The United States Supreme Court has decided not to review an appeal by the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (SCDPR), leaving in place a ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal challenged a decision which determined that South Carolina had effectively waived its sovereign immunity by engaging in a federal antitrust lawsuit against tech giant Google. This legal development arises from a wider antitrust action involving Google, in which South Carolina aimed to participate under the doctrine of parens patriae. This legal principle allows a government entity to act in the interest of its citizens.
In the underlying case, the Fourth Circuit had previously upheld that South Carolina waived its protections under the Eleventh Amendment by entering into the federal lawsuit, thereby permitting subpoenas directed at state agencies. The court reasoned that it would be unjustifiable for the state to later assert immunity after having initially directed Google to seek the necessary documents from individual agencies, as detailed in their docket.
The SCDPR posited in its petition that sovereign immunity waivers should be tightly restricted to the specific concerns at stake in the litigation. They contended that the ruling in question conflicted with the interpretations of state agency autonomy provided by other federal circuits.
Conversely, Google argued that SCDPR had misconstrued the principles of federal litigation consent and federalism. Google maintained that allowing states to later assert immunity would undermine legal accountability and could lead to the exploitation of sovereign immunity privileges, as noted in their response.
With the Supreme Court declining to take up the appeal, the Fourth Circuit’s decision remains in effect, reiterating the stance that participation in federal litigation by states constitutes a waiver of Eleventh Amendment protections. This decision emphasizes the legal consequences state entities may face when they choose to engage in federal lawsuits.
Full details of the case can be reviewed on the original JURIST article.