This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Nevada Department of Human Resources (Petitioners), according to Nevada Department of Human Resources (Petitioners), petitioners argue that Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity when it enacted the Family Medical Leave Act’s family‑leave provision, because the FMLA is ordinary economic legislation, not antidiscrimination legislation, there was no discernible pattern of unconstitutional state behavior, and the 12‑week mandate is not a proportional response.
According to Nevada Department of Human Resources (Petitioners), according to Nevada Department of Human Resources (Petitioners), petitioners also contend that Congress was concerned the FMLA might be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause and therefore framed the law as promoting equal employment opportunity.
The Court notes that thirty states already had their own family‑leave statutes.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Scalia asked whether the states’ dispensing of leave was based on sex.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia further questioned whether the 1987 bill, unlike the 1993 enactment, addressed the Equal Protection Clause.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Nevada Department of Human Resources (Petitioners), according to Nevada Department of Human Resources (Petitioners), petitioners argue that Congress did not validly abrogate State immunity when it adopted the Family Medical Leave Act's family leave provision, because the FMLA is ordinary economic legislation, not antidiscrimination legislation, there was no discernible pattern of unconstitutional state behavior, and the 12‑week mandate is not a proportional response.
According to Nevada Department of Human Resources (Petitioners), according to Nevada Department of Human Resources (Petitioners), petitioners also contend that Congress was concerned the FMLA might be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause and therefore framed the law as promoting equal employment opportunity.
Respondent Position
According to Mr. Taggart, respondent argues that states are presumed to act constitutionally and there is no pattern justifying a mandatory 12‑week leave imposed by abrogating state immunity.
According to United States, respondent emphasizes that the FMLA is part of a broader statutory scheme aimed at eliminating sex‑based employment discrimination for both men and women.
What happened at oral argument
Viet D. Dinh presented oral argument on behalf of the respondent United States.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia raised questions about whether state leave dispensing was sex‑based and about the Equal Protection implications of the legislation.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Nevada Department of Human Resources (Petitioners), petitioners argue that Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity when it enacted the Family Medical Leave Act's family‑leave provision.
The Court notes that thirty states already had their own family‑leave statutes.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- d7ee85b18e21440972ad-r1-214078b5dad1021e.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.