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 Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (Petitioner), according to Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (Petitioner), the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (VOPA) seeks to enforce its federal statutory right to inspect and copy records held by state‑operated hospitals.
According to Justice Alito, justices raised questions about whether the federal government can condition receipt of federal funds on a state's agreement to alter its governmental structure, implicating the Spending Clause.
According to Justice Kennedy, justices also questioned whether the Ex parte Young doctrine would allow a state attorney general to sue its own governor for non‑compliance with federal law.
Background and question before the Court
According to Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (Petitioner), according to Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (Petitioner), the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (VOPA) seeks to enforce its federal statutory right to inspect and copy records held by state‑operated hospitals.
The Court asked whether the federal government may condition the receipt of federal funds on a state's creation of an agency that administers a federal program, raising issues under the Spending Clause and Ex parte Young.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy)
According to Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (Petitioner), according to Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (Petitioner), vOPA seeks to enforce its federal statutory right to inspect and copy records held by state‑operated hospitals.
Respondent (James W. Stewart, III Commissioner, Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services)
According to Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., according to Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., respondent counsel argued that the dignity interest of a sovereign is impaired when it is sued in another sovereign's courts without its consent.
According to Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., according to Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., respondent counsel contended that conditioning federal funds on a state's creation of an agency creates a cheap waiver of sovereign interests and undermines established doctrine.
What happened at oral argument
According to Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (Petitioner), according to Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (Petitioner), petitioner argued that it has a federal statutory right to inspect and copy records held by state‑operated hospitals.
According to Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., according to Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., respondent counsel argued that the dignity interest of a sovereign is impaired when it is sued in another sovereign's courts without its consent.
According to Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., according to Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., respondent counsel contended that conditioning federal funds on a state's creation of an agency creates a cheap waiver of sovereign interests and undermines established doctrine.
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.
- 38e72bc2134d99fbb86e-r1-4fba5e9f02c74abc.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.