A Declaratory Theory of State Accountability

Scholars and jurists may never reach consensus as to the historical meaning of Article III and the Eleventh Amendment and the proper balance of immunity and accountability. Certainly we find little in revisionist accounts of that history that disproves the diversity theory. But even in a world where sovereign immunity prevails, perhaps all will agree that the federal courts have a legitimate role to play in evaluating claims that the states have violatedwillingness to hear claims for money damages in respect of any such declaratory judgments offends no principle of existing law. In this Article, we propose to fuse these elements together into a declaratory theory of state accountability. Rather than viewing such decisions as Seminole Tribe and Alden as immunizing states from liability, we think the states should invite federal law claimants to pursue their money claims by invoking the ordinary processes of state law.  supreme federal law in the context of actions for declaratory relief. Perhaps, too, all will agree that the states’ willingness to hear claims for money damages in respect of any such declaratory judgments offends no principle of existing law. In this Article, we propose to fuse these elements together into a declaratory theory of state accountability. Rather than viewing such decisions as Seminole Tribe and Alden as immunizing states from liability, we think the states should invite federal law claimants to pursue their money claims by invoking the ordinary processes of state law. 

Such a cooperative approach to the vindication of federal claims has a good deal to recommend it. By channeling federal claimants into state law processes, the declaratory approach would preserve state control of the treasury and obviate the concern that exorbitant federal awards might drain state coffers. At the same time, the declaratory approach maintains federal judicial engagement with questions of state compliance with federal law. Finally, the declaratory approach places some responsibility on the states for ensuring the effectiveness of remediation. With time, the states may establish the sort of routine mode of money claim payment that now characterizes practice at the federal level under the judgment fund. After all, supporters of state immunity offered assurances in the wake of Chisholm that the states could be trusted to do right by money claimants.327 As an acceptance of that offer, the Eleventh Amendment calls upon the states to entertain money claims in the wake of a federal declaratory judgment that the state has violated federal law.