*1 Ex parte YOUNG. Syllabus.
209U. S. it would necessarily of seem re- complainant, .original an unlawful discrimination is not proved. sult of charge of the railway In no on com- part there was intent short, itself did a act riot work act, to do panies wrongful of complainant. substantial injury rights review detail the mass great not attempted We have two enormous volumes. printed of testimony, amounting an, it shows clearly It examination say is enough made the Circuit fact reasons for findings sufficient Court. Circuit Court were warranted short, findings it make clear there findings and those testimony,
was unlawful discriiriination. no Circuit Court is decree
Affirmed. Moody did hear nor take part Justice the argument Mr. of this case. in the decision
Ex parte YOUNG. OF HABEAS. CORPUS AND FOR WRITS PETITION CERTIORARI. Original. Argued 3, 23, 2, December March 1907. Decided No. not, juris- jurisdiction if it should it must take will not take this court
While legislature may, cannot, meeting it It as the avoid if a diction should. so because desires to do. measure enjoin corporation-to a" a direc- In this case a stockholder statute, state provisions a complying with tors and officersfrom Equity unconstitutional, Rule properly brought within alleged 94 of this court. contempt violation of committing for Court one An the-Circuit order unlawful; jurisdiction is it did not have suit which a in a decree entered discharge proper application, this will case, upon and, person so held. i90?,
Syllabus. Although the railway determination of whether a prescribed by rate a state confiscatory statute is so low fact, as to be .involves its solu- question, tion sufficiency raises Federal and the judicial rates *2 question proper over which the Circuit Court jurisdiction, has as one aris- ing under the Constitution of the United States. a Whether state statute is unconstitutional penalties because the for its persons violation thereby are so enormous that prevented affected are resorting purpose from to the courts for the determining validity of thereby equal of the protection statute and are denied the of the law and property the'ir process rendered liable to be taken law, without due of is a question gives jurisdiction. Federal and the Circuit Court case, Whether the state railroad rate statute involved in although on its relating only rates, face to intrastate was an interference with interstate question commerce held to raise a Federal which could not be considered n frivolous. A imposes state railroad penalties rate statute such excessive parties validity testing from affected are deterred its in the courts denies equal protection carrier of the regard question law without to the insufficiency prescribed; of is jurisdiction, rates it within the and is duty, inquire of the Circuit Court to whether such rates so are low as confiscatory, permanently enjoin to be if so to company, the railroad stockholders, at suit of one of its putting force, from them in and it power pending inquiry grant has such to temporary injunction a to the same effect. person permitting disobey While is no there rule a impunity statute with purpose testing validity, at least once for the its validity where such only by judicial investigation construction, can be determined pro- imposes in the penalties vision statute which such severe for disobedience provisions parties of its as to thereby intimidate the resorting affected from validity practically prohibits parties to the courts to test its those from judicial seeking such equal construction and protection denies them the of the law. attempt The of a state officer enforce an pro- unconstitutional is a statute authority of, ceeding without affect, and does sovereign not governmental capacity, illegal and is an stripped act and the is officer subjected person his officialcharacter and in his consequences to the power his individual conduct. The State has no impart to its officer responsibility immunity supreme from authoritv the United States. validity When the of a state statute with reference to the has first Federal Constitution been raised in a Federal court that court has right to decide it to the exclusion óf all other courts. necessary duty It is not that the of a state officer to enforce a statute be permit declared in that itself in joined order to his being party statute as a enforcing it; from if defendant virtue of his officehe has some connec-. tion with enforcement of the act it is immaterial whether it arises general byor common law statute.
Ex parte YOUNG. Syllabus.
'209U.S. the exercise of the discretion of While cannot control an executive the courts officer, preventing enforcing injunction such officer an Unconsti- an with his is not an interference discretion. tutional statute Minnesota, under his of the State common law statutes, authority general imposed upon power has and the state proper is a enforcing statutes State and constitutional him brought party, prevent suit the enforcement to a a state defendant unconstitutionality. ground on of its statute already pending interfere in a-criminal case While a Federal court cannot while, rule, equity general a court cannot en- in a state apply proceedings when such join proceedings, those rules do criminal statute, alleged brought unconstitutional state after are enforce unconstitutionality inquiry subject of in a become the thereof has jurisdiction thereover; first obtained pending in court which has a Federal right court has the in both the Federal civil under such circumstances jurisdiction to the to hold exclusion cases and maintain and criminal courts. of all other making with the officer who has no connection enforcement- While a state merely party making alleged be unconstitutional a defendant an act *3 State, thereby representative and amounts party as him a a prohibition party of the Eleventh making within Amend- the Státe a the State, duty ment, individuals, who, are with some as officersof the clothed regard of' the and who the enforcement of the laws threaten in criminal, action, either civil or about to commence an enforce are and (cid:127) may by enjoined doing be from so a state statute unconstitutional an Federal court. may court are involved in this case Federal Under such conditions as enforcing state statute a officer from a on enjoin an individual or state may but it not restrain state court unconstftutionality, of its account nature, acting any brought of or criminal before it either a civil from case grand jury. by prevent investigation or a action against a violate injunction Federal state court would a court An Government, it not follow that because of this and does whole scheme may may enjoined doing things from certain a court be be individual similarly enjoined. equity remedy law, prevent a of from act- adequate court at sufficient No of an unconstitutional state ing, in a where the enforcement exists case carry at require complainant to con- would merchandise rate statute subject it to excessive fiscatory complied if and rates with the statute validity finally was comply and penalties in case it did not therewith sustained. law, under, penalties or on in- for While sued common a common carrier at interpose a might as of, defense state statute dictment for violation a rate confiscatory unconstitutionality on account of the statute pass upon intelligently jury prescribed, cannot rates a character of the constitutionality matter; determine proper method is to such a opinions experts may be equity in which in court of of the statute a 12Q S,
Statement o£ Case. 209 U. matter to a master to make the taken and the referred needed computa- necessary may facts on which the tions and to find the court act. regarded prima valid, is A rate to be state statute the onus rests facie prove contrary. on the carrier to country great magnitude, are The railroad of this interests and the thou- persons protection therein are.entitled to sands interested from equally laws and the courts with the owners of all from other kinds jurisdiction, property, having state, and the courts whether Federal or them, adequate open should at times be and where no all there rem- edy proper protect rights equity at law the course to their parties which all interested are made defendants. injunctions against While the enforcement of a state rate statute should not granted except reasonably doubt, a Federal court case a free equity jurisdiction constantly has Federal court been exercised purpose. for such having, brought by Circuit Court the United States an action Railway Company against stockholder of the Northern Pacific the officers road, Attorney shippers and the certain General and certain other Minnesota, held that railroad of the State of rate statute of officials enjoined all unconstitutional and the defendants from was en- Minnesota statute, having Attorney forcing to comply General refused order, contempt, fined and committed him the Circuit Court for with such discharge corpus. him habeas on this court refused was made to this leave to application for original An of habeas behalf corpus for writs file petition certiorari petitioner, T. Young, of Edward Minnesota! the Uni- directing rule entered and a granted
Leave Division, Minnesota, Third the District ted States marshal why such custody, in his to show cause petitioner who held the granted. not be should petition *4 cause, of the to show the return order marshal,
The by virtue of of an order petitioner his the detention justified United for the District of Court of the States the Circuit of petitioner guilty contempt Minnesota, which adjudged .the of $100, that he be fined the sum directed court and of that brought the mandamus proceedings he should dismiss that and the Circuit Court the State in behalf name and him in the the cus- committed to he should stand that State, and obeyed. case that order was until marshal tody Ex YOUNG. parte Statement of Case. S.U. of the order Court com- validity Circuit involves Mm for mitting contempt. legislature these: The the State
The facts are Minnesota commission, railroad and duly created a warehouse the sixth of 1906, commission on made an order September, various, for for railroad fixing companies .rates of merchandise between stations-in State of carriage kind and in what known specified classes “Western Classification.” These materially rates those then reduced existing, were.by the order take effect November obedience to the railroads filed and pub- the order lished the schedules of which have time rates,- ever since that been out by carried the companies.
