![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued February 22, 1983 Reargued October 3, 1983 Decided January 23, 1984 | |
Full case name | Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman |
Docket no. | 81-2101 |
Citations | 465 U.S. 89 ( more ) 104 S. Ct. 900; 79 L. Ed. 2d 67 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Reargument | Reargument |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, White, Rehnquist, O'Connor |
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun |
Dissent | Brennan |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XI; Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975 |
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from ordering state officials to obey state law. [1]
The lawsuit was a federal class action, [2] asserting that those with developmental disabilities in the care of the state have a constitutional right to appropriate care and education. [3] Terri Lee Halderman had been a resident of Pennhurst State School and Hospital, and following multiple episodes of abuse, she and her family filed suit in the federal district court. The suit started after Halderman had visited her parents at home and was found to have unexplained bruises. Although the case was not expected to reach the level it did, the courts later found that conditions at Pennhurst were unsanitary, inhumane and dangerous, violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Pennhurst used cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Pennsylvania Mental Health and Retardation Act of 1966 (MH/MR). [4] The District Court ruled that certain of the patients' rights had been violated. The District Court decision was the first time that any federal court ruled that an institution must be closed based on a constitutional right to community services. [5] [6]