Errata Changes to Essential Brief

7/31/2019 Errata Changes to Essential Brief

1/24

No. 11-1179

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP,INC., F.K.A.

WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP,INC., ET AL.,PETITIONERS

v.

STEVE BULLOCK,ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MONTANA ET AL.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

BRIEF OF ESSENTIAL INFORMATION AS

AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION

FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ROBERT M.HAGER

Counsel of record

808 Nevada St

Northfield MN [email protected]

(507) 645-8938

CURRY & TAYLOR (202) 393-4141

Printed with FinePrint - purchase at www.fineprint.com


2/24


3/24


4/24

v

Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S. 410 (1979)........................................ 30

Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) ............................. 15, 31

Parden v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U. S. 184 (1964).................... 28

Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1 (1989)

.......................................................................................4, 19, 26, 27Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Comm'n on Human

Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973) .............................................. 35

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) ..................... 29, 36

Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) ...............passim

Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S.___ (2011)............................. 11, 28

United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974).................. 33

Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n ofMd., 535 U.S. 635 (2002) .......................................... 8, 9, 10, 12

Virginia Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563

U.S.___ (2011) ......................................................8, 9, 19, 22, 27

Wisconsin Dept. of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381

(1998)........................................................................................ 23

OTHERAUTHORITIES

Dodson, The Metes and Bounds of State Sovereign

Immunity, 29Hastings Const. Law Q. 721 (2002)............. 32

Fletcher,A Historical Interpretation of the Eleventh

Amendment, 35 Stan. L. Rev. 1033 (1983).......................... 19

Fruehwald, The Supreme Court's Confusing State

Sovereign Immunity Jurisprudence, 56 Drake L.

Rev. 253 (2007-08) .................................................................. 19

Gibbons, The Eleventh Amendment and State

Sovereign Immunity, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1889

(1983)........................................................................................ 19

Nguyen, Under Construction: Fairness, Waiver, and

Hypothetical Eleventh Amendment Jurisdiction,

93 Cal. L. Rev. 587 (2005)...................................................... 19

Vazquez, Treaty-Based Rights and Remedies of

Individuals, 92 Colum. L Rev 1082 (1992) ........................... 6



5/24


6/24

32. A second court-made exception for federalquestion appeals from state courts, relying on adistinction between suits entertained under theSupreme Court's original jurisdiction and its appellate

jurisdiction over appeals from state courts, also finds notextual basis in the Constitution. This remnant offederal question abrogation of immunity isinconsistent with over acentury of precedent, and restson fictional consent, while it directly violates the text ofthe 11th Amendment and lacks persuasive precedent inpoint. Part III.A.

The Tenth Amendment guards against insertion ofunstated exceptions in constitutional text in order toexpand the jurisdiction of this Court at the expense ofthe sovereign states, without support from eitherelected branch of the United States. Part III.B. TheSupreme Court is equally bound as are other federalcourts, Congress or the executive branch, to complywith the fundamental principles of EleventhAmendment immunity without creating, on the basis ofdiscarded policies, see Part IV, exceptions for itself inderogation of the Constitution.

4ARGUMENT

I. ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY HASUNDERGONE DOCTRINAL CHANGE THAT

PRECLUDES THE YOUNG FICTION FROMAPPLYING TO THIS SUIT

A. Eleventh Amendment immunity as chartedin Alden and Federal Maritime allows no

textually unsupported exception

Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) and FederalMaritimeComm'n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth.,535 U.S. 743 (2002) provided recent opportunity toexplore the wider contours of Eleventh Amendmentimmunity in light of the "fundamental structuralimportance" of Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890).Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1, 44 (1989)

(Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).These cases teach that the original immunity doctrine,prior to the Civil War Amendments,

recognized that the 11th Amendmentexemplifies a broader rule of immunityfrom suit, beyond the text itself, that

inheres in the "constitutional design;"

precluded any federal question basis forjurisdiction over private claims against anon-consenting state; and

foreclosed any source of jurisdiction for

private breach of state immunity whethercontained elsewhere in the Constitution orstatute.



7/24


8/24


9/24


10/24


11/24


12/24


13/24


14/24


15/24


16/24


17/24


18/24


19/24


20/24


21/24


22/24

37 38


23/24

37and are thus not in accord with the Constitution." 521U.S. 898. "When a 'La[w] ... violates the principle ofstate sovereignty ... it is ... in the words of TheFederalist, 'merely [an] ac[t] of usurpation' which

'deserve[s] to be treated as such. 527 U.S. 733(citation omitted). Court rulings are the same as laws.

In any contest between supremacy and statesovereignty, the Constitution has already chosen thewinner: for interpretation of federal law, EleventhAmendment immunity sacrifices some supremacy,

uniformity and convenience as lesser values than thedual sovereignty that prevents tyranny. That choicerequires honoring Montana's immunity from thisprivate suit.

CONCLUSION

Congress could have abrogated Montana'simmunity from this suit. Article II enforcement offederal law could be deployed against Montana in a suitby the United States. But this Court cannot, incontravention of the 11th Amendment, circumvent theseconstitutional means by which the elected branchesmay confer upon this Court jurisdiction over a non-

consenting state. Contrary fictions have lost doctrinalsupport. These fictions do not apply in this suit whichimplicates Montana's essential foundation for itssovereignty, as they did not apply to similar suits.

38Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT M.HAGERCounsel of record

808 Nevada StNorthfield MN [email protected](507) 645-8938


39


24/24

39APPENDIX:

11th Amendment :

The Judicial power of the United States shallnot be construed to extend to any suit in lawor equity, commenced or prosecuted againstone of the United States by Citizens ofanother State, or by Citizens or Subjects ofany Foreign State.


Documents

Errata Changes to Essential Brief