Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/362

 546US1

Unit: $U14

[08-22-08 15:39:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

OCTOBER TERM, 2005

151

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. GEORGIA et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 04–1203. Argued November 9, 2005—Decided January 10, 2006* Goodman, petitioner in No. 04–1236, is a paraplegic who sued respondent state defendants and others, challenging the conditions of his conﬁne­ ment in a Georgia prison under, inter alia, 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. As relevant here, the Federal District Court dismissed the § 1983 claims because Goodman’s allegations were vague, and granted respondents summary judgment on the Title II money damages claims because they were barred by state sovereign immunity. The United States, petitioner in No. 04–1203, in­ tervened on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit afﬁrmed the District Court’s judgment as to the Title II claims, but reversed the § 1983 ruling, ﬁnding that Goodman had alleged facts sufﬁcient to support a limited number of Eighth Amendment claims against state agents and should be permit­ ted to amend his complaint. This Court granted certiorari to decide the validity of Title II’s abrogation of state sovereign immunity. Held: Insofar as Title II creates a private cause of action for damages against States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amend­ ment, Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity. Pp. 157–160. (a) Because this Court assumes that the Eleventh Circuit correctly held that Goodman had alleged actual Eighth Amendment violations for purposes of § 1983, and because respondents do not dispute Goodman’s claim that this same conduct violated Title II, Goodman’s Title II money damages claims were evidently based, at least in part, on conduct that independently violated § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one doubts that § 5 grants Congress the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s provisions by creating private remedies against the States for actual violations of those provisions. This includes the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity by authorizing private suits for damages against the States. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit erred in dismissing those of Goodman’s claims based on conduct that violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 157–159. rari to the same court.
 * Together with No. 04–1236, Goodman v. Georgia et al., also on certio­