The U.S. Supreme Court case Nevada Department of Human Resources v. William Hibbs (2002) centered around the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which allows employees to take unpaid leave for personal or family illness, pregnancy, adoption, etc., without fear of losing their job. William Hibbs sued his employer, the Nevada Department of Human Resources after he was fired for failing to return to work following an extended FMLA leave taken care for his ailing wife. The department argued that it had sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment from private lawsuits in federal court. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hibbs with a 6-3 decision stating that Congress has appropriately abrogated state sovereign immunity in cases involving the FMLA's "family-care provision". This ruling affirmed that states can be held liable if they violate this federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that Congress overstepped its bounds by allowing individuals to sue state employers for money damages under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). He contended that there was insufficient evidence of widespread gender discrimination in granting family leave at the state level when FMLA was enacted. Therefore, he believed it did not meet the congruence and proportionality standard set forth in previous cases such as City of Boerne v. Flores which limits Congress's power to enforce equal protection rights against states through legislation. In his view, this case represented an unwarranted intrusion into state sovereignty protected by the Eleventh Amendment.