At the time of the above it was making pro- order (§ vided Revised Laws of Minnesota, 1987), any common who provisions carrier violated that sec- tion or willfully suffered unlawful any such act omission, “if when no specific penalty imposed therefor, natural person, guilty gross shall be shall misdemeanor, fine of not punished by twenty-five less than hundred dollars, nor offense, more than five thousand dollars the first nor not five more ten less than thousand dollars than thousand offense; dollars for if subsequent and, each such carrier or it shall warehouseman be a forfeit to the corporation, State for twenty-five the first offense less than hundred dollars nor' dollars, and for more than thousand each subsequent five than five dollars nor more offense not less thousand than ten in-a civil dollars, to thousand be recovered action.” TMs covered disobedience the orders of provision Commission. legislature
On April, 1907, the fourth State-of an act cents a fixing Minnesota two mile passed maxi- rate charged by mum to-be railroads in passenger Minnesota... (The mile.) been theretofore threé cents per raté'had The act on May, 1907, was to take effect the first of and was put into day by companies, effect on that railroad and the same *5 of the Case..
Statement 209 TI.-S. by up present them time. It has been observed or “Any any officer, act that railroad company, provided who thereof, any shall violate agent pro- or representative guilty felony and, upon shall be a convic- vision of act ’by a not thereof, exceeding tion shall be fine five punished dollars, or (5,000) imprisonment the State thousand (5) exceeding five years, for not both such period prison or imprisonment.” fine and eighteenth April, 1907, legislature passed an
On'the of the laws of that which year), established act (chapter (not of certain commodities in- the transportation for rates Classification) stations in between that cluded in the Western which the commodities to it referred divided State. The act forth schedule of rates set maximum classes, into seven in carload lots and transported when established for each class constituted a carload of each class. weight minimum n ' it should not affect the or power provided Section Commission, except Railroad and authority of the Warehouse any that commission to enforce should rest duty no by the act or other statute fixed any rates specifically that the generally further orders provided The section' State. Commission prescribing and Warehouse the Railroad made maximum legal be the exclusive rates should rates the. enumerated in the act be- transportation .commodities within that State. points tween every company railroad the State 6 directed
Section into effect the rates publish put specified adopt should every officer, director, manager and that traffic statute, in-the should of such railroad cause employe company or agent or such company and use railroad publication adoption, exceeding act; any those “and specified of rates agent employé any or such railroad director or officer, section, of this any provisions who violates company counsels, advises or assists such railroad who causes shall provisions section, of this violate company misdemeanor, may be therefor prosecuted guilty u, ¿C. ¿jlKjí 2!j£' wnicii and extends, its railroad waich. county íneo aay *6 ¿nereox be punished a conviction and station, upon it has period exceeding
imprisonment for a jail county in the ac-; 1, dune 1907. effect to take The was days.” ninety of this provisions the obey did not companies The railroad of rates publication ana the adoption concerned so far as act specified therein. was the act before day the May, 1907, of thirty-first On the Cir- the commenced effect, were equity suits in nine to take Minnesota, of the District for United States of the Court cuit stockholders brought being Division, each suit Third in each case bill, and in the mentioned railroad particular the of which the company railroad were the named defendants the the mem- and stockholders, respectively, were, complainants and Commission, and Warehouse the Railroad Attor- bers of Edward T. and of the individual Young, de- ney representing shippers freight railroad. fendants order Mr. for was made in punishing contempt Young E. Charles a citizen of 'the State of Perkins, suit C. Shepard, and David citizen of the State Iowa, Minnesota, and Pacific Railway the Northern Com- were complainants, laws of the State corporation under the pany, organized T. and Wisconsin, petitioner herein, others, Edward Young, All of the defendants, except were defendant. parties of the are citizens and residents State of railway company, Minnesota. in the bill that the suit was not a collusive
It averred of a case of which it on the court confer one to but that and objects have not otherwise cognizance, could from railway enjoin company of the were purposes (or if observe, already or adopting continuing publishing forth in and set the rates and tariffs prescribed adopted) and mentioned orders above legislature two acts and also to Commission, enjoin and Warehouse of the Railroad to enforce such pro- from attempting defendants the other action or visions, proceeding instituting VOL. ccix —9 Case. U.
