Tennessee v. Lane

They rely specifically on the language used in the amendment that reads, "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."" U.S. Const. amend. XI. These above mentioned claims of the state were denied in both District Courts and by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. .
             This Court will hear and decide this case on the question of whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under section five of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity which is guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment.
             It may seem odd to many that the Supreme Court has yet to decide at this late date in our history whether Congress has the power to require states to provide access to people with disabilities and to pay damages if they fail to comply. (NCOD) Most Americans think that all was done right with the sweeping Civil Rights legislations of the 1960s; but that is no the case. For we are here today continuing at a snail's pace. It has been held by this Court in past decisions that states are not completely removed or free from private suit. The most recent example of the trend limiting Congress' power was the Garrett case. This landmark case decided by this Court in 2001 involving the usage of the 14th Amendment to override the 11th Amendment and succumb states to private suit, Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), will undoubtedly be used as the bench mark, or reference point for all other cases of similar merit that follow. State employees sued the state of Alabama for not complying with Title I of the ADA. Congress subjected a non-consenting Alabama to its 14th Amendment powers of enforcement through legislation only to be overturned by the Court.