Citation network
Sossamon Vs. Texas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 22, 2011
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2010 Sossamon V. TexasSearch
-
of the Fourteenth Amendment, see City of Boerne v. FloresSearch
-
an important constitutional limitation on the power of the federal courts. See Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
U. S. 44 , 54. A State, however, may choose to waive its immunity. Clark v. BarnardSearch
-
College Savings Bank v. FloridaSearch
-
in Franklin v. GwinnettSearch
-
County Public Schools , 503 U. S. 60 , and Barnes v. GormanSearch
-
in which Breyer, J., joined. Kagan, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Sossamon v. TexasSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Sossamon V. TexasSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-1438 Harvey Leroy Sossamon, III, Petitioner V. TexasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. SmithSearch
-
restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
U. S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. YoderSearch
-
b)(1). See generally Gonzales v. O CentroSearch
-
but RLUIPA is less sweeping in scope. See Cutter v. WilkinsonSearch
-
s history, the people responded swiftly to reiterate that fundamental principle. See Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 11 (1890) (discussing Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
n. 7 (collecting cases). A State, however, may choose to waive its immunity in federal court at its pleasure. Clark v. BarnardSearch
-
see Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
cf. United States v. NordicSearch
-
Hoffman v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Indeed, both the Court and dissent appeared to agree in West v. GibsonSearch
-
including one preserving immunity, we will not consider a State to have waived its sovereign immunity. See Dellmuth v. MuthSearch
-
County Public Schools , 503 U. S. 60 (1992), and Barnes v. GormanSearch
-
Lynch v. UnitedSearch
-
has specifically considered state sovereign immunity and has intentionally legislated on the matter. Cf. Spector v. NorwegianSearch
-
Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Servs. v. GuardianshipSearch
-
scheduled worship services in the chapel subject to certain safety precautions. Footnote 3 Compare Madison v. VirginiaSearch
-
Cardinal v. MetrishSearch
-
Nelson v. MillerSearch
-
Van Wyhe v. ReischSearch
-
and Holley v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Dept. of Corrections , 599 F. 3d 1108, 1112 (CA9 2010), with Smith v. AllenSearch
-
F. 3d 1255, 1276, n. 12 (CA11 2007) (citing Benning v. GeorgiaSearch
-
applies to the sovereign immunity of the States as well. Cf. United States v. NordicSearch
-
Belknap v. SchildSearch
-
cf. Webman v. FederalSearch
-
under RLUIPA. See, e.g. , Tinsley v. PittariSearch
-
Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats Inc. v. NewSearch
-
rule that waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed and strictly construed. Sossamon v. TexasSearch
-
Sotomayor, J., Dissenting Sossamon V. TexasSearch
-
See Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Clark v. BarnardSearch
-
Franklin v. GwinnettSearch
-
and Barnes v. GormanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial