RLUIPA and Sovereign Immunity

The Supreme Court handed down a case yesterday on religion...sort of. The issue in Sossamon v. Texas was whether the the sovereign immunity of the states against private suits for money damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) is waived when they accept federal funding. Religious freedom groups, including the Becket Fund, the National Association of Evangelicals, Prison Fellowship, and Christian Legal Society were lined up for Sossamon (the prisoner-plaintiff) and against the states. In a 6-2 decision (Justice Kagan was recused), the Court held, per Justice Thomas, that the states do not consent to waive their sovereign immunity under RLUIPA. Two offhand thoughts:

1. Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity is always a sore subject. Federalism skeptics think it's bizarre. Some conservatives aren't sure how to square the text and original meaning of the Eleventh Amendment with the cases. Our own Patrick Brennan is not a fan (see his "Against Sovereignty" over on the sidebar), but I'm sympathetic to some of Rick Hills's arguments in "The Eleventh Amendment as Curb on Bureaucratic Power," 53 Stanford Law Review 1225 (2001).
2. With the departure of Justice Souter (who penned lengthy and elaborate dissents in Seminole Tribe v. Florida and Alden v. Maine), perhaps the opposition to state sovereign immunity is losing some steam. Justice Sotomayor's dissent is a narrow argument that the phrase "appropriate relief" in RLUIPA should be interpreted to include suits for money damages, but she does not undertake a root-and-branch criticism of state sovereign immunity. It's noteworthy that Justice Ginsburg--who dissented in Seminole Tribe, Alden, and College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid--was in the majority yesterday, but she did not write separately to indicate why state sovereign immunity under RLUIPA should be viewed differently than in the prior cases.