Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank
ArgueDate=April 20
ArgueYear=1999
DecideDate=June 23
DecideYear=1999
FullName=Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and United States
USVol=527
USPage=627
Citation=119 S.Ct. 2199; 144 L.Ed.2d 575; 67 USLW 3683; 67 USLW 4580; 135 Ed. Law Rep. 342; 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1081; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4945; 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6371; 1999 CJ C.A.R. 3688; 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 458
Prior=148 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
Subsequent=
Holding=The Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act did not constitutionally abrogate the states' sovereign immunity.
SCOTUS=1994-2005
Majority=Rehnquist
JoinMajority=O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Dissent=Stevens
JoinDissent=Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
LawsApplied=Patent Clause, Commerce Clause, U.S. Const. amend. XI, U.S. Const. amend. XIV

"Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank", 527 U.S. 627 (1999), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

"Florida Prepaid" was a companion case to the similarly named (but not to be confused) "College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board", 527 U.S. 666 (1999). Where "College Savings Bank" was an action brought under the Lanham Act, "Florida Prepaid" was a concurrent action brought the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act. Also, while it was unnecessary in "College Savings Bank" to reach the question of whether Congress had validly abrogated Florida's sovereign immunity, in "Florida Prepaid", that question was unavoidable, and the court held – in a decision authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist – that the Act's abrogation of States' sovereign immunity was invalid. Congress could only abrogate sovereign immunity pursuant to its § 5 powers, not its Article I powers (see "Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer"; "Seminole Tribe v. Florida"), and the Act could not be sustained as legislation validly enacted pursuant to § 5 under the test set forth in "City of Boerne v. Flores".

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 527