Steven Albert v. Brooke Lierman

4th CircuitSep 10, 2025

Split Score

SplitScore: 75/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed in Part

The Fourth Circuit reviewed whether Maryland’s Comptroller enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from a suit seeking payment of interest on unclaimed property held by the state. The court held that claims for already-accrued interest are barred as retroactive monetary relief, but claims for interest accruing after a judgment may proceed; accordingly, it affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars federal-court Takings Clause suits seeking payment of accrued (pre-judgment) interest on property held by a state under unclaimed-property statutes, when the plaintiff styles the relief as declaratory or injunctive under Ex parte Young.

Circuit Positions

3rd Circuit4th Circuit(this circuit)6th Circuit8th Circuit9th Circuit

Accrued-interest Takings claims are retroactive monetary relief barred by the Eleventh Amendment; only prospective (post-judgment) interest may be ordered under Ex parte Young.

11th Circuit

Accrued-interest Takings claims are prospective relief permitted under Ex parte Young and are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Conflict Summary

The Fourth, Third, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits hold that requests for payment of already-accrued interest constitute retroactive monetary relief and are therefore barred by state sovereign immunity; only prospective relief for post-judgment interest is allowed. The Eleventh Circuit, by contrast, permits such claims to proceed under Ex parte Young, reasoning that a taking is not complete until the state formally denies compensation, so the requested payment is prospective, not retroactive.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Brooke E. Lierman, Comptroller of the State of Maryland
Appellee:Steven G. Albert; Barry Diamond

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Howard Ross Feldman, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland
Appellee:Julie M. O’Dell, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP (lead); Arthur Susman, Law Office of Arthur Susman; Charles J. Piven, Brower Piven, P.C.

Opinion Document