In the case of Lance Raygor and James Goodchild v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, et al., 2001, the plaintiffs sued their employer, The University of Minnesota (UMN), alleging age discrimination under both federal and state laws. They initially filed a complaint with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) but later withdrew it to file in state court instead. UMN argued that they were immune from such lawsuits due to Eleventh Amendment immunity which protects states from being sued in federal court without their consent or by Congress's abrogation. However, Raygor and Goodchild contended that this immunity did not apply as they had withdrawn their EEOC claim before filing in state court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of UMN stating that even though the plaintiffs had withdrawn their EEOC complaint prior to filing suit at a state level, Eleventh Amendment immunity still applied because Congress hadn't clearly expressed an intention for Age Discrimination Act suits against non-consenting States to proceed at a State level.

In the dissenting opinion for Lance Raygor and James Goodchild v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, et al., Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation that Congress did not intend to allow state entities to be sued in another state's courts under federal law. She argued that this interpretation was inconsistent with previous court decisions and Congressional intent. Ginsburg believed that when Congress passed legislation allowing states to be sued under federal law, it intended for those lawsuits to take place in any competent jurisdiction, including other states' courts. She also pointed out that there were practical reasons why a plaintiff might want or need to sue a state entity in another state's court system - such as convenience or fairness issues related to where witnesses and evidence are located - which further supported her belief that Congress would have wanted these suits allowed.