Statement S. railway officers, etc., on account company, the defendant reason that the acts thereof, said and any violation them was violative of the and each of Constitution were orders the United States. orders of the Railroad Com- alleged The bill also May 3, 6, 1906, 1907, mission of rate September passenger of April 18, and act 4, 1907, act of April reducing which the railway company had there-. the tariffs and charges (cid:127) were each all and of them un- make, been permitted tofore they and each of them confiscatory, unreasonable just, if enforced, deprive will complainants would, their without due property process railway company law, it of equal protection them and deprive laws, in violation the Constitution of the contrary to United *7 It amendments thereof. was also averred and the that States of the had demanded and complainants president the manag- railway they that should company directors cease ing of the Commission dated September to the orders 6, obedience 1907, already and to the 3, acts May mentioned, and 1906, in such and rates orders acts should prescribed that and and that the said its corporation, into officers effect, not be put suit or proper should institute suits' to directors, prevent and and the acts (named in the orders rates legis- said or lature) becoming effective, as the continuing case declared and have same but the be, illegal; said might and. had president directors,- positively its corporation, de- not because considered so, they and refused do clined return invested or just capital rates fair and that but of not be because they confiscatory, severity would the violation of such acts penalties provided-for and they subject and therefore could themselves to orders, inevitably would consequences result from ruinous said and obey orders, failure on their laws re- part or by themselves, sult which no action their stockholders di- rectors, possibly prevent. could
The bill further that the orders Commission alleged . Ex parte YOUNG. U. Statement S. the Case. and 1906, and September, May, 1907, the acts 4, April
1907, 1907, and April 18, were, penalties prescribed ' their for so drastic that no or violation, owner of a operator
railway could invoke the property test the validity at the risk thereof, except of confiscation
of its and the for imprisonment terms in property, jails long and of its penitentiaries and officers, agents For employés. this reasoii the complainants above-mentioned alleged acts, orders and and each them, denied the defendant railway and its company stockholders, the com- including the equal protection of the and plainants, laws, deprived them of their without and due property process of and law, each of them was, reason, unconstitutional and void. bill also contained averment that if the railway com- fail to should continue to observe
pany and force kéep or to observe force the put orders the Commission and 4, 1907, acts of April April 18,1907, such failure might TS’ult in an action company criminal proceedings its officers, directors, or employés, :.gainst agents subjecting and such officers to an endless company number actions criminal that if the proceedings; at law should company obey the order fail Commission the acts of 4, April 18, 1907, the April said Edward T. At- Young, ' the State Minnesota, General of torney would, as complain-. of. advised, and believed, were institute ants proceedings railway or otherwise mandamus company, *8 or to directors, employés, enforce said officers, agents orders thereof, all the’ and he threatened and provisions and take the proceedings against company, officers, would other and for to same end he the the same and that etc., purpose, on failure institute or would mandamus other proceedings said and enforcing for the acts each purpose thereof, and penalties Appropriate the thereof. relief provisions action of the the defendant the injunction against Young was asked commission railroad for. ¿he
.. order was made x'Cj.ooíMJ -restraining C-ro-rw only restrained the railway company from Court, pub- 18, for in the provided April 1907, the &c» lishing sjíu rates act; its tariffs set forth to reducing figures from the to by injunction the for the interfere present court refusing the orders of the Commission and the to act of regard railroads had them in already put as the April 4, 1907, opera- Attorney Edward T. General, but it restrained tion, Young, from railroads enforce the reme- against steps taking 18, in the act of April 1907. penalties specified dies or and the order were served, the bill restraining Copies Mr. Edward defendant T. others, Young, among only who Attorney General, specially pur- appeared on the him, dismiss the bill as to pose of moving ground him as had no over Attorney that the court Gen- that the State Minnesota had con- and he averred eral; to the commencement of consent, and did not sented, which suit was Attorney him as General Minnesota, State of effect a suit said truth and Eleventh Amendment of Constitution of contrary to the the United States. a demurrer Attorney .bill, also filed
The General on stated in motion to dismiss. The mo- same grounds demurrer overruled. and,the tion was denied twenty-third on September, 1907, Thereupon, all proofs parties taking after a hearing regard involved, injunction ordered temporary issues to issue railway company, it, pending the final restraining into from effect the cause, tariffs, rates hearing putting or set forth the act approved April charges the defendant enjoined Young; court also final Minnesota, pending hearing the State any action or instituting or cause, proceeding taking and remedies act specified enforce penalties above act, obedience or compel compliance mentioned, therewith, thereof. . part
Ex -parte YOUNG. Statement the
209 ü. S. Case. injunction As the court refused grant preliminary by the the enforcement the rates fixed Railroad restraining or rates Commission, and Warehouse under passenger because the same been 1907, act of had April 4, accepted oy were in operation, the railroad's and the court stated that in of such injunction the ne- granting preliminary omitting that cessity upon was obviated whether hearing determining the rates or the by Commission, fixed rates passenger confiscatory were and did not afford rea- together singly, for the service compensation sonable rendered a proper allowance for the those reasons property employed, been but inasmuch had not as the considered, the act had not into April 18,1907, rates fixed gone force; "It seems to m$, the court observed: upon evidence either of conditions before those rates new were put into (that the order of the is, effect Commission of September, 1906, 1907), the act of and the April 4, reductions made those if added there is rates, reduction which attempted commodity 1907) made act to be will (April re- received by below compensation companies duce what a fair for the services compensation performed, would be in- return adequate property invested. And cluding whole, injunction on the think, preliminary I should (act rates by chapter ro the fixed respect issue, rates, commodity of as the and that 18), talked there April injunction as to the other no preliminary rates, should be to whether are or not they compensatory matter as although he determined in the may determinoiion is a matter final action.” of this injunction the granting preliminary after The day in violation of such injunction, filed a Attorney General, writ of mandamus one for an alternative petition that court, and obtained an order courts towrit issue as the alternative 24, 1907, directing September The writ thereafter issued for in the petition. prayed Railway the Northern Pacific Company, served upon TERM, 1907. Argument 209 Ü. for Petitioner. *10 “to immediately receipt, after company, commanding as provided for keep public inspection, and publish and adopt and made, and to be demanded charges rates by law, between for the transportation freight you maintained and character kind, in the State Minnesota stations in Session Laws specified chapter named and class for and charges of Minnesota rates year 1907, State in those to be reasonable just declared and do exceed which and of said . . .” provisions the terms chapter and by United States an affidavit these facts the showing Upon he should why Mr. show cause Court ordered Young Circuit for a for misconduct in vio- his contempt not be punished in issued that court injunction the temporary lating pending. therein case his of this order the filed Attorney the return General
Upon had up objections which he set the same he in answer, in of the court his motion dismiss jurisdiction made to in he disclaimed intention to demurrer; his bill, in- the commencement of the disrespect court with treat decision of the to, but that the referred proceedings believing it had jurisdiction enjoin in the that action, holding court General from his discretionary him as Attorney performing in duties, was conflict with Eleventh Amendmen official t States, Constitution United as the same been has Court, the United States interpreted applied Supreme it. duty be his as such to com he believed for and in the mandamus behalf of the proceedings mence it was this belief were commenced proceedings the law of the Min for the solely purpose enforcing State The order him in was then contempt nesota. made. adjudging Thomas Herbert S. Ed- O’Brien, Hadley1 D. Mr. Mr. Mr. with whom Mr. A. T. Young, Royal Stone, George ward T. Mr. on brief, Charles Jelly peti- and Mr: S. were Simpson tioner:
1Attorney General of the Missouri.
