Central Virginia Community College, et al. v. Bernard Katz, Liquidating Supervisor for Wallace's Bookstores, Inc.
The Court held that the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution abrogates state sovereign immunity.
546 U.S. 356 · No. 04-885 · 2005 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jan 23, 2006 · argued Oct 31, 2005
Federalism · National supremacy: public utilities
Overruled precedent
Majority opinion: John Stevens
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed. Central Virginia Community College, et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Central Virginia Community College, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution abrogates state sovereign immunity. It is significant as one of only three cases allowing Congress to use an Article I power to authorize individuals to sue states, the others being PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey and Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2005 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
John StevensWrote the majority opinion
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Clarence ThomasWrote a dissent
Anthony KennedyJoined a dissent
John RobertsJoined a dissent
Antonin ScaliaJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Central Virginia Community College, et al.State (Virginia)
- Respondent
- Bernard Katz, Liquidating Supervisor for Wallace's Bookstores, Inc.Bankrupt person or business, or business in reorganization
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 4 (bankruptcy clause)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
- Precedent
- The Court overruled one of its own earlier decisions.
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jan 23, 2006DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. Central Virginia Community College, et al. lost.
- Oct 31, 2005ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
8 other argued cases since 1946 on national supremacy: public utilities, newest first.
- Hughes v. PPL Energyplus578 U.S. 150Apr 19, 2016 · 578 U.S. 150Federalism8–0Unanimous band
- Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority et al.535 U.S. 743May 28, 2002 · 535 U.S. 743Federalism5–45–4 band
- Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Service Comm'n of Md.535 U.S. 635May 20, 2002 · 535 U.S. 635Federalism8–0Unanimous band
- Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen et al. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. et al.393 U.S. 129Nov 18, 1968 · 393 U.S. 129Federalism7–18–1 band
- City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma et al.357 U.S. 320Jun 23, 1958 · 357 U.S. 320Federalism9–0Unanimous band
- City of Chicago v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al.357 U.S. 77Jun 16, 1958 · 357 U.S. 77Federalism6–36–3 band
- Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Michigan Public Service Commission et al.341 U.S. 329May 14, 1951 · 341 U.S. 329Federalism7–27–2 band
- Regents of the University System of Georgia v. Carroll et al.338 U.S. 586Feb 6, 1950 · 338 U.S. 586Federalism7–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.