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 namePennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
Docket no.81-2101
Citations465 U.S. 89 (more)
104 S. Ct. 900; 79 L. Ed. 2d 67
ArgumentOral argument
ReargumentReargument
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityPowell, joined by Burger, White, Rehnquist, O'Connor
DissentStevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
DissentBrennan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XI; Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975

Background

Decision

Subsequent developments

Analysis and significance

Panel discussion, "The Disability Rights Movement: From Pennhurst Until Today", U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Washington, D.C., 27 June 2016. Left to right: James W. Conroy, principal investigator on the Pennhurst Longitudinal Study and Co-President of the Pennhurst Memorial and Preservation Alliance; Nancy Thaler, Deputy Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Human Services; Peter Berns, Chief Executive Officer, the Arc of the United States; Jean Searle, member of the Pennhurst class and Co-President of the Pennhurst Memorial and Preservation Alliance; Thomas Gilhool, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia and lead plaintiff's attorney in Penshurst v. Halderman; Janet Albert-Herman, a board member of the Arc of Pennsylvania and Treasurer of the Pennhurst Memorial and Preservation Alliance.

References

  1. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984).

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
Other sources


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.