Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)
3
Syllabus
law abrogated or waived the Board’s immunity from specific claims. In such a case, the claim could go forward, but Section 2125 would stop the award of money damages. And Section 2126(e)’s bar on challenges to the Board’s fiscal and budgetary decisions would do work whenever a plaintiff sought to get around the Board’s sovereign immunity via an Ex parte Young action against an individual Board member. See Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U. S. 247, 254–255.
In short, nothing in PROMESA makes Congress’s intent to abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity unmistakably clear. The statute does not explicitly strip the Board of immunity or expressly authorize the bringing of claims against the Board. And its judicial review provisions and liability protections are compatible with the Board’s generally retaining sovereign immunity. Pp. 5–11.
35 F. 4th 1, reversed and remanded.
