## Facts

- Denise Chávez, an author, had a publishing relationship with Arte Público Press, affiliated with the University of Houston, a state university.
- Chávez alleged the university and its press continued publishing her book without consent, infringing her copyright.
- Chávez also alleged a Lanham Act violation based on the university naming her, without permission, as the selector of plays in a different publication.
- The University of Houston asserted Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity as an arm of the State of Texas.
- After intervening Supreme Court decisions narrowed permissible abrogation and rejected constructive waiver theories, the Fifth Circuit reconsidered whether federal statutes validly subjected the state entity to suit.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity in the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, permitting federal copyright suits against a nonconsenting state entity.
2. Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity in the Lanham Act, including 15 U.S.C. § 1122, permitting federal Lanham Act suits against a nonconsenting state entity.
3. Whether a state entity can be treated as having waived Eleventh Amendment immunity by participating in federally regulated commercial activity.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held the University of Houston was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from the federal copyright and Lanham Act claims.
- The court ruled Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity through the CRCA.
- The court ruled Congress likewise did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity through the Lanham Act provisions invoked against the state entity.
- The court rejected any theory of implied or constructive waiver based on the state entity’s participation in federally regulated activity.
- The claims against the University of Houston were dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Abrogation of state sovereign immunity requires (1) a clear statement of congressional intent to subject states to suit and (2) valid constitutional authority; after modern doctrine, Article I powers do not supply that authority.
- When Congress relies on § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the legislation must be congruent and proportional to preventing or remedying actual constitutional violations by states.
- A broad remedy that reaches all statutory violations by states—without targeting conduct amounting to a Fourteenth Amendment violation and without adequate support in the legislative record—fails the congruence-and-proportionality test.
- Congress must identify a meaningful pattern of unconstitutional deprivations by states and consider the role and adequacy of state-law remedies when framing § 5 enforcement legislation.
- A state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by engaging in activity subject to federal regulation; waiver must be unequivocally expressed.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit concluded that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the copyright and Lanham Act claims against the University of Houston because Congress’s attempted abrogations in the CRCA and the Lanham Act were not valid exercises of § 5 power, and the state entity had not expressly consented to suit.


Chavez v. Arte Pub. Press, 204 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2000)