Ex parte YOUNG. Argument for Petitioner. This this proceeding will determine the jurisdiction the Circuit Court in which the order punishing the. for contempt was and if it is found made, that the Circuit Court had no suit, or was power without or au- thority to make the order enjoining will petitioner, direct from custody. his.discharge
This does not fall within those application decisions where this court case has held was not a proper one to be under considered the writ of proceedings habeas corpus those this court holding may exercise its discretion in the writ. It is in granting withholding accordance with the decision rendered Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. *11 Ex also 113 U. S. Ex parte 713;
See parte 18 Fisjc, Wells, How. 18 307; 163; Ex Ex parte Lange, Wall. parte Rowland, 104 U. S. Ex 93 Ex 604; 18; U. S. parte Parks, parte 123 Ayers, 443; U. S. U. Siebold, 371; Ex 100 S. Ex parte parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. Ex 117 38; parte Royall, 241; U. S. Ex parte 141 Mayfield, U. S. Ex 107; McKenzie, 536; U. S. parte Delgado v. Chaves, .180 586; Ex 3 Watkins, 140 U. S. parte Peters, 193. did
The Circuit Court not have jurisdiction because di- no Federal citizenship, question verse was presented by which justified bill of complaint Circuit Court in as- jurisdiction. suming the intrastate sufficiency rates prescribed by chap- present
ter did involving construction of the United the Constitution States. The adequacy rate is a question of a prescribed inadequacy fact only. Interstate Commerce R. Co. v. 206 Com., Illinois C. U. S. 441. and construction Where the true of a meaning constitutional has decisions been settled this court, the provision juris- will Court be determined, diction upon a con- Circuit of complainant, bill the same sideration manner if it all appeared would be pleadings the. case as to controversy no that there or'construction meaning or law under which the Constitution it is claimed the con- Union Western arises. Tel. Co. v. Ann troversy Arbor R. Co., 1907. 136 Argument for Petitioner. U. S. 209 Co. U. S. Assurance v-. 187 239; Brown, U. S. Equitable 178 Life Works v. 185 U. S. Louisiana, Orleans Water Co. 308; New Con- and effect of the provisions The construction in the United States relied the suit stitution beyond controversy by the Court are settled following Circuit 113; Munn well as decisions: v. 94 U. S. many Illinois, other U.-S. & v. 134 Wisconsin Minnesota, 418; St. P. R. R. C. M. 287; 179 S. v. Jacobson, Covington Bridge R. R. v. U. &c. S; Houston 201 204; Ry. Mayes, 154 U. Central Co. v. Co., 116 U. How 307; S. v. 321; Cases, Railroad Commission U. S'. 121 680; Durham, 421; 125 U. S. Carson v. U. S. Beidleman, U. S. 257; Benjamin, v. 100 New Orleans v. Davis, Tennessee 411 v. Des 174 U. Moines, 168; S.- S. 153 U. ‘McCain Defiance .184; 191 U. S. Hooker v. Los City Defiance, Co. v. Water 314; 188 S. Shoshone Min. Co. v. 177 U. S. Rutter, U. Angeles, Gold Min. 175 U. S. Carson v. Co., 571; Blackburn v. 505; 421”; 121 Excelsior U. S. Wooden Co. v. Durham, Pife Pacific 282; Co., Co., U. S. v. Northern Bridge 185 Minnesota Securities Ann Co., S. Western Union Tel. Co. v. 48; 194 U. Arbor R. Assurance Co. v. 187 S. Brown, Ú. S. U. 239; Equitable 178 Life Works Louisiana, 336; Orleans Water Co. v. 308; New Works U. S. Hamblin Co., 79; Orleans v. Water v. New S. 531; Joseph Land 147 U. St. &c. Co. v. Co., Steele, Western U, North Carolina, U. S. Wilson v. S. 586. 659; The Circuit Court exceeded its mak- power authority *12 enjoined Attorney its order.that the be Gen- petitioner ing compel eral the appropriate proceedings taking legal railway comply 18, 1907. companies April the act the been Had Eleventh Amendment never adopted, Attorney General could not be maintained, he and'had in the submitted fully .first instance himself to-the of the Circhit order Court, to con- attempting trol the exercise of the executive vested would him, discretion be beyond authority power court. assumed
It should not be of Chisholm authority under Amendment, in.the absence the Eleventh Georgia, v. of. Ex parte YOUNG. CO l>. Argument 209 for TJ.S. Petitioner. subject State would to all suits. it was case,
claimed that the State was indebted to the complainant Upon The money demand. political governmental powers no the State were in way involved. be this as it
However, may, the decision in the Chisholm case based of the Constitution. positive language Eleventh Amendment immunity The restored not only suit, the States from but secured the same to each immunity a Staté thereof department under the-Constitution was made of the independent judicial power.
The General authority Attorney to prosecute de- fend a suit which the State is is necessarily concerned im- from the nature of his office and an action plied he.may bring where the or injury wrong public. affects complained 4 1028-1031; Hunt 121 Cyc. Ry. Co., 638; v. Orton v. Illinois, 12 567 v. State, Wisconsin, ;Atty. Geni. 174 Massachu- Williams, 476; v. setts, People Oakland, Geni. California, 234; Atty. Detroit, v. 262. Michigan, General of Minnesota Attorney therefore, execu- is, officer of the State second to
tive none the character his duties. The name and importance State, power so far as their use to his concerned, are confined litigation to control no other discretion, subject officer, except cases not material v’ certain here. State Tracy, Minnesota, Minnesota, Under the statutes of General is Attorney to institute criminal required except proceedings, on in the of the Governor. Criminal are first request proceedings attorneys instituted for the counties, instance various Attorney have the call on the right, however, to who when reaches Su- assistance. But. criminal case Court of the into the preme charge comes exclusive issued General. injunction Therefore the. interferes with the administration Circuit Court beyond criminal laws of State. Such interference case is power except of a where criminal equity, *13 1907. 138: Argument for Petitioner. 209 U. S. already to a suit before it of- party pending- instituted try same -in- it therein jurisdiction has' U. S. 124 re'Sawyer,, In volved. Court in the Circuit against suit
"The
suit
the State Minnesota.
effect
.
a'
suit,
provided
State
immunity
The
is not
Amendment,
dependent upon any pecuniary
Eleventh
by. respondents.
contended
interest, -as
can
only
decree of the court
operate
Where the
no
restrain the action
only
suit,
State
is in
whom is
-effect one
brought,
matter
case the
interest
pecuniary
may.
and in such
State
have in
result
is immaterial.
may
litigation
110;
1
v.
United
'Madrazo,
Pet.
States
Georgia
Governor of
Savings Bank
U. S.
v. United
338;:
States,
v.
127
19
Beebe,.
American
227;
States v.
Bell
128-
Telephone Co.,
United
Wall.
y.
States American Bell
S.
United-
159
315;
Telephone Co.,
U.
Telephone Co.,
224;
States v.
167 U. S.
548;
U.
United
Hans
S.
S.,19. Reagan
154 U.
362
Case,
134 U.
S.
Louisiana,
M.,
v.
Hickman,
Ex parte YOUNG. *14 Argument Respondent. for
209 U. S.. Freer, Attorney General, v. 127 694; 109 Fed. Co. Rep. Copper Rep. 897; 127 Fed. Coulter v. 199; Fed. Coneter v. Rep. Weir, Smith, v. 140 Fed. 912; Rep. 127 Fed. Hitchesen Rep. Fargo, Rep. 106; Telegraph 146 Fed. Co. v. Alexander, Smith v. 983.; 95. 154 Fed. Anderson, Rep. Whitney Mr. Edward B. filed a brief court, leave of
By of petitioner’s as amicus contentions curice, in,support herein With him on this brief was to the Eleventh Amendment. Blackmar. Abel E. Mr. How and Bunn, W. Mr. Jared Mr. J. F. McGee,
Mr. Charles Frank Mr. Cordenio Kellogg, whom Mr: B. A. Severance, with Stiles W. Mr. Olds, Burr, E. Mr. Pierce Butler, Mr. Robert William D. Mitchell Mr. A. William Lancaster were Mr. for briefs, respondent: on which makes objections petitioner
The the validity order matters which cannot are be the injunctional inquired writ of habeas corpus. into on for which contempt, punishment
Where is under a habeas consists of the corpus proceeding; review violation or decree of a the commitment will an order sus- it is found that the order or decree unless disobeyed tained void because the court was absolutely wholly without to make it. power proceeding being attack a collateral order or upon judgment nature is limited to disobeyed, inquiry been question has 193; Ex 3 Pet. In parte Watkins, re Coy, 127 jurisdiction. U. S. Wilson, 575, In re 583. 757; 731, S.U. .140 cases which deal numerous with very Among ques- Ex nearly are most point: parte the following tion Watkins, S. In 651; Ex 110 U. re 193; parte Yarbrough-, Coy, Pet. 127 3 In re In 756; Wilson, 575, 582; 140 U. S. re 731, Del- U. S. In In 586;. Schneider, 162; S. re re 140 U. Fred- gado, 76; In 149 Tyler, 164,. 180; 149 S. re U. In re U. S. erick, 637, 648; S. re 156 Chapman, 150 U. U. S. In re 211; Swan, In McKenzie, U. S. 548: re 180 U. S. 536. L’ennon,16G TERM, 1907.
