The result is a victory for Le Roy Torres, a veteran and former employee of the Texas Department of Public Safety. He told the agency he could no longer serve as a state soldier and was seeking a similar job to deal with his service-related disability. When he was denied a job, he filed a lawsuit under federal law, but lost in state courts. He appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court.
Judge Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion of the majority, along with the other Liberals, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts and Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Texas has argued that states are immune to such lawsuits under the Federal Employment and Re-Employment Rights Act, passed by Congress over martial law. The law was enacted to ensure that those who serve are not at a disadvantage when returning to the workforce with a service-related disability. Breyer said that “upon their entry into the Union,” the states “tacitly agreed that their sovereignty would be subordinated to the federal policy of building and maintaining a national army.” Stressing the power of Congress over military powers, he noted that “Congress has a broad and sweeping power to assemble and support armies.” Judge Clarence Thomas wrote a dispute with Judges Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Thomas said “history and the past” show that “when the states ratified the Constitution, they did not tacitly consent to private damages lawsuits filed in their own courts – whether authorized by congressional military powers or any other authority.” Article I. Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas Law School, said Wednesday’s ruling “may come as a bit of a surprise to those familiar with previous court rulings on state sovereignty immunity.” “For 25 years, judges have been skeptical about the power of Congress to pass redress lawsuits against states that have not consented to any of its Article I powers,” Vladeck said. “In 2006, the court recognized a limited exception to bankruptcy law; today, the court adds a second for martial law. It is easy to see why congressional martial law may be unique in allowing the federal government to circumvent states, but each The exception further casts doubt on the basic principle “. The case has resulted in a conflict between the congressional authority on national defense and a state’s ability to decide when to sue.
The decision could affect thousands of active and reserve members of the service nationally working for government agencies. The lower courts were divided over whether Congress had the power to approve such private lawsuits. The federal government has argued that a decision granting immunity to states in this area could damage the federal government’s ability to supplement military ranks and defend the nation.
Torres enlisted in the U.S. Reserve Army in 1989 and was deployed to Iraq in 2007. In Iraq, Torres said, he suffered severe lung damage after being exposed to toxic chemicals that were discarded in so-called burns. Prior to his development, Torres had been hired as a state soldier in the Texas Department of Public Safety. After being honorably fired in 2008, he sought re-employment at DPS in a different position due to lung disease. The department refused to offer him a different job, but allowed him to serve on a “temporary duty” in his old job. Torres resigned.
He later sued the DPS, arguing that its failure to provide him with a job to deal with his disability violated the 1994 Federal Employment and Recurrence of Rights Act. work – passed in Congress “. force to “raise and support Armies”.
In an oral hearing, Andrew T. Tutt, Torres’ lawyer, told the judges that “the Constitution gave Congress the power to mobilize and support armies, and the purpose of this grant was to ensure the survival of the nation.” He said law enforcement was “critical in the light of the modern military structure” and noted that in order to persuade soldiers to join the reserve forces, Congress promised “there will be no discrimination on the basis of military service or injuries associated with the service. ”
The Biden government has backed Torres in the case, arguing that the law “is particularly important today for the Guard and Reserve Forces, who serve the nation and work for employers” and are motivated to participate.
Assistant Attorney General Christopher G. Michel told the judges that while in most cases state employers have immunity from private action, “this sector is different” and that the protections of the law came from the plan of World War II and expanded after Vietnam.
“The Constitution was largely adopted to prevent states from undermining federal efforts to build an army,” Michel said. “Without an army, the federal government cannot defend itself.”
The United States has an army of 2 million people, 800,000 of whom are members of the National Guard and reservists, according to the government.
Texas Attorney General Jade E. Stone responded that the passage of the Private Law Act was unconstitutional because states are protected by the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity. He told judges there was no “evidence” that the founding generation “saw the power of exposing states to private litigation as inextricably linked to war or that states intended to sue without their consent, giving Congress the power to create an army.” ”
This story has been updated with additional details. CNN’s Chandelis Duster contributed to this report.