Summary

William J. Brennan, Jr. Dellmuth v. Muth — Dissenting Opinion

But quite apart from that, the Court has never explained why it is that the constitutional principle it has created should require a novel approach to ascertaining congressional intent. As I said in Atascadero, "special rules of statutory drafting are not justified (nor are they justifiable) as efforts to determine the genuine intent of Congress; no reason has been advanced why ordinary canons of statutory construction would be inadequate to ascertain the intent of Congress."
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Dellmuth v. Muth — Dissenting Opinion

It is perfectly clear that again today the Court ignores Congress' actual intent to abrogate state immunity-an intent that is even plainer here than in the case of § 504, which lacked the EHA's frequent reference to the obligations of States-instead resorting to an interpretative standard that Congress could have anticipated only with the aid of a particularly effective crystal ball.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Dellmuth v. Muth — Dissenting Opinion

The Court's justification for such a rule is that abrogation of immunity "upsets 'the fundamental constitutional balance between the Federal Government and the States,' . . . placing considerable strain on ' [t] he principles of federalism that inform Eleventh Amendment doctrine,' " and that a "stringent test" is necessary " [t] o temper Congress' acknowledged powers of abrogation with due concern for the Eleventh Amendment's role as an essential component of our constitutional structure."
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature