A minor emendation to Jack Balkin's post, which says, "We may assume that after Hibbs . . . that the PDA is constitutional as applied to state employers." I would have thought that, pending the overruling of Garcia, the PDA was plainly constitutional in imposing an obligation on state employers as an exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, that is, employment. (And that, pending the modification of Ex parte Young, that obligation was even before Hibbs enforceable through a prospective injunction -- not that, in the case of family leave, injunctive relief is likely to be all that helpful in individual cases.)
begin:vcard n:Tushnet;Mark tel;fax:202-662-9497 tel;work:202-662-9106 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Georgetown University Law Center adr:;;600 New Jersey Ave. NW;Washington;DC;20001; version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] end:vcard
