Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht

Background

A prison guard sued the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and several prison employees in state court after he was fired. He alleged federal constitutional and federal civil-rights claims against the agency and the employees in their official and personal roles. The defendants removed the lawsuit to federal court. In federal court, the State argued that claims against it were barred by the Eleventh Amendment (state sovereign immunity); the court dismissed those claims and granted judgment for the individual defendants on the remaining claims. The appeals court then questioned whether removal was proper.

Reasoning

The central question was whether defendants can move a case to federal court when some federal-law claims target a State and may be immune. The Court said yes. It explained that the removal law looks to whether the case “arises under” federal law at the time the case was filed in state court. A claim that the Eleventh Amendment bars does not automatically destroy removal jurisdiction. The federal court must refuse to hear barred claims, but it may keep and decide all other properly federal claims.

Real world impact

This ruling means defendants in federal-question suits can generally move such cases to federal court even if the State is also named and some claims against the State are immune. Plaintiffs should expect federal courts to dismiss only the barred claims rather than send the whole case back to state court. The Court did not decide whether a State’s voluntary consent to removal waives immunity.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy wrote a concurrence noting the Court did not decide whether a State’s express consent to removal could itself waive Eleventh Amendment immunity and urged that issue be addressed in a future case.