Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

Well if that is true, and I think it is, the state's promise to treat their grant applications in the future equally with all others is all they can get (admittedly they'd rather have an injunction) but that seems a slender reed. Best, Eric Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2017, at 5:22 PM,

RE: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

Doh! Not sure why I forgot about Edelman; maybe because the focus there was on the line between prospective and retrospective relief. But that is the fundamental modern Eleventh Amendment case, and it squarely holds that § 1983 does not override sovereign immunity. Somewhat conclusory, but

RE: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

I can't refrain from asking the snarky question as to whether anyone believes that the decision of the Supreme Court to decide or to dump the case will represent a "principled" elaboration of mootness doctrine, as against 1) a desire by Gorsuch and the other four to announce their solicitude

Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

I don't think there was a claim for damages (and it would be barred by 11th Amendment anyway) so I agree with Marty that the plaintiff has received all the relief it sought. The State is saying that from now on, the church's requests for funding under the program will be treated like all other

RE: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

Because the Court held that neither a state, nor a state official in his official capacity, is a "person" within the meaning of § 1983. It is a slightly round about way of saying that § 1983 does not override sovereign immunity. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police. Douglas Laycock Robert E.

Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

Section 1983 is not abrogation of 11th Amendment Immunityas crazy as that is. Best, Eric Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Ashutosh A Bhagwat > wrote: I may be completely wrong here, but if this is a section 1983 case

RE: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

That Will arose in state court is probably why the Court wrote it in terms of who is a person. They had not yet held that the Eleventh Amendment applies in state court (that’s Alden v Maine, in 1997 I think). So they said that § 1983 doesn’t create a cause of action. The metastasizing of

Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

I am once again reminded why I refuse to teach the 11th Amendment :-). But of course you are all correct, I had forgotten about that line of cases. Ash Ash Bhagwat Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Law UC Davis School of Law (530) 752-8687 Find my papers at:

Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

Doug, is the complaint seeking money as damages for wrongful denial? That seems to run into the 11th. I assumed plaintiffs can only ask for prospective relief in this case. Best, Eric Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)

Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

I may be completely wrong here, but if this is a section 1983 case enforcing the Religion Clauses as incorporated through the 14th Amendment, does that trump 11th Amendment immunity? What am I missing? Ash Bhagwat Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Law UC Davis School of Law (530) 752-8687

Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

Answer: Probably, but it may depend upon some still-uncertain facts: https://balkin.blogspot.com/2017/04/is-trinity-lutheran-church-case-moot.html ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get

RE: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

I haven’t looked at the complaint, but that has to be right. Damages for delay could not be recovered from the state, or from any state official in his official capacity, because of sovereign immunity. And they could not be recovered from any state official in his personal capacity, because of

RE: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

Giving the church the tires or the money would moot the case. But so far, they have only announced a policy change, and that does not moot the case—especially where, as here, the other side has a plausible claim and could immediately sue the state officials to prevent them from granting the

Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

There's also language in other cases involving federal jurisdiction that Congress didn't intend 1983 to abrogate immunity. Will is only a state court case. Best, Eric Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c) >

Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

See, e.g., Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340-41 (1979): "Mr. Justice BRENNAN in his opinion concurring in the judgment argues that our holding in *Edelman* that § 1983 does not abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity is 'most likely incorrect.' To reach this conclusion he relies on

Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

I would just say Sandy, that when it comes to standing, ripeness and mootness, the only way the Court could act in a principled manner would be to shelve all prior cases and start over. e Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2017, at 6:45 PM, Levinson, Sanford V

Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

But Doug, the relied requested was simply the ability to compete for the grant without the church disqualification -- and they've now received precisely that. It's also not simply a policy change -- it is, presumably, a conclusion that they are *legally required *not to exclude the church. Yes,

RE: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

Have they given the dollars? Or just said they will? The voluntary cessation doctrine is all about the just-said-they-will cases. They might change their mind, and here there would seem to be a very live threat that they will change their mind because they might be forced to. Maybe there are

RE: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

But the whole point of the voluntary cessation doctrine is that a promise to comply in the future is not enough. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 From: