In the case of Alabama et al. v. Pugh et al., 1977, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a federal court had erred in issuing an injunction against the State of Alabama and its Board of Corrections due to their failure to meet constitutional standards for prisoner treatment at state prisons. The issue was whether or not states could be sued under the Eleventh Amendment which prohibits suits against states in federal courts by citizens of another state or foreign country without consent from those being sued. The Supreme Court held that neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" within meaning of 42 U.S.C.A §1983 when it is alleged that they violated federal law under color of state law, thus reversing and remanding with instructions to dismiss complaint against them as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity doctrine.

In the dissenting opinion for Alabama v. Pugh, Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to extend 11th Amendment immunity to state officials sued in their official capacities. He argued that this interpretation of the amendment was overly broad and not supported by its text or history. Instead, he believed that it should only apply when a state is named as a party defendant, which was not the case here since individual officials were being sued instead of the state itself. Furthermore, he pointed out that such an expansive reading could potentially undermine federal laws designed to protect civil rights by making it more difficult for individuals to sue states for violations.