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
Petitioners argue that sovereign immunity should not bar enforcement of the consent decree.
The United States, as amicus, argues that enforcement does not violate the Eleventh Amendment because the objection was waived and enforcement is permissible under Ex Parte Young.
The State argues it is carrying out its promises.
Petitioners claim some of the arguments made are not tethered to the record in this case.
There has been no contested motion to modify filed in this case.
Texas’ Attorney General is authorized by the legislature to represent the State and its employees.
In an Ex Parte Young action, state officials may enter consent decrees that go beyond what is strictly required by Federal law.
The State has the right to move for modification of provisions under the Court’s decision in Rufo that are not related to any alleged violation of Federal law.
- [1] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 17
- [3] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 20
- [4] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 42
- [5] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 53
- [6] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 53
- [7] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 4
- [8] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 20
- [9] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 24
Background and question before the Court
Petitioners contend that sovereign immunity does not preclude enforcement of the consent decree.
The United States, as amicus, argues that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar enforcement because the objection was waived and Ex Parte Young permits it.
What each side argues
Petitioners
According to Petitioners, sovereign immunity should not bar enforcement of the consent decree.
According to Petitioners, some arguments made are not tethered to the record in this case.
State (Respondent)
According to State, the State is carrying out its promises.
What happened at oral argument
Justice asked, “May I ask on -- on the first point?”
According to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), justice asked, “I’m not worried about the officials.”
Justice Breyer asked, “Right?”
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked, “Would a change in administrations be a change of circumstances that – that justifies 60(b) being invoked?”
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked, “Is there then a way to deal with the problem that Justice Scalia raised, which is a serious problem I think?”
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked, “But it’s a known problem, and what’s your solution to it?”
- [1] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 20
- [3] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 37
- [4] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 54
- [5] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 54
- [6] 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdf, p. 54
What the Court decided
Why it matters
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.
- 9647aa10bf077bdb7c6c-r1-1da291b3f9a03d4a.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.