- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Messages
- 26,379
The states of Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah filed a motion with the North Carolina Supreme Court for 'leave to file amicus brief in support of defendant-appellant Board of Trustees of Florida State University'. This involves Florida State's appeal in the North Carolina Supreme Court regarding their ongoing case filed by the Atlantic Coast Conference against the FSU BOT in that state. An order and opinion was issued in that original case on May 10th, which resulted in an appeal process that has been underway since May 17th with the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The filing says those aforementioned states would seek leave to file an amicus brief in the ongoing appeal by the FSU BOT with regards to their legal situation with the Atlantic Coast Conference in the state of North Carolina. It also states that the plaintiff-appellee (ACC) takes no position with respect to this motion.
In the portion about the 'nature of amici's interest': 'Each of the fifty states enjoys immunity under the U.S. Constitution from lawsuits to which they have not consented. Embracing a long history of sovereign immunity, the Constitution requires a state's consent before a federal court or another state's court can exercise jurisdiction over that state. The States have an interest in preserving the rights secured to them and their constituent institutions by the U.S. Constitution, including the immunity of their public universities from suit in other states' courts without the States' clear and unequivocal consent'.
Under the heading of 'reasons the brief would be beneficial': 'The States agree with the Board of Trustees of Florida State University that the Superior Court's order should be reversed. But the States' interest and insight go beyond the specific facts of this case to the countless other circumstances in which states may find themselves haled into each other's courts'. That portion continues by stating that the 'Superior Court's order contravenes protections inherent in the federal constitutional scheme by subjugating one sovereign state to another. Taken at face value, the rule put forward therein could be the blueprint for a wholesale bypass of state sovereign immunity protections. The States' brief therefore will assist this Court in resolving this case in a manner that not only corrects the error in this case but that also realizes the promise of the federal Constitution that each of the states are equal sovereigns.'
This is the following question, the issue of law to be addresses, if the State's are permitted to participate as amici: "Did the State of Florida, through only the Board of Trustees of Florida Stat University's relationship with a North Carolina unincorporated nonprofit association, in light of a North Carolina (not Florida) statute that did not exist at the onset of that relationship, waive its sovereign immunity from suit in North Carolina's court?'
They added that a state cannot be deemed to waive its sovereign immunity from suit 'except through an express and unequivocal statement of intent by that state'. That does not exist in this case. Just because FSU (and others) conduct business in a foreign state (such as North Carolina), even if subjected to 'sue-and-be-sued clause contained in the foreign state's law, does not amount to express and unequivocal intent to waive sovereign immunity'. It goes on to state that a state does not waive its sovereign immunity by remaining a member of an unincorporated nonprofit association under North Carolina's less specific enactment of the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Associations Act.
The document concludes with this line: 'For the above reasons, the States respectfully request that the Court allows this motion and accept their amicus brief'.
The item is signed by the Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, with a notation regarding counsel for Amici Curiae States of all mentioned above. Multiple attorney's were involved in the drafting of the document, which was submitted on Thursday, November 21st.
This originally appeared on Noles 247 site
The filing says those aforementioned states would seek leave to file an amicus brief in the ongoing appeal by the FSU BOT with regards to their legal situation with the Atlantic Coast Conference in the state of North Carolina. It also states that the plaintiff-appellee (ACC) takes no position with respect to this motion.
In the portion about the 'nature of amici's interest': 'Each of the fifty states enjoys immunity under the U.S. Constitution from lawsuits to which they have not consented. Embracing a long history of sovereign immunity, the Constitution requires a state's consent before a federal court or another state's court can exercise jurisdiction over that state. The States have an interest in preserving the rights secured to them and their constituent institutions by the U.S. Constitution, including the immunity of their public universities from suit in other states' courts without the States' clear and unequivocal consent'.
Under the heading of 'reasons the brief would be beneficial': 'The States agree with the Board of Trustees of Florida State University that the Superior Court's order should be reversed. But the States' interest and insight go beyond the specific facts of this case to the countless other circumstances in which states may find themselves haled into each other's courts'. That portion continues by stating that the 'Superior Court's order contravenes protections inherent in the federal constitutional scheme by subjugating one sovereign state to another. Taken at face value, the rule put forward therein could be the blueprint for a wholesale bypass of state sovereign immunity protections. The States' brief therefore will assist this Court in resolving this case in a manner that not only corrects the error in this case but that also realizes the promise of the federal Constitution that each of the states are equal sovereigns.'
This is the following question, the issue of law to be addresses, if the State's are permitted to participate as amici: "Did the State of Florida, through only the Board of Trustees of Florida Stat University's relationship with a North Carolina unincorporated nonprofit association, in light of a North Carolina (not Florida) statute that did not exist at the onset of that relationship, waive its sovereign immunity from suit in North Carolina's court?'
They added that a state cannot be deemed to waive its sovereign immunity from suit 'except through an express and unequivocal statement of intent by that state'. That does not exist in this case. Just because FSU (and others) conduct business in a foreign state (such as North Carolina), even if subjected to 'sue-and-be-sued clause contained in the foreign state's law, does not amount to express and unequivocal intent to waive sovereign immunity'. It goes on to state that a state does not waive its sovereign immunity by remaining a member of an unincorporated nonprofit association under North Carolina's less specific enactment of the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Associations Act.
The document concludes with this line: 'For the above reasons, the States respectfully request that the Court allows this motion and accept their amicus brief'.
The item is signed by the Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, with a notation regarding counsel for Amici Curiae States of all mentioned above. Multiple attorney's were involved in the drafting of the document, which was submitted on Thursday, November 21st.
This originally appeared on Noles 247 site
