College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.[1]
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board | |
---|---|
Argued April 20, 1999 Decided June 23, 1999 | |
Full case name | College Savings Bank, Petitioner, v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board |
Citations | 527 U.S. 666 (more) 119 S. Ct. 2219; 144 L. Ed. 2d 605; 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1065 |
Case history | |
Prior | 948 F. Supp. 400 (D.N.J. 1996), aff'd, 131 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. granted, 525 U.S. 1063 (1999). |
Holding | |
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act did not abrogate state sovereign immunity for the purposes of this case, the state did not expressly waive sovereign immunity, and the doctrine of constructive waiver is no longer good law. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas |
Dissent | Stevens |
Dissent | Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg |
Laws applied | |
Lanham Act; Trademark Remedy Clarification Act | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
Parden v. Terminal R.R. Co. of Ala. Docks Dep't, 377 U.S. 184 (1964) |
A companion case to the similarly named (but not to be confused) Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank,[2] the court held – in a decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia – that sovereign immunity precluded a private action brought under the Lanham Act. For such an action to be sustained, the Court explained, the state must either consent to the suit, or have had its sovereign immunity waived by Congress: