of the statutory lends force to the inference that This structure subject damages be ac- the States were intended to Ante, the EHA.” at 232. tions for violations of although Nevertheless, did intend to give the Court refuses to effect suit, States’ not, in “un- view, this intention because it was the Court’s equivoсal Ante, and textual.” at 230. *13 (1985) Smith, 99-296,
attorney’s Rep. p. (quoting fees. H. R. No. (Brennan, J., error, dissenting). supra, at 1030 To correct this Con- 1415(e)(4)(1982 amendment, ed., an codified at U. S. C. gress enacted V), attorney’s providing the award of fees under the EHA. The Report “[i]n in the on this amendment that some actions statement House guardian prevail, proceedings parents in which the or more than one or respondent,” agency may be named as a and that such local or State cases, apportion attorneys’ expected will the award of “it is that the court expense culpability agencies,” relative and other based on the of the fees 99-296, 6, clearly a Rep. H. R. No. at demonstrates belief that immunity in the EHA. abrogated hаd Eleventh Amendment dispute the EHA is that the text of I conclusion the Court’s “unequivocally” my equivocal. textu- mind, To logical amenability ally abrogated to suit is state when language text. Cf. and structure inference from the (1974) (a clear dec- S. Jordan, Edelman v. U. not court does federal consent suit laration of State’s language,”’ require “‘express in “‘over- be found but [that] whelming implications no room for leave from the text Murray quoting any v. Wil- construction,”’ other reasonable (1909)). Distilling The Court 151, 171 Co., 213 U. S. son requires only more it because the conclusion it does reaches doing unequivocal is far re- so, the Court text. than a “clear and mani- to discern real concern moved from congressional Fe Ele- intent, Rice v. Santa fest” statement of (1947), Corp., is all that 218, 230 which vator 331 U. S. inquiring into mean- for when has otherwise looked traditionally “[i]n ing sensi- even action, affecting legislation balance,” the federal tive such as areas, 336, 349 Bass, United States Congress’ intent it with in fact concerned Were the Court drafting regulations adopted it the strict could not have history ap legislative today, ruling out resort to devises reasoning barring parently text and from inferential also justification is that for such a rule The structure. Court’s immunity “upsets abrogation constitu ‘the fundamental and the the Federal Government tional balance between principles ‘[t]he placing strain on considerable States,’. . . doctrine,”’ inform Eleventh Amendment federalism that necessary temper “[t]o “stringent ac test” is that a abrogation knowledged powers with due concern for component of our role as an essential Eleventh Amendment’s I maintain that Ante, at 227-228. structure.” constitutional simply “[t]here very here, for one basic error makes the Court sovereign immunity.” principle of state is no constitutional dissenting). J., at 259 S., 473 U. Atascadero, (Brennan, explained apart quite has never that, the Court But *14 why principle it is constitutional it has created require approach ascertaining congressional should a novel to “special statutory intent. I in Atascadero, As said of rules (nor drafting justified they justifiable) are not are as efforts genuine Congress; to determine the intent of no reason has why statutory ordinary been advanced of canons construction inadequate Congress.” would be to ascertain the of intent entirely example, why at I Id., see, 254. fail the “clear purpose Congress” pre-empt and manifest under Article police powers supra, VI “the historic of the States,” Rice, at ways, many 230, be so and found various while the setting Court the Eleventh Amendment context insists on up ever-tighter drafting regulations Congress must have Congress (though followed not could have been aware of such acted) requirements abrogate immunity. when it in order to genuine identify Congress’ purpose A concern would lead logical the Court to consider both the inferences to be drawn from the text and structure of the cf. Edelman v. Jor supra, legislаtive history, dan, at and the statute’s see Employees Dept. v. Missouri Public Health and Welfare, (1973)(examining legislative history 283-285 Congress abrogated in order to determine whether Eleventh immunity), deciding Congress Amendment whether in subject tended to States to suit federal court.
