Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/370

 546US1

Unit: $U14

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

Cite as: 546 U. S. 151 (2006)

159

Opinion of the Court

forcement power includes the power to abrogate state sover­ eign immunity by authorizing private suits for damages against the States. See Fitzpatrick, supra, at 456. Thus, insofar as Title II creates a private cause of action for dam­ ages against the States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity. The Eleventh Circuit erred in dismiss­ ing those of Goodman’s Title II claims that were based on such unconstitutional conduct. From the many allegations in Goodman’s pro se complaint and his subsequent ﬁlings in the District Court, it is not clear precisely what conduct he intended to allege in support of his Title II claims. Because the Eleventh Circuit did not address the issue, it is likewise unclear to what extent the conduct underlying Goodman’s constitutional claims also vio­ lated Title II. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit ordered that the suit be remanded to the District Court to permit Good­ man to amend his complaint, but instructed him to revise his factual allegations to exclude his “frivolous” claims—some of which are quite far aﬁeld from actual constitutional viola­ tions (under either the Eighth Amendment or some other constitutional provision), or even from Title II violations. See, e. g., App. 50 (demanding a “steam table” for Goodman’s housing unit). It is therefore unclear whether Goodman’s amended complaint will assert Title II claims premised on conduct that does not independently violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Once Goodman’s complaint is amended, the lower courts will be best situated to determine in the ﬁrst instance, on a claim-by-claim basis, (1) which aspects of the State’s alleged conduct violated Title II; (2) to what extent such misconduct also violated the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) insofar as such misconduct violated Title II but did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether Congress’s purported abrogation of sovereign immunity as to that class of conduct is nevertheless valid.