Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from ordering state officials to obey state law.[1]
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman | |
---|---|
Argued February 22, 1983 Reargued October 3, 1983 Decided January 23, 1984 | |
Full case name | Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman |
Docket no. | 81-2101 |
Citations | 465 U.S. 89 (more) 104 S. Ct. 900; 79 L. Ed. 2d 67 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Reargument | Reargument |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, White, Rehnquist, O'Connor |
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun |
Dissent | Brennan |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XI; Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975 |
Background
Decision
Subsequent developments
Analysis and significance
Bibliography
- Court documents
- Law journal analyses
- Boyd, Penelope A. (1981). "The Aftermath of the DD Act: Is there Life after Pennhurst?". University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Journal. University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Bowen School of Law. 4 (3): 448–466.
- Brant, Jonathan (1983). "Pennhurst, Romeo, and Rogers: The Burger Court and Mental Health Law Reform Litigation". The Journal of Legal Medicine. 4 (3): 323–348. doi:10.1080/01947648309513387.
- Brant, Jonathan (1983). "The Hostility of the Burger Court to Mental Health Law Reform Litigation". Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 11 (1): 77–90.
- Chemerinsky, Erwin (Summer 1985). "State Sovereignty and Federal Court Power: The Eleventh Amendment after Pennhurst v. Halderman" (PDF). Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. University of California, Hastings College of the Law. 12 (4): 643–668. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-10-16. Retrieved 2016-06-22.
- Ferleger, David; Boyd, Penelope A. (April 1979). "Anti-Institutionalization: The Promise of the Pennhurst Case". Stanford Law Review. Stanford Law School. 31 (4): 717–752. doi:10.2307/1228423. JSTOR 1228423.
- Ferleger, David; Scott, Patrice Maguire (1983). "Rights and Dignity: Congress, the Supreme Court, and People with Disabilities after Pennhurst". Western New England Law Review. Western New England University School of Law. 5 (3): 327–361.
- Smith, Peter J. (May 2001). "Penshurst, Chevron, and the Spending Power". Yale Law Journal. The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. 110 (7): 1, 187–1, 245.
- Journalism
- "Pennsylvania Settles Key Suit on Facilities for the Retarded". New York Times. 15 July 1984. Retrieved 1 November 2016.
- Levey, Noam N. (25 February 2015). "The Conservative Ruling that Might Save Obamacare". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Cal. Retrieved 20 June 2016.
- McIntyre, Adrianna (3 March 2015). "Understanding 'Pennhurst': The Legal Doctrine that Could Save Obamacare". VOX. Retrieved 20 June 2016.
- Other sources
- Conroy, James W.; Bradley, Valerie (1 March 1985). The Pennhurst Longitudinal Study: A Report of Five Years Research and Analysis (Report). Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University Developmental Disabilities Center. Retrieved 1 November 2016.
External links
- Text of Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) is available from: CourtListener Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Suffer The Little Children, a 1968 exposé on Pennhurst State School by NBC10 reporter Bill Baldini.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.