## Facts

- College Savings Bank (CSB), a New Jersey bank, sold certificates of deposit intended to finance college costs.
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, a Florida state entity, operated a state-sponsored tuition prepayment program and marketed it beyond Florida.
- CSB alleged Florida Prepaid made false or misleading statements about its tuition plans in brochures and annual reports.
- CSB sued Florida Prepaid under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (false advertising).
- CSB and the United States (as intervenor) relied on the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act (TRCA), which purported to subject States to suit under § 43(a).

## Issues

1. Whether the TRCA validly abrogated state sovereign immunity to permit Lanham Act § 43(a) false-advertising suits against a State in federal court.
2. Whether a State waives sovereign immunity by engaging in interstate commercial activity regulated by the Lanham Act after Congress purported to subject States to suit.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction in a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Scalia.
- The Court held the TRCA did not validly abrogate Florida’s sovereign immunity for § 43(a) false-advertising claims.
- The Court held Florida did not waive immunity by marketing and administering its program in interstate commerce, even after enactment of the TRCA.
- The Court rejected “constructive waiver” theory and disapproved reliance on *Parden* to infer consent from participation in a regulated field.

## Legal Principles

- State sovereign immunity bars private suits against a State (or its arm) in federal court absent valid congressional abrogation or the State’s voluntary waiver.
- Waiver of sovereign immunity requires an unequivocal, clear declaration of the State’s intent to submit to suit; participation in commerce or a federally regulated activity is insufficient.
- After *Seminole Tribe*, Congress may not abrogate state sovereign immunity using Article I powers; abrogation is permitted only under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it is a valid enforcement measure.
- Under *City of Boerne*, § 5 legislation must be congruent and proportional to preventing or remedying identified constitutional violations; broad exposure of States to damages without a demonstrated pattern of unconstitutional state conduct fails this requirement.
- The Due Process Clause protects defined property interests; Congress cannot justify § 5 abrogation by treating freedom from a competitor’s false advertising as a general constitutional property right.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over CSB’s Lanham Act false-advertising claim because the TRCA neither validly abrogated Florida’s sovereign immunity under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment nor established a voluntary, unequivocal waiver through Florida’s participation in interstate marketing.


Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999)