Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart

563 U.S. 247 (2011)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...

Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart

United States Supreme Court

563 U.S. 247 (2011)

Facts

Two federal disability-rights laws (the federal laws) offered money to states to improve services for people with developmental disabilities and mental illnesses. To receive the money, states had to establish public or private protection-and-advocacy systems to protect and advocate for disabled people. The entities had to be independent from state governments. Under the federal laws, the entities had to have authority to investigate alleged abuse and neglect and had to be given access to all relevant records. Further, the entities had to have the authority to pursue legal and administrative remedies on behalf of those with disabilities. Virginia established the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (VOPA) (plaintiff) to fulfill the obligations of the federal laws. VOPA acted independently of the Virginia state government and had authority to initiate proceedings to protect the rights of disabled people. In 2006 VOPA began investigating deaths that occurred in state-operated mental hospitals. Pursuant to the federal laws, VOPA asked officials in charge of the hospitals (the hospital administrators) (defendants) to produce relevant records. The hospital administrators refused. VOPA sued the hospital administrators in federal district court, arguing the federal laws entitled it to the requested records. VOPA sought an injunction requiring the hospital administrators to produce the records. The hospital administrators moved to dismiss the action, arguing they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court denied the motion, finding that VOPA had authority to sue the hospital administrators under the Ex Parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. The court of appeals reversed the district court and dismissed the case. VOPA appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)

Concurrence (Kennedy, J.)

Dissent (Roberts, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 34,000 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership