Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
Citations
- 427 U.S. 445
- 96 S. Ct. 2666
- 49 L. Ed. 2d 614
- 1976 U.S. LEXIS 160
- 1 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1040
- 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,999
- 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1586
About this case
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), 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.
Contents
Background
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzer&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
In 1972, Congress amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [1] to allow individuals to sue state governments for money damages for discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The plaintiffs , a group of male retirees , sued the State of Connecticut for sex discrimination against them in its retirement policies. Connecticut invoked its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and both the District Court and the Court of Appeals allowed only injunctive relief; they denied monetary recovery, although the Court of Appeals permitted attorney's fees . Both of those courts pointed to _Edelman v. Jordan _,[2] a US Supreme Court case holding that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from ordering a state to pay money to an individual who is wronged by the state. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzer&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Issue")
Can Congress abrogate state sovereign immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Decision
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzer&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: Decision")
The Court, in an opinion by Justice William Rehnquist , distinguished previous cases in which attempts by individuals to sue the states for money damages (or the equivalent), including Edelman v. Jordan, had failed because the plaintiffs had not identified an express provision by Congress that permitted such lawsuits. The Court ruled that Congress has the power, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to abrogate sovereign immunity of states, as it was enacted specifically to limit the power of the states with the purpose of enforcing civil rights guarantees against them.
See also
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzer&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: See also")
References
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzer&action=edit§ion=5 "Edit section: References")
- ↑ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, Chapter 21, Subchapter VI
- ↑ _Edelman v. Jordan _, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)
External links
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzer&action=edit§ion=6 "Edit section: External links")
- **^ ** Text of Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzer&oldid=1351927624 "
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that Congress may abrogate states' sovereign immunity when legislating pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
- holding that Congress may abrogate states' sovereign immunity via legislation enacted pursuant to Fourteenth Amendment
- holding that Congress authorized suits and awards of damages and attorney's fees against state employers
- holding that Congress has power to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
- holding that 1972 amendments to Title VII authorized money damage awards for individuals against state governments in discrimination cases
- holding that Congress may abrogate states’ sovereign immunity when legislating pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Rehnquist, Rbhnquist, Burger, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmün, Powell, Brennan, Stevens
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1,195 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court· 1978-06-06· cited 41,449×
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court· 1983-05-16· cited 17,202×
- Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court· 1989-06-15· cited 14,197×
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court· 1991-09-13· cited 12,560×
- Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court· 1984-01-23· cited 8,956×
- Quern v. JordanSupreme Court· 1979-03-05· cited 4,123×
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1996-03-27· cited 3,788×
- Hutto v. FinneySupreme Court· 1979-01-15· cited 2,261×
- Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. GarrettSupreme Court· 2001-02-21· cited 2,166×
- Owen v. City of IndependenceSupreme Court· 1980-06-02· cited 2,083×
- Alden v. MaineSupreme Court· 1999-06-23· cited 1,967×
- City of Boerne v. FloresSupreme Court· 1997-06-25· cited 1,926×
- Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSupreme Court· 1985-08-28· cited 1,877×
- Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.Supreme Court· 1982-06-21· cited 1,854×
- Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court· 1981-04-20· cited 1,660×
- Kimel v. Florida Board of RegentsSupreme Court· 2000-01-12· cited 1,587×
- Missouri v. Jenkins Ex Rel. AgyeiSupreme Court· 1989-06-19· cited 1,583×
- United States v. MorrisonSupreme Court· 2000-05-15· cited 1,467×
- Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.Supreme Court· 1981-06-15· cited 1,400×
- College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense BoardSupreme Court· 1999-06-23· cited 1,377×
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Edelman v. JordanSupreme Court· 1974-05-13· cited 6,517×
- Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court· 1961-02-20· cited 4,784×
- Cohens v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1821-03-18· cited 2,076×
- Ford Motor Co. v. Department of TreasurySupreme Court· 1945-01-08· cited 1,526×
- National League of Cities v. UserySupreme Court· 1976-06-24· cited 1,143×
- Mitchum v. FosterSupreme Court· 1972-06-19· cited 1,135×
- South Carolina v. KatzenbachSupreme Court· 1966-05-02· cited 945×
- Ex Parte VirginiaSupreme Court· 1880-03-18· cited 907×
- Katzenbach v. MorganSupreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 759×
- Employees of Department of Public Health v. Department of Public HealthSupreme Court· 1973-04-18· cited 656×
- Parden v. Terminal Railway of Alabama State Docks DepartmentSupreme Court· 1964-06-22· cited 644×
- Oregon v. MitchellSupreme Court· 1970-12-21· cited 575×
- Fairmont Creamery Co. v. MinnesotaSupreme Court· 1927-11-21· cited 86×
- Fitzpatrick v. BitzerD. Connecticut· 1974-09-16· cited 21×
- Davis v. Pumpco, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 1974-02-14· cited 7×
Other cases named Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
8 other CourtListener records share this case name.
- Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSecond Circuit· 1975-06-02· cited 75×
- Fitzpatrick v. BitzerD. Connecticut· 1974-09-16· cited 21×
- Fitzpatrick v. BitzerD. Connecticut· 1978-07-12· cited 4×
- Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSupreme Court· 1975-12-15· cited 1×
- Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSecond Circuit· 1977-07-22
- Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSupreme Court· 1976-02-23
- Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSupreme Court· 1976-03-08
- Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSupreme Court· 1976-03-29
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.