Ward v. Clark

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the Eleventh Amendment poses no bar to this lawsuit.

The critical inquiry in this case is whether the Fitzpatrick subclass1 children have alleged a continuing violation of federal law by the Commissioner so that they are entitled to prospective relief as contemplated by Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). Characterization of the subclass’s claim as one for retroactive money damages — -as the majority does — has some superficial appeal; the subclass is, after all, seeking correction of allegedly illegal past underpayments arising…