Argument Respondent. for U. S. for violation of which the order, pe- injunctional That was not for void want contempt, was adjudged titioner im- not be disobeyed and could ignored jurisdiction, collateral, and is not subject nullity, as an absolute punity, Adams, v. form of see Illinois Central proceeding, attack U. S. review writ habeas to what matters are open As procedure; principles likewisé carpus to either Adams case equally applicable invoked in the are question. sufficient sustain involves Federal question
The case *15 upon that alone. ground of the law attacked violative The penalty provisions are. Amendment; see Kan- Cotting .this v. of the Fourteenth 79, 183 Con- 99-102; Yards U. S. City Company, sas Stock 146 Rep. 150; Fed. Ex Mayer, parte Gas v. Company solidated Fed. Wood, Rep. 155 190. are and the is there- confiscatory legislation
The' rates fixed Fourteenth Amend- and void under the fore unconstitutional 68 726. Rep. Fed. Hastings Ames, ment. v. itself, injunction against petitioner nor the
Neither the suit Amendment. within Eleventh prohibition is .The if 516, 172 TJ. S. McGhee, doctrine Fitts v. held ap facts of not plicable present case, supported by the. other of this is inconsistent with the uni court; decision current of authority, form and has been overruled later of this court.' Davis & Famum v. An- Mfg. Co. Los .decisions 207, 218; 189 U. S. geles, Angeles, Dobbins v. Los 195 U. S. 241, Fitts v. McGhee is 223, also inconsistent with the subse-1- y. case of Front 188 U. S. and-other more quent Starr, 537, still case recent cases. The of In re 123 U. Ayers, 443, S. not and does not of Fitts point support doctrine v. McGhee direct sense. The distinction between re the case and cases Ayers has the case bar been drawn court itself clearly like at. Pennoyer 9, in the 1, case-of v. 140 U. S. 10. McConnaughy, 141
Ex YOUNG. parte Respondent.'1 Argument U. S. 209 Trust Co., Loan & 154 U. S. Farmers’ v. also Reagan 362; See & Ry., Starr v. R. I. P. 204; C., U. 167 S. Wesley, v. Tindall Fed. 3. Rep. lan- is applied,.in varying of distinction same principle The in a number of less explicitness, greater guage which are:. case, the Ayers among since cases decided other Smith Donald, 107; Scott v. 165 U. S. 164; 149 U. S. In re Tyler, Ry. Dey (Brewer, J.),, & W. v. 436; C. N. U. S. Reeves, v. 866. Rep.
35 Fed. of facts like that with a deal cases following state Mc- with Fitts v. conflict bar are squarely at the case which makes it applicable view of that case Ghee, supra(cid:127) the" Loan Farmers’ & Trust Reagan Co., v. situation. to the present Front 466; 169 U. S. v. Ames, Starr, v. 362; Smyth S. 154 U. Line, 273, Atlantic Coast 200 U. S. 537; Gunter v. U. S. Central, Illinois Comm. v. Miss. R. R. 284; to the present case, be held applicable McGheecan If Fitts v. unsound be principle ought decision is then Eleventh- Amendment the ground overruled which would tend impair a construction given should clauses Fourteenth efficacy protecting full Amendment. of some frame their legislatures the aim has become
It adroitness, and to them hedge with such cunning *16 enactments drastic as make it penalties, with such and savage about such statutes in of the validity the courts to test impossible An would dare assume. man apt no prudent a risk save at the character of and such tendency, upon this upon comment by Mr. Justice Brewer in- in the opinion legislation,.appears Company, Yards U.-S: City Kansas Stock 79, v. Cotting 99-102. effective protection against-.such: one legisla-, is but
There be courts may exercised of equity, power tion—the Circuit Courts of the the United States. and especially be may adroitly that a state statute so framed be-held If it shall Amendment will suit in bar-any the Federal Eleventh the Opinion of the Court. then no indi- jurisdiction, corporation
courts of nor equity will assume the risk of punishment® vidual dare savage which acts, inflicted under and may which legislation Amend- provisions violates Fourteenth flagrantly made for all operative practical will be purposes. ment Mr. Hines herein Walker D. filed a brief court, leave of By of Railway support the Southern Company, in behalf of of the respondent. contentions state- Peckham, making after foregoing Justice Mr. of the court.. opinion delivered ment, very to the fullest appreciate' and extent We recognize now be- only this case, parties of importance great of also the citizens but court, great fore the mass work- of whom are interested the practical all country^ this Federal both justice land, throughout courts ing jurisdiction exercise proper in the state, Con- limited and controlled the Federal courts, Federal laws Congress. stitution and the with re- room for difference opinion has been
That there cases in this court bear reported limitations to such gard It be stated that the case be- cannot testimony. conclusive in- free from doubt nor that entirely any possible us is fore differ the correct to the may not as to answer men telligent decide. we are called whether of the Circuit Court' The question jurisdiction, with, this a delicate matter to deal frequently or of and most it is so where the material especially case, Circuit Court is objection important of the States the assertion that suit is in effect one we are called however, of the Union. which question, It is cir- Under these it is our to decide. upon, duty, v. Cohens Chief Justice Marshall language cumstances, In that case 264, is most apposite. 6 Wheat. Virginia, he said:
Ex YOUNG. parte
' Opinion 209 U. S. of the Court.
“It is most true that will not take jurisdiction it it not; if should but it true that must equally take juris- if it cannot, diction should. judiciary the legislature avoid a measure it may, approaches because confines it by We cannot because it is pass Constitution. doubtful. With whatever with whatever doubts, difficulties, may case must if be we decide it be before attended, it, brought us. We have no more to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which right than to that which is not usurp- given. The one or given, Questions the other would treason to the Constitution. we would but may avoid, occur we cannot gladly avoid them. All we can do is to our best exercise judgment, conscientiously perform duty.” our to a consideration of the we find
Coming case, that the com- ip commenced the Circuit Court plainants were ' in the Northern Railway stockholders Pacific Company, for the reason commencing the railroad com- making is sufficiently one defendant pany parties set forth v. the bill.- Davis &c. Co. Los 189 U. Angeles, S. 207, 220; Rule Supreme Court. Equity
It is
on
asserted
primarily
part
petitioner that
not
did
exist
Circuit Court
jurisdiction
because there
diversity
requisite
citizenship, and there was
no question arising under the Constitution or
laws
the Uni
ted
to otherwise
jurisdiction
States
to that
give
court. There
here of
on
is no claim made
ground
diver
if
sity
citizenship,
claim,
would
made,
be unfounded
‘
exists,
If no other
then the
in fact.
order of
ground
the Cir
Court,
assuming
punish petitioner
cuit
contempt, was
order,
made
a court without’jurisdiction.
an unlawful
In
this court, upon proper application,
such case
will discharge
imprisonment.
