You're Going to Hate This Answer

About this Episode

Steve Vladeck joins us to dive further into federal courts and federal rights. After getting Steve’s take on our discussion concerning federal courts of appeals and gay marriage last week with Michael Dorf, we discuss the issues raised by what Steve thinks could be a major new case in the Supreme Court this term: Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center. How and when can you enforce a federal statute or the Constitution against state officials? Simple question, right?

This show’s links:

• Steve Vladeck’s profile, his writing, his info and posts on the Just Security blog, and his Twitter feed
• Oral Argument 34: There’s Not Really a Best Font with Matthew Butterick and Oral Argument 11: Big Red Diesel (when Butterick’s Practical Typography was first brought up on the show)
• Oral Argument 37: Hammer Blow, in which Michael Dorf delivered many lessons in the relationship between state courts and lower federal courts, an issue critical for the current state of gay marriage in the United States
• Danforth v. Minnesota (deciding that states, as a matter of state law, may apply retroactively new constitutional rules announced by the Supreme Court, even if federal law does not require retroactive application)
• Bush v. Gore (Rehnquist’s concurring opinion arguing that state courts may not interfere, even through state constitutional judgments, with certain legislatively enacted election laws that interact in advantageous ways with federal law)
• VOPA v. Stewart
• Stephen Vladeck, Douglas and the Fate of Ex Parte Young
• Douglas v. Independent Living Center
• The Eleventh Amendment: “The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”
• Ex part Young (And note in dissent we find Justice Harlan, the heroic dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson, sounding the federalist alarm: Allowing private suits in federal courts against state officers for their official actions “would inaugurate a new era in the American judicial system and in the relations of the National and state governments. It would enable the subordinate Federal courts to supervise and control the official action of the States as if they were "dependencies" or provinces.”)
• The cases Steve cites as leading up to Ex parte Young: Hans v. Louisiana (interpreting the Eleventh Amendment to bar suits arising under federal law against a state not only by citizens of “another state” but also by its own citizens) and Lochner v. New York
• Adar v. Smith (the Fifth Circuit case to which Steve referred that permitted Louisiana to refuse to add a gay adoptive parent’s name to a birth certificate)
• Alexander v. Sandoval (marking the end of inferring private causes of action in federal statutes)
• Gonzaga University v. Doe
• Lyle Deniston, Opinion Analysis: A Right to Sue Under Medicaid – Maybe
• Pennsylvania Pharmacists Association v. Houstoun (in which then-Judge Alito notes that while providers may not sue under the Medicaid access requirements “Medicaid recipients plainly satisfy the intended-to-benefit requirement and are thus potential private plaintiffs” under section 1983)
• SCOTUSblog page for Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, which will be updated with briefs, arguments, and, ultimately, the Court’s decision
• Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
• Steve’s amicus brief in Douglas
• Jonathan Freiman, to whom both Steve and Christian trace experience with detainee cases