Alden v. Maine

15 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. State of Minnesota Petitions for Certiorari in Regents of University of Minnesota v. LSI Corp.

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLPKevin NoonanSeptember 16, 2019

    The State also contends that the distinctions used by the Federal Circuit "do not withstand scrutiny," that the issue is sufficiently important to warrant review and this case is an "excellent" vehicle to do so.In many ways this is a quintessential Supreme Court case, having to do with State sovereignty as it existed before the states ratified the Constitution (Minnesota having done so much later than the Original States) and the extent to which and how that sovereignty survived formation of the Union. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999). Minnesota raises a policy issue at the beginning of its brief: the University is a land-grant university that "invest[s] billions of dollars in public funds into research that results in valuable patents, the revenues from which are reinvested in the States' research and educational programs" (thus implicating the State's sovereignty in supporting this research and pursuing patent protection in the public interest).

  2. Courts Eliminate Rights and Immunities of Governments in PTAB

    Morrison & Foerster LLPMehran ArjomandJuly 12, 2019

    35 U.S.C. § 6(a).Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999); see also U.S. Const. amend. XI.Fed.

  3. SCOTUS leaves dual-sovereignty doctrine intact

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJune 17, 2019

    (Slip op. 1-2).Between the majority opinion, a concurrence (Thomas), and two separate dissents (Ginsburg and Gorsuch), this is a long (88 page) decision. But it’s interesting reading, as the separate writings cover a lot of ground—the Double Jeopardy issue itself, of course; but also the tenet that the people are sovereign, though the Constitution “split the atom of sovereignty” between the states and the federal government, Alden v.Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 751 (1999); the oft-contested history of what the law looked like at the time of the founding; and the increasingly important question of when the Supreme Court should be bound by its own precedent. Here’s a quick summary.

  4. Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2019)

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLPJune 17, 2019

    This portion of the opinion ends with a detailed discussion of IPR procedures under the statute; after eighteen pages of a twenty-nine-page opinion, the Court finally gets to a discussion of State sovereign immunity.This portion begins with the greatest weakness of the Minnesota's (and its amici's) argument: neither ex parte not inter partes reexamination are barred by state sovereign immunity. The opinion correctly notes that while the Eleventh Amendment provides a measure of immunity against suit to the States, "the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment," citing Alden v.Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999), and Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996). More specifically, "'[t]he preeminent purpose of state sovereign immunity is to accord States the dignity that is consistent with their status as sovereign entities,' while collaterally 'serv[ing] the important function of shielding state treasuries,'" citing Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 760, 765 (2002) -- the case that has been at the center of arguments for all parties in this and the St. Regis litigations, albeit each party reading this precedent in their own favor.

  5. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Petitions Federal Circuit for En Banc Review of Panel Decision Voiding Sovereign Immunity in Inter Partes Review

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLPKevin E. NoonanAugust 22, 2018

    100(a), according to the brief. The Tribe further argues that "the panel misconstrued Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 756 (1999), in opining that the Director's discretion whether to institute an IPR is comparable to the Attorney General's control over whether, how, and when to sue a sovereign state and in controlling the prosecution of any such action." In addition to these general arguments, the Tribe sets forth its response to the "four factors" it contends the panel relied upon to support its decision that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted to avoid an IPR proceeding.

  6. Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ruling That Tribal Immunity Does Not Apply To IPRs

    Foley & Lardner LLPStephen B. MaebiusJuly 24, 2018

    Oil States, 138 S. Ct. at 1371… Therefore, if IPR proceeds on patents owned by a tribe, it is because a politically accountable, federal official has authorized the institution of that proceeding. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 756 (1999) (contrasting suits in which the United States ‘exercise[s] . . . political responsibility for each suit prosecuted” in order to fulfill its obligation under the Take Care Clause with “a broad delegation to private persons to sue nonconsenting States’).” “Second, the role of the parties in IPR suggests immunity does not apply in these proceedings.

  7. More Instances of Tribal Sovereign Immunity Shielding Patents from PTAB Invalidation

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLPNovember 3, 2017

    The rationale behind the immunity conferred by the Amendment is that the "States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact,"Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 (1991), and that "the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from nor is limited by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, . . . the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today,"Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999). However, the immunity is not absolute.

  8. Allergan Avails Itself of Sovereign Immunity

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLPKevin E. NoonanSeptember 26, 2017

    The rationale behind the immunity conferred by the Amendment is that the "States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact,"Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 (1991), and that "the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from nor is limited by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, . . . the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today,"Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999). However, the immunity is not absolute.

  9. Virginia Supreme Court Rules Sovereign Immunity Bars Private USERRA Claims Against State Employers in State Court

    Littler Mendelson, P.C.Linda JacksonDecember 13, 2016

    The court noted that the doctrine of state sovereign immunity is a “mainstay of federalism principles,” and that federalism presupposes that states “yield their sovereign power only in those aspects of governance exclusively assigned to the federal government by the United States Constitution.” The court cited Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715 (1999) for the proposition that “States retain a ‘residuary and inviolable sovereignty’ that precludes them from being ‘relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations’ of a consolidated national government.” In Alden, a group of probation officers filed suit in Maine state court alleging that their employer, the State of Maine, violated overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

  10. Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt: Questions of Reciprocal Sovereign Immunity – and the Continued Force of Nevada v. Hall, by Jeffrey W. Stempel (Part II)

    Hamilton and Griffin on RightsDecember 29, 2015

    The consistently quiet Justice Thomas said nothing at oral argument but has shown enthusiasm for sovereign immunity in the past and is likely to join the Hall critics.Commenting in a BloombergBNA U.S. Law Weekarticle, Professor Vladeck sees Justice Kennedy as the swing vote regarding the fate of Hall. But Justice Kennedy’s comments during oral argument suggest some skepticism about Hall, which could in turn make a 5-4 decision on Hall’s fate hinge on Justice Roberts.Alternatively, the Court might determine that Hall has been in place sufficiently long to warrant significant stare decisis deference, which could make the vote as high as 7-2 in favor of retaining Hall. My best (but perhaps over-optimistic) guess: Hall survives on a 6 (Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) to 3 (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) vote.The Court’s decisions in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) and Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), arguably reflect doctrinal shift in that Alden held that the national government did not have Article I constitutional power to require that state courts entertain a suit to enforce a federal cause of action (wage and hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act) while Seminole Tribe found no Article I congressional power to abrogate state sovereign immunity in federal court. But both cases are distinguishable as Article I or Eleventh Amendment cases rather than Full Faith and Credit Clause cases.