Ex
person
parte Yarbrough, 651;
Fisk,
Ex
It is insisted is no petitioner there Federal ques- *18 1907.
144 Opinion of 209 U. the Court. S. because Amendment, Fourteenth jbion:presented under the. where Constitution, there is no as to dispute meaning any of life, deprive person that no shall provides deny nor law; of liberty without due process property or .protection'of jurisdiction equal within its person , is one be in this case may there laws, dispute and whatever fixed rates as or passenger whether the freight of fact simply; are so low commission or the railroad by by legislature1 question. that is a Federal confiscatory, and involving in suits to the Circuit Court Jurisdiction is-given laws the Constitution or under requisite amount, arising (1 ques-' U. p. 508), the United States S. Stat. Comp. of is whether objection really to be determined tion under com of the railroad and the orders legislature rthe acts of the if would without due enforced, property process take mission,- incidentally involve although might law, question of- . fact, is which raises its solution one question a nevertheless Circuit); (C. v. Ames C. A. 8th Hastings See question. Federal a ref sufficiency The of rates with Fed. Rep. 68 question, Constitution is judicial to the Federal erence have, by courts reason which Federal one oyer &c. R. v. Minnesota, R. Co. 134 Chicago nature. its Federal Farmers’ &c. 154 S. 369, 399; v. U. 418; Reagan Co., U. S. U. Turn Gill, 649; Louis &c. Co. v. S. &c: Covington St. v. 164 U. Sandford, 578; Smyth Ames, S. v. Company Road pike Railway &c. v. 522; Chicago S. Co. Tompkins, 169 U. S. 167, 172. U.
'ÁnothérjFederal unconstitutionality is the alleged question penalties of the enormous denounced for acts because' these railway prevent company, as al violation, théir. of- servants employés, its resorting leged, validity for the of such purpose determining courts ±he e Is complainants th urged contention acts. thq equal protection denied the company to' without due process is. be taken property ‘laws liable (cid:127) only -it is the claim of hearing because law, allowed YOUNG. Ex parte Opinion the Court.
209 U. 8. at of the acts and orders unconstitutionality question, if subjected pen- enormous risk, mistaken, being, alties, prop- confiscation its whole resulting possible risks,the would erty, that rather than take such company obey the such obedience also result laws, might although the end in such confiscation. process) slower (though
Still another Federal out urged, growing their inter- necessary assertion that laws are, effect, commerce, ference and a interstate regulation *19 it is grounds necessary for which assertion not now to enlarge is at upon. any The frivolous. question not, rate, We in conclude the Circuit Court had the case involved decision it, before because it the of Federal questions under Constitution the United States. arising invalidity inquiry to Coming regarding alleged these we take contention that acts, they are invalid up on their on face account of the For penalties. disobedience to the act the officers, and freight directors, agents employés are made a and company misdemeanor, upon guilty conviction each be in may by imprisonment punished for county jail ninety a not period Each exceeding days. violation be a offense, and, would separate therefore, might result in imprisonment various agents company disobey ninety who would dare for a term of days each for each offense. Disobedience to the rate act renders the passenger felony of a and to a fine'not party subject guilty exceeding' imprisonment five thousand dollars or the state for prison years, or both fine period five exceeding imprison- ment. price The sale of each ticket above the permitted It the act be a thereof. would violation would-be difficult, if not for the to obtain impossible, company officers, or agents to employés carry except on its affairs willing obedience to orders in question. company the act and The itself would also, disobedience, case be liable to the immense fines provided orders of violating for the Commission. The com- validity to test the pany, order of the acts, must find some vol. ccxx—10 TERM, 1907.
(cid:127) S.' Opinion of Court. 209 U. The to-disobey them at risk stated. or agent employé be of such must necessary pre effect and result legislation (either Federal) state or for the clude a resort to the courts validity. its officers employés purpose testing disobey could not expected provisions be im penalties acts or at the risk of such fines being orders law the court decide posed case should upon them, be a was valid. The result would denial hearing similar made upon question The observations company. Yard Kansas Stock Cotting City Mr. Justice Brewer in v. s very At 79, afe Company, 99, 100, 102, apt. page an equal stated: “Do the' laws .secure to an individual pro he his when' to come into court and make tection he allowed failure subject claim or defense condition that that claim or such to make defense good penalty ^ all him subjects failure either his' property appropriates at and unreasonable loss?” extravagant Again, page may true that says: he “It impose doubtless will man tend obedience penalties, compel if extreme and corporations, dates all, individuals only after there has been a imposed are cumulative penalties validity of the statute, final determination from that here presented. different But when very would *20 to in aii' any inquiry effort' of prevent the legislature, so burdens validity statute, of a particular challenge thereof, necessarily affected is in the courts party that(',the rather than take the chances of the submit constrained to then it becomes a serious whether penalties question imposed, is of the the laws.” deprived equal protection not party case, not in that it went decided off on The question us, We have the same now before ground. another way fines, are severe in the to more which only penalties case or added, employés in the of officers, agents is a years risk of for common imprisonment company, Ry. Trust v. Texas &c. 51 Co., See Mercantile also Co. felon. 543; McChord, Louisville &c. R. R. Co. v. 103 Rep. 529, Fed.
Ex parte YOUNG. 55 H' Opinion U. S.’ Court. 216, 223; Fed. Consolidated Gas Rep. Co. v. 146 Fed. Mayer, 153. In Rep. 150, McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. 694, S. 662, it was held that provide a different remedy to enforce a which is which contract, unreasonable, imposes conditions when the contract was was to no existing made, offer whgn so remedy, remedy is onerous and impracticable as to substantially hone at all the law invalid, is give although what is termed a remedy is fact also See Bronson v. "given. 317; 1 How. Kinzie, Seibert v. U. If Lewis, S. 284. law be such as to make the decision of the legislature of a commission conclusive as the sufficiency rates, this court has held a law to be . Chicago unconstitutional. Railway &c. Co. 418. A v. U. S. which Minnesota, law result indirectly like such con accomplishes imposing ditions for appeal judicial relief as right works abandonment of the rather than face the right .upon conditions which it is may offered or be obtained, is also unconstitutional. It may. said therefore be that when the penalties for disobe dience are fines so enormous so imprisonment severe as to company intimidate the and its officers from resorting courts to validity test the result legislation,, is as if law in prohibited same terms the company judicial seeking laws afféet» deeply construction w^ich its rights.