Though special drafting regulations and strict Congress unjustifiable, Court has foisted now on are still application worse is the Court’s retroactive these new thing Congress rules. It be one tell would how the fu- ture the will measure intent. That at least operating would this ensure that Court were under the same rules at the time. But it same makes no using sense to test whatsoever intent a set interpretative conceivably rules that couldnot have altogether foreseen at the it from, time acted—rules different stringent Congress, than, much with more those which reasonably relying upon opinions, this believed Court’s itself *15 supra, working. n. 7 255, at Atascadero, to be See (Bren- retroactively applying dissenting). The effect of J., nan, peculiar in- will be to override the Court’s rule absolutely immunity, though such intent was tent to statutory interpretation principles established clear under application of new at the Retroactive time of enactment. simply unprinci- drafting regulations in such circumstances concurring pled. in S., J., at 496 Welch, Cf. 483 U. (Scalia, (where part judgment) Congress concurring en- has reasonably assumption derived acted on an statutes based “[ejven assump- if we were now to find that cases, from our interpret wrong, not, reason, we could tion to have been existed”). assumption though never the statutes as Congress already complain of the had cause Court’s has changing interpretative After the rules midcourse. § that 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Court held in Atascadero § contained no “unmistakable lan- 794, 29 U. S. C. immunity, guage” abrogating Amendment Eleventh Congress in 1986enacted an amendment to the S., U. at providing: Act Eleventh
“A not be immune under the State shall States Amendment of the Constitution United [enumerated a from suit in Federal court for violation of provisions provisions Act] the Rehabilitation or the prohibiting discrimination other Federal statute recipients of Federal financial assistance.” U. S. C. IV). 2000d-7(a)(l) (1982 § ed., Congress provision, the Re- enacted this Senate Conference “[tjhe port Supreme [in us, tells because Court’s decision misinterpreted congressional Atascadero] intent. Such coverage gap was never intended. It would Section compliance inequitable 504 to mandate state be for Section yet deny provisions litigants right to enforce with its rights agency in Federal courts when State or State ac- their Rep. pp. 99-388, No. 27-28 tions are issue.” S. Conf. (1986) (amendment Cong. See also 132 Rec. 28623 “eliminate[s] effectuating congres- the court-made barrier to holding intent sional that the in the Atascadero case so un- raised”) (Sen. wisely § principal has Cranston, a author of 504 Act). of the 1973 Had the Court followedthe usual rules for determining legislativе every intent, as in 1973had expect reason to it would, the Court could not have fallen into Atascadero, this error. See S., 473 U. at 248-252 (Bren- dissenting) (examining leg- nan, J., the text, structure, and history islative of 504 to conclude that intended *16 court). that the States be amenable in to suit federal perfectly again today ignores It is clear that the Court Congress’ abrogate actual intent to state in-—an plainer § tent that is even here than in 504, the case of which frequent obligations lacked the EHA’s reference to the resorting interpretative States —instead to an standard that Congress anticipated only par- could have with the aid of a ticularly § crystal effective ball. When 1415was in enacted present form in Edelman 1975, v. 415 Jordan, U. S. 651 (1974), Employees Dept, and v. Missouri Public Health supra, and Welfare, established that this would Court con- legislative history sider and make inferences from text and determining in structure whether intended to abro- gate immunity. Eleventh Quern Amendment in Indeed, v. (1979), evidently Jordan, 332, 342-345 the Court legislative history might remained of the view that be taken Finney, into account. Cf. Hutto v. U. S. 693-694 (1978). still, And later Pennhurst and State School Hos- pital (1984), Halderman, the Court still requiring only unequivocal expression congres- was “an citing support intent,” sional cases —Edelman legislative history assessing Quern discuss whether —that immunity. Obviously, intended to there was no rule 1975of the sort the Court has devised this theory justifies I case, and fail to what understand it is that now Court 94th intent gauging by using such a rule.3
Ill Pennsylvania I would hold that immune Though not from suit in court for brеaches of its federal under the obligations I find it on unnecessary go to consider the second question which certiorari was whether upon granted: Court erred in ruling secre- Appeals Pennsylvania’s tary of education is education precluded deciding special 1415(c) § he is an administrative under because em- appeals of the Commonwealth. There ployee was an alternative ground for the Court of Appeals’ judgment against Pennsyl- because of the secretary’s vania —that remand to hearing officer following respondent’s administrative appeal, respond- ent was “final” timely to which he deprived judgment 1415(e) § was entitled under 20 U. S. and 34 300.512 C. CFR 2d, F. at 124-125. Petitioner’s predecessor did not seek review оf the of Appeals’ decision on this ground, alternative which appears adequate support judgment below, and no would be our served con- purpose *17 secretary’s whether the sidering in the participation appeal was a violation of the procedural EHA’s I requirements. would affirm thus the below. judgment express 3 I only can the amazement at Court’s that “a statement com parison language in the [Rehabilitation Act] amendments with the language only of the EHA serves to underscore the the difference two statutes,” ante, at as if the omission from the EHA of the Rehabilita provision tion Act “[a] amendments’ that State shall not be immune under the actually something Eleventh Amendment” tells us about in tent responsе when it enacted the EHA. The 1986 amendment was to Atascadero, misinterpreted tailored to overrule a decision had Con gress’ intent in the Rehabilitation of 1973 immunity. Act to state If Congress’ reaction to anything, Atascadero tells us it prior effectively to express that decision believed it intent could to abro gate immunity resorting degree clarity without to textual the Court demands in this ease. Blackmun, dissenting.
Justice
opinion
correctly
join
because he
I
Brennan’s
Justice
subject
intent of
the unmistakable
ascertains
liability
agencies
for tuition-reimbursement awards
state
Handicapped
Act,
U. S. C.
the Education of
under
1415(e)(2).
Burlington
v.
also
Committee
See
School
Department
Massachusetts,
While Brennan’s Justice Penn- cannot amend the Constitution.” view that a “statute (concurring opin- sylvania ante, at Co., v. Union Gas ion). judicially created doc- with the Because this case deals sovereign immunity rather than the real Eleventh trine of power, judicial the con- on federal Amendment’s limitation jurisdiction gressional federal courts on the decision confer prevail. must