Sossamon v. Texas
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Nov 2, 2010
|Apr 20, 2011||6-2||Thomas||OT 2010|
Disclosure: Goldstein, Howe & Russell represents the petitioner in this case.
Holding: When they accept federal funding, states do not consent to waive their sovereign immunity to private lawsuits for money damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. (Kagan, J., recused).
Plain English Holding: State prisons are not subject to suit for money damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on April 20, 2011. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent, joined by Justice Breyer. (Kagan, J., recused).
- Last Week at the Court: In Plain English
- Opinion recap: Higher legal wall shields states
- Last week's arguments in Plain English
- Argument recap: What is "appropriate"?
- Argument preview: Reach of Congress's powers
- A shift in the Court's IFP policy?
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner Harvey Leroy Sossamon III
- Brief for Respondents Texas, et al.
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Harvey Leroy Sossamon III
- Brief for Christian Legal Society and Prison Fellowship in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the United States in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the National Association of Evangelicals in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for American Civil Liberties Union; ACLU of Texas; Uptown People’s Law Center; Washington Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; Americans United for Separation of Church and State; American Jewish Committee; Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty; and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Charles E. Sisney in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Rutherford Institute in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the States of Florida, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in Support of Respondent
- Opinion below (5th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari (unavailable)
- Brief in opposition (unavailable)
- Petitioner’s reply (unavailable)
- Amicus brief of the Rutherford Institute (unavailable)
- Amicus brief of the National Association of Evangelicals (unavailable)
- Amicus brief of the United States
- Supplemental brief for petitioner
- Supplemental brief for respondents