It is is urged there no principle upon to base the claim that a person disobey entitled to a statute at least for the once, without purpose validity testing subjecting himself to the penalties disobedience provided by the stat- ute in case it is valid. This is not.- an statement accurate of the case. Ordinarily law offenses in the nature creating of misdemeanors felonies subject relates over which the jurisdiction legislature complete any event.. In case, however, the establishment certain rates validity -without such rates necessarily hearing, depends upon they whether are at least high enough permit *21 (how it some return the investment much is upon, not now Opinion of the Court. and an as to
necessary state), inquiry fact is a proper If it turns judicial investigation. out the subject they too low for that then are purpose, are Now, rates illegal. a interested the burden of party a impose upon obtaining (no of such decision a question prior judicial hearing having only the condition that been if unsuccessful given) upon ever and fines imprisonment pay suffer as provided he must up to close all the effect, approaches to acts, is, courts, these upon the whether prevent question thus the hearing and the acts are not too and therefore provided low, rates a where The distinction obvious between case the invalid. of the act the existence a fact validity depends upon which only after of very be determined investigation compli-. can and of a character, ordinary technical case stat- and cated no such subject investigation over upon requiring ute jurisdiction legislature complete event. therefore, that the the acts hold, provisions
We relating rates, enforcement either for freight to the passengers, enormous fines and possible imprisonment by imposing effort validity unsuccessful to test as a result face, are on their themselves, unconstitutional without laws insufficiency those rates. We regard the Circuit Court had jurisdiction hold that under also (and was already cited therefore duty) cases inquire the rates these acts permitted whether orders were too confiscatory, held, therefore and if so that the low had the railroad permanently enjoin then com- force, them in and that it had from also pany putting power, was injunc- while the inquiry pending, grant temporary to the same effect. tion affidavits were received
Various before hearing prior temporary the court granting injunction, itself was, appears and the full hearing opinion, fact found deliberate, rates fixed by commodity act, ünder circumstances .existing
Ex pUrte YOUNG. Opinion of
209 IT. S. the Court. reference to the rate act and the of the Com- passenger orders were not sufficient' mission, to be and were in compensatory, fact and confiscatory, the act was therefore unconstitutional. injunction thereupon with reference to the granted enforcement of the commodity act.
We have, therefore, this record upon the case of án uncon- stitutional act of the state and an intention legislature of the Attorney General State to endeavor to enforce its pro- visions, injury company, at compelling it, great to defend expense, of a legal and un- proceedings complicated usual character, questions of vast involving importance to all and officers of employés as well as to the company, company itself. The question arises is whether there is that the remedy parties interested resort may to, by going into a Federal court of in a equity, case a violation involving of the Federal Constitution, .and obtaining judicial investi- -problem, gation its solution pending obtain free- dom from civil suits, or criminal, by a temporary injunction, if the question finally decided favorably to the con- tention of the company, a permanent injunction restraining all such actions or proceedings.
This an inquiry necessitates examination of the most ma- terial and important objection made to the jurisdiction of the Court, Circuit the objection the suit being is, effect, one Minnesota, the injunction issued the Attorney General prohibits illegally state either criminal or action, civil, enforce obedience to the. statutes of the State. This objection is to be considered with reference to the Eleventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits or the commencement prosecution any suit one of the United States citizens of another State- or citizens or ects of State. subj foreign The Fourteenth Amendment pro- no deprive any vides that State shall person life, or liberty process law, without due nor shall it property deny equal within its person protection laws. Court. U. S. Opinion the, before Circuit Court proceeded ‘upon The case would, acts heretofore mentioned theory that orders and df if violate enforced, rights' complainants protected We think that whatever the the latter Amendment. rights, are be., they founded that. may largely of complainants require but a of this case does not Amendment, decision decision.', whether adoption of. the' examination limited the effect of the earlier Amend any way altered force, that each exists in full and that mayWe assume ment. *23 all Eleventh Amendment the. effect it must to the we give without it down or naturally have, cutting rendering would the fairly than inter language, more narrow its meaning warrant. a suit applies against would brought It preted, as citizens well as to by one brought a State own Hans v. U. Louisiana, of another State. 134 S. 14. a citizen by after the decision this court Chis adopted It was- 2 419 (1793), Dall. where it was held that a Georgia, holm v. . sued a citizen of another Since that be State. might
State many been cases in this have decided court involv there time Osborn Amendment, Eleventh them v. among being the ing Bank 9 (1824), 846, Wheat. which 738, 857, States United .held applied only Amendment those suits in the the In was a on the record. case of party subsequent Madrazo 1 Georgia (1828), v. Pet. 110, 122, 123, Governor of was somewhat and Chief enlarged, Justice Mar holding while opinion court, Osborn v. shall, delivering citing Bank, said that where the was supra, States claim made, United then before the in the case Governor of against as and the was demand made governor, upon him, Georgia officially (for but moneys treasury personally, state possession State and slaves government), be considered as the on the record party the State might be the suit could not maintained. 123), and therefore (page 220, 16 Wall. reiterates the rule of Os- Gray, 203, Davis v. far as concerns the en- Bank, v. United States so right born law in officer from a state a state executing conflict join Ex YOUNG. parte Opinion of Court. 209 U. S. when States, of the United or a statute
the Constitution of the complainant. will violate rights execution (Poindexter 270, 114 U. S. v. Coupon Cases, In Virginia a tax that a suit collector it was Greenhow), adjudged against of taxes, and, undér coupons payment had refused who sell the was about seize law, property a void color of of his was a suit taxes, for non-payment a taxpayer and not as a Staté. wrongdoer him personally decided that the bill Southern, 52, 67, v. Hagood a bill for the of a con- specific performance in substance was and the State of South Caro- complainants between tract was not in name the State made a and, party lina, although the actual defendant, yet party contract being alleged only of which was and the sought party by performance in, the State performed, was, effect, it could party whom and it could not be maintained for that suit, reason. to be done the actual required defendants were The things which when done would constitute a very things perfor- contract the State. alleged mance were and it subject reviewed, held, cases U. that a bill equity S. Ayers, brought re have no in- State, who, individuals, personal officers *24 suit, in the and defend subject-matter only as terest State, where the relief if prayed for, done, representing .performance constitute State would alleged State, was a suit the State against (page 504), contract Southern, in this v. respect Hagood supra. following was simply attempt A of such a nature make the its its officers, perform itself, through alleged contract, those officers to do acts which such by directing constituted The State alone had interest the ques- performance. decree favor would affect the plaintiff treasury and a tion, State. hand, United States Lee, the other v. 106 U. S. de- 196, On individual in that an of real estate possession termined under of the United which States, Government claimed to be the.
Opinion of the 209 U. Court. S. plaintiff, sued owner, was, nevertheless, its properly to, was one recover such suit owner, possession,-and individual States, posses- the United although its See also authority. sion under possession justified 167 U. to the same effect. Wesley, 204, Tindal v. S. S. a suit McConnaughy, 1, 9, v. 140 U. Pennoyer of the State was said not to be against
land commissioners the de to restrain State, complainants although sought an un under State, violating, officials fendants, with the constitutional contract act, complainants’ irreparable property and thereby working damage Bank, Osborn v. United States complainants. rights' and it was stated: “But the doctrine cited, was supra, general of Osborn Bank the United that the Circuit Courts States, v. States of the United will restrain a state officer from executing an unconstitutional statute of the State, when to it execute would violate of the complainant which rights privileges had .been the Constitution, and would work guaranteed irreparable injury him, never been damage departed has ' The same is decided in v. principle Donald, from. Scott . U. S. 67 And see Missouri &c. v. Missouri Railroad 58, 183 U. Commissioners, S. 53.
