October Term 2010 · Docket 08-1438

Does the phrase appropriate relief allow private damages suits against states?

The dispute centers on whether federal law permits individuals to sue states for money damages.

Official caption
Sossamon v. Texas
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Ho argued the phrase appropriate relief is ambiguous. He stated this ambiguity should end the legal inquiry.

    Justice Scalia questioned the clarity of the statute. He noted states need clear notice of their liability.

    Justice Ginsburg asked about the prison setting. She questioned whether damages are practically available in that context.

    Justice Sotomayor asked if the statute includes punitive damages. She sought clarification on the type of relief available.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of a federal statute. The phrase appropriate relief creates ambiguity. Courts must decide if this wording waives state sovereign immunity. The outcome defines the boundary of state liability under federal law.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 2, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The plaintiff side wants a broad reading of the statute. They seek to allow private damages suits against states.

The state side wants a narrow reading of the statute. They seek to preserve sovereign immunity from damages.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The plaintiff argues the phrase appropriate relief is ambiguous. They contend this ambiguity ends the inquiry into state liability.

The state argues the statute lacks clear waiver language. They contend states must know their liability before joining the scheme.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if damages are impossible in prison settings. She questioned the practical relevance of the legal theory.

Justice Scalia asked if the statute clearly defines state liability. He noted the word appropriate relief lacks clarity compared to other cases.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the financial exposure of state governments. It determines whether federal statutes can waive sovereign immunity. The ruling sets a precedent for all future state liability claims.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON