Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/369

 546US1

158

Unit: $U14

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

UNITED STATES v. GEORGIA Opinion of the Court

rights); Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U. S. 721, 752, 755 (2003) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (Ne­ vada provided family leave “on a gender-neutral basis”— “a practice which no one contends suffers from a constitu­ tional inﬁrmity”); Garrett, 531 U. S., at 362, 367–368 (failure to make the special accommodations requested by disabled respondents was not unconstitutional); Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 69–70, 83–84 (2000) (most petitioners raised nonconstitutional disparate-impact challenges to the State’s age-related policies); Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U. S. 627, 643– 644, and n. 9 (1999) (Florida satisﬁed due process by provid­ ing remedies for patent infringement by state actors); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 512 (1997) (church building permit denied under neutral law of general applicability). While the Members of this Court have disagreed regard­ ing the scope of Congress’s “prophylactic” enforcement pow­ ers under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, see, e. g., Lane, 541 U. S., at 513 (majority opinion of Stevens, J.); id., at 538 (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting); id., at 554 (Scalia, J., dissent­ ing), no one doubts that § 5 grants Congress the power to “enforce . . . the provisions” of the Amendment by creating private remedies against the States for actual violations of those provisions. “Section 5 authorizes Congress to create a cause of action through which the citizen may vindicate his Fourteenth Amendment rights.” Id., at 559–560 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citing the Ku Klux Klan Act of April 20, 1871, 17 Stat. 13); see also Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 456 (1976) (“In [§ 5] Congress is expressly granted authority to enforce. . . the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment” by providing actions for money damages against the States (emphasis added)); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (1880) (“The prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment are directed to the States. . . . It is these which Congress is empowered to enforce. . . ”). This en­