| Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 13, 1999 Decided January 11, 2000 | |
| Full case name | J. Daniel Kimel, Jr. et al. v. Florida Board of Regents et al. |
| Citations | 528 U.S. 62 (more) 120 S. Ct. 631, 81 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 970, 187 A.L.R. Fed. 543, 76 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 46,190, 145 L. Ed. 2d 522, 68 U.S.L.W. 4016, 140 Ed. Law Rep. 825, 23 Employee Benefits Cas. 2945, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 229, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 293, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 190, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 25 |
| Holding | |
| The U.S. Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution do not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment over complaints of discrimination that is rationally based on age. Therefore, private litigants cannot obtain money damages from the states for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas (Parts I, II, and IV); Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (Part III) |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concur/dissent | Thomas, joined by Kennedy |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. XI, XIV | |
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), was a US Supreme Court case that determined that the US Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment over complaints of discrimination that is rationally based on age.