Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart (2011)

By Jaden Militello

Overview

Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart (2011) is a Supreme Court case in which the plaintiff, a state agency, alleged that they were entitled to receive requested medical documents that were being withheld by state officials. The defendants responded by claiming that they were immune from the suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The primary issue in this case was whether the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, which allows federal courts to grant relief against state officials for violating federal law, applies to a state agency. 

Summary

Virginia established the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (VOPA) to protect and advocate for the rights of citizens with a developmental disability (Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart). The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act) as well as the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (PAIMI Act) grant programs such as VOPA the power to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect. Additionally, these programs are allowed access to records of individuals who may have been abused as well as additional information that is relevant for conducting an investigation. In 2006, VOPA asked state officials in charge of state-run mental hospitals to produce records related to the deaths of two patients and the injury of a third at these hospitals (Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart). The state officials refused, asserting that these records were protected by a state law privilege that shielded certain medical materials from being disclosed. VOPA brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the DD and PAIMI Acts entitled it to the medical records regardless of any state law privilege. VOPA sought an injunction that would require state officials to produce the medical records and refrain from interfering with VOPA’s access to these records in the future. The state officials moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that they were immune from the suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the suit was permitted under the doctrine of Ex Parte Young which allows federal courts to give relief against state officials for violating federal law. The Court of Appeals reversed and the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court (Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart).

Under the Eleventh Amendment, sovereign immunity protects sovereign states from being sued without their consent. The court in this case had to decide how to apply the Ex Parte Young doctrine to a suit brought by a state agency that claimed to possess federal rights. The court first analyzed whether VOPA’s complaint alleged an ongoing violation of federal law and sought prospective relief. They found that the complaint satisfied these requirements by alleging that state officials' refusal to produce medical documents violated federal law, and seeking prospective relief via an injunction that would require the production of those records (Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart).

The state officials argued that VOPA’s status as a state agency changes the standard, but conceded that if VOPA was a private organization rather than a state agency, then the Ex Parte Young doctrine would allow the action to proceed. In response, the court held that the application of Ex Parte Young should not be determined by the identity of the plaintiff (Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart). As such, the court determined that Ex Parte Young still allows a federal court to hear a suit against state officials brought by another agency of the same state (Oyez).

The state officials further contended that permitting VOPA’s lawsuit to be heard would infringe Virginia’s state interest because a federal court adjudicating a dispute between a state’s components would diminish the dignity of that state. However, the court found that this suit did not encroach on Virginia’s state sovereignty because Virginia law created VOPA and gave it the power to sue state officials. In this instance, the court found that the Eleventh Amendment did not preclude VOPA’s ability to invoke federal jurisdiction (Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart). Thus, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the case was remanded.

Impact

This decision established that Ex Parte Young applies regardless of whether the plaintiff suing a state is a private party or a state agency. The court observed that if VOPA were a nonprofit organization rather than a state agency, then the lawsuit would be proper under Ex Parte Young. They believed that the result of the lawsuit should not change just because VOPA is a state agency. As a result, this case set the precedent that the doctrine of Ex Parte Young applies to both nonprofits and state agencies in a similar manner (Faegre Drinker).

Court Documents

Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 250 (2011)

Citations

Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-529. Accessed 6 June, 2025.

Supreme Court Decides Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart, Faegre Drinker, 19 Apr., 2011, https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2011/4/supreme-court-decides-virginia-office-for-protection-and-advocacy-v-stewart.