From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 20 – 21, 1976 Decided June 28, 1976
Full case name: Fitzpatrick, et al. v. Bitzer, Chairman, State Employees' Retirement Commission, et al. (75-251) consolidated with Bitzer, Chairman, State Employees' Retirement Commission, et al. v. Matthews, et al. (75-283) Citations: 427 U.S. 445; 96 S. Ct. 2666; 49 L. Ed. 2d 614; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 160; 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1586; 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10,999; 1 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1040 Prior history: Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to override a State's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for the purpose of enforcing civil rights on the States.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens
Case opinions
Majority by: Rehnquist Joined by: Burger, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell Concurrence by: Brennan Concurrence by: Stevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. XI, XIV

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976)^[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the U.S. Congress has the power to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity of the states, if this is done pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment power to enforce upon the states the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1972, Congress amended Title VII to allow individuals to sue state governments for money damages for discrimination based on race, color, religion , sex, national origin. The plaintiffs, male retirees sued the state of Connecticut for sex discrimination against them in its retirement policies. Connecticut invoked its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and the District Court, and Court of Appeals both allowed only injunctive relief, denying monetary recovery (although the Court of Appeals permitted attorney's fees). Both of those courts pointed to Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), a recent United States Supreme Court case which had held that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from ordering a U.S. state to pay money to an individual wronged by the state. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court

Can Congress abrogate state sovereign immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The Court, in an opinion by then-Justice William Rehnquist, distinguished previous cases where individuals had attempted to sue the states for money damages (or the equivalent) — including Edelman v. Jordan — because those cases had not involved an express provision by Congress permitting such a lawsuit. The Court ruled that Congress has the power under the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate sovereign immunity of states, because the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted specifically to limit the power of the states, with the purpose of enforcing civil rights guarantees against them.

• ^ 427 U.S. 445 (Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com)
• Brennan's opinion concurring in the judgment on Findlaw.com (427 U.S. 445, 457)
• Stevens's opinion concurring in the judgment on Findlaw.com (427 U.S. 445, 458)