The fact that it happened is horrible, but the debate is should it be possible for states to assert soveign immunity for clear violations of federal law. My second question is are there compensetory damages for cruel and unusual punishments. It seems this shouldn’t even touch the ADA, because it is a violation of that.
The issue is the tension between Board of Trustees v. Garrett and Tennessee v. Lane. Garrett stands for the proposition that the ADA’s Title I (relating to employment) does NOT permit states to be sued for monetary damages - in other words, that Congress did not have the authority to waive states’ soveriegn immunity for Title I actions.
But then Tennessee v. Lane came along, which held that states COULD be sued for monetary damages under Title II, as it relates to building access. (Specifically, Tennessee v. Lane dealt with the problems faced by a paraplegic who was charged with a criminal offense in Polk County. The county courthouse in Benton, Tennessee had no elevator, and the courtroom was on the second floor. To appear before the court, Lane crawled up two flights of stairs. When he had to return for a hearing, he refused to crawl again or to be carried by officers to the courtroom. He was arrested and jailed for failure to appear.)
Anyway, your question: “[S]hould it be possible for states to assert soveign immunity for clear violations of federal law?” is clearly answered yes, in general. In order for Congress to abrogate states’ sovereign immunity, two conditions must exist: first, Congress must unequivocally express its intent to abrogate. Secondly, Congress must be acting under clearly valid constitutional authority in the area in question. (See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents).
So it’s not merely a question of “federal law.” The federal law must have been intended specifically to abrogate states’ immunity, and Congress must say so; and the federal law must be a valid exercise of Congress’s powers.