State employees are not personally liable under Spending Clause statutes unless they individually and knowingly consented.

Constitutional concerns with the original

1. The majority opinion relies on the Pennhurst consent requirement from 1981, a post-1900 precedent, rather than grounding the holding solely in the original meaning of the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) and the Tenth Amendment.
2. The opinion introduces a 'contract analogy' that, while plausible, is not explicitly rooted in the text or ratification-era understanding; the original public meaning of the Spending Clause did not treat conditions as binding non-recipient individuals without their consent.
3. By requiring voluntary and knowing consent for individual liability, the majority implicitly adopts a clear-statement rule that may be stricter than the original understanding; the Clause itself does not prescribe such a rule for all conditions.

Solution text

Operative provisions

Bipartisan rationale

A textualist holding respects the constitutional boundaries of federal power: Congress may not use spending conditions to regulate non-consenting individuals, preserving state sovereignty and federalism. Both Democratic and Republican traditions recognize limited government and the Tenth Amendment. Democrats benefit from protecting state employees from personal liability absent clear consent, while Republicans benefit from reining in federal overreach. The holding also ensures clear notice, which both parties can endorse as a matter of fair process.

Constitutional citations

• → Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (Spending Clause)
• → Tenth Amendment
• → Federalist No. 41 (on the limited nature of the spending power)

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 Amendment X