## Facts

- Douglas James Scanlon, who had diabetes and was blind in one eye, applied for employment at Atascadero State Hospital, a California state entity.
- Scanlon alleged he was denied employment because of his physical handicap, in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
- He sued the hospital and the California Department of Mental Health in federal court seeking compensatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief.
- The federal district court dismissed the action as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
- The Ninth Circuit ultimately reversed, concluding that California’s receipt of federal Rehabilitation Act funds amounted to implied consent to suit in federal court.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether California waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court through Article III, § 5 of the California Constitution.
2. Whether Congress abrogated state Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 504 and § 505 of the Rehabilitation Act.
3. Whether a State consents to suit in federal court for § 504 violations by accepting federal funds under the Rehabilitation Act.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held the action barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
- California’s constitutional provision authorizing suits against the State “in such manner and in such courts as shall be directed by law” did not clearly express consent to be sued in federal court.
- The Rehabilitation Act did not abrogate state immunity because it lacked an unmistakably clear statement in the statutory text subjecting States to private suits in federal court.
- California’s acceptance of federal funds and participation in programs funded under the Act did not, without clear conditions, establish consent to federal-court suit.

## Legal Principles

- A State waives Eleventh Amendment immunity only by the most express language or by overwhelming implication leaving no other reasonable construction; general authorization to sue the State is insufficient to show consent to suit in federal court.
- Congress may abrogate States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity only when its intention is unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.
- Statutory references to broad categories of covered “recipients” of federal funds and incorporation of Title VI remedies do not, without explicit reference to States and federal-court suits, satisfy the clear-statement requirement for abrogation.
- Acceptance of federal funds does not constitute waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity unless the condition of consenting to federal-court suit is stated clearly and unambiguously.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a private suit against California entities under § 504 was barred by the Eleventh Amendment because neither state law, nor the Rehabilitation Act’s text, nor the State’s acceptance of federal funds clearly established waiver or congressional abrogation of immunity from suit in federal court.


Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985)