Mifflin County v. American Federation of State, Comity & Municipal Employees, District Council 86

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “USERRA suits [against states] must be brought in state (rather than federal) court”
• stating that a state’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity may be overcome through consent, through congressional abrogation, or through the “plan of the [Constitutional] Convention”
• “Under Supremacy Clause principles, Texas courts may not enforce contrary state laws to block these suits.”
• “The Federal Government’s eminent domain power is complete, such that no State may frustrate its exercise by claiming immunity to forestall the transfer of property.”
• “Congress’ clarification that suits proceed ‘in a State court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the laws of the State’ merely addresses the fact that USERRA suits must be brought in state (rather than federal) court.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).