Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Eleventh Amendment 2 bars retrospective relief in the form of a declaration “that Connecticut had violated federal law in the past”
• holding that declaratory judgement against a state is “unavailable in federal court because there is no ‘claimed continuing violation of federal law’ or ‘threat of state officials violating [a] repealed law in the future’”
• stating that “suits against states and their officials seeking damages for past injuries are firmly foreclosed by the Eleventh Amendment”
• explaining that “suits against states and their officials seeking damages for past injuries are firmly foreclosed by the Eleventh Amendment,” and plaintiffs cannot pursue a “declaratory judgment that the state had violated federal law in the past”
• declining declaratory relief where “[a]ny declaration could say no more than that [the defendant] had violated federal law in the past”
• finding declaratory relief unavailable where “[a]ny declaration could say no more than that Connecticut had violated federal law in the past”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).