Judge Wallace begins his concurrence by stating that Judge Paez's dissent "reads like a law review outline of relevant law." Which might perhaps sound like a compliment to some ears. But definitely isn't.
Regardless, this is an important -- albeit obscure and limited -- case, and revolves around whether the 11th Amendment bars EEOC actions against a state that allegedly discriminated against high-level state officials. The majority decides that it does, which essentially invalidates as unconstitutional a provision of the Goverment Employees Rights Act enacted in 1991.
Don't be surprised -- at all -- if this one's taken en banc. And reversed.
Further, although certiorari in any case is a longshot, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see this go to the Supremes. In which, by the way, I think you'd be looking at a 5-4.
That's my crystal ball for the day.