The cases above cited do not exactly include one like this They under discussion. serve to illustrate the principles upon many cases have been We have not decided. cited all we have not cases,-as But the in- thought necessary. for in the junction Ayers Case, asked (supra),'was the state officers from restrain suits under the commencing May act of to be (alleged unconstitutional), in the ñame of the State- to recover brought taxes on use, if such suits were commenced ground they would be a breach of a contract with the State. The injunction was declared because the suit itself could not illegal be entertained it was one the State to enforce its .as alleged contract. It if said, however, the court had power entertain *25 such a it suit, would have power grant order restraining
Ex YOUNG. parte Opinion of the Court. U. S. 487.) It was (Page commencement suits. preventing or the was necessarily that the suit con- injunction not stated threatened upon to a case of a direct trespass injury fined to property. suit could ever
Whether the commencement a be regarded in cases injury another, equivalent actionable some as an is set forth in some of the cases, such as trespass to a foregoing in the so called. v. cases, Reagan attention rate has received Co., 154 (a Loan rate was case), & Trust U. S. 362 Farmers’ (created members of a railroad commission suit against and the Texas) Attorney General, an act of the State under whom held and that such suit was not one Were suable, all en enjoined Commission' was from State. it had established under the the rates act, forcing enjoined suits to re Attorney instituting to the rates conform fixed penalties failing cover ’ It such act. is true in that under Commission statute that suit be main creating provided might the board case any dissatisfied railroad other company, party tained competent court of Travis interest,, jurisdiction the Commission as defendant. This County, Texas, against permitted a suit the United held that such language. court Circuit for the Western District Texas, Court States that, but also held County, Travis irrespective embraced suit was not effect suit consent, of that enjoined), General was and there State (although It was the amendment. said under not prohibited fore Justice by Mr. Brewer, which was delivered opinion, considered a fair sense be not in suit could the conclusion of the court was that 392), (page the State of the Circuit Court was not jurisdiction objection was rested 393), tenable, (page whether of the statute or general juris the provisions “upon by virtue the statutes existing Congress diction the Constitution United States.” the sanction and both are force. is effective equal of these Each- grounds *26 1907. 154 Opinion of the Court. 209-TJ.S. Mason City 199 Company, 160, &c. v. U. S. Union Pacific 166. (another 169 U. Ames, v. S. rate it was Smyth case), against individuals, that a suit for the of held purpose
again officers of the State, as from them, by enforcing, preventing of suits or an by indictment, unconstitu- the commencement the of the injury was rights plaintiff, tional enactment State, within the not' a Amend- meaning a suit against in answer to the that 518, objection ment. At the suit page State, it was said: “It is the was settled doc- really against that suit individuals for trine of this court against pur- them officers of a from of pose preventing enforcing enactment an unconstitutional of injury .to rights a suit is not State within the plaintiff, meaning The suit was to of that Amendment.” the enforcement enjoin of because it was of a statute Nebraska be uncon- alleged of on account the rates too low stitutional, to afford being company, contrary, some compensation therefore, Amendment. to the Fourteenth provision no the' special rates,
There was statute duty Attorney it the of General enforce it, but making he authority to ask for under his had a manda powers general law. mus such or other State Nebraska to enforce ex The &c. Co., Fremont Railroad Nebraska, rel. &c. v. 313. final enjoined The decree bring- 477) by way (page injunction, mandamus, suit civil ing action for the indictment, purpose enforcing pro- fifth section visions of act. the act provided railroad by.a action the Su- might brought company of Nebraska; Court of the State preme but this court did not base when its decision on section it held it the nature of that before was not a a State, suit pur- individual state officers brought against although -them from pose pro- either civil enforcing, enjoining indictment, an unconstitutional enactment ceeding 518.) injury plaintiff’s right. (Page Ex YOUNG. parte Opinion Court. 209 U. S. Prout v. Starr,
This was reaffirmed decision Rwy. of Missouri &c. case Attention is directed to the also S. 53. That Commissioners, 183 U. Missouri R. R. &c. Co. v. the railroad court of Missouri a state was suit brought who the powers granted had them commissioners Their suit in the report. forth statutes set certain to discontinue compel the railway company *27 over Boonville bridge the it Was for making crossing charges the case to remove The defendant sought River. the Missouri the resisted, and which the plaintiffs court, to the Federal the real plain- remove on ground refused to state court behind it was proper go and Missouri, tiff State was the that fact. regular to determine of the record the face held that the this court came here, the case manner had therefore' case real party plaintiff, was not the whose the state judgment removed properly been reversed. was thereupon of construction removal principles same
Applying Eleventh Amendment, it applied act which had been real that the State might party was said be. it and in. alone, enures to the relief whose- plaintiff sought when if will plaintiff, for the decree, effect- favor the judgment ively operate. one under the removal act and arising case
Although
Amendment,
it
the Eleventh
nevertheless
not involve
does
and reiterates
us,
now before
the doc-
illustrates the question
simply
to suit
party
State is not
because
trine that the
party.
such
State Railroad Commission
Ames is also
The
v.
referred to and re-
Smyth
doctrine
General, Atlantic
Attorney
v.
&c.
Gunter,
iterated
Railroad
also McNeill v.
283. See
Southern Rail-
Co.,
273,
U. S.
200
Railroad
543-559; Mississippi
Commission
202
S.
v.
way,
U.
Co.,
The various we have referred furnish authorities ample individuals, for assertion that justification who, as officers Opinion of the Court. 8.U. with State, are clothed some duty to the en- regard forcement of the laws and who threaten and are about to commence either a civil or criminal proceedings, nature, to enforce against parties affected unconstitutional Federal act, may Constitution, violating enjoined by from such Federal court of action. equity objected, however, It-is Fitts McGhee, 516, v. U. S. has somewhat limited this principle, that, upon the au- thority of that must be held case, State was a party United Court, to the suit States Circuit bill should have been dismissed as to the General on that ground.
We do not think such contention is well founded. The doc- Ames was Smyth trine of v. neither nor overruled doubted in the Fitts In that case the case. Alabama legislature, by the act of fixed the tolls to be for charged crossing bridge. that act, by The penalties disobeying and re-- demanding were to be tolls, collected the persons ceiving-higher pay- ' No officer State had official connection ing them. recovery penalties. indictments men- *28 under statute, tioned were found another state set forth at of the which case, provided '520 of the a fine page report a company any an officer of taking rate of greater toll if or, was authorized the charter, than charter' did b¿t amount, then the was not the fine specify imposed for charg- toll, unreasonable to be any by determined a ing This jury. was claimed be unconstitutional, act not and the indict- not ments found under it were necessarily connected with the act unconstitutional the tolls. As no alleged fixing state officer who was made a bore close party official connection with the act tolls, the the of such officer a fixing making party de- fendant was a effort to test simple constitutioriality of such act that and there is no way, principle upon which it could be A done. state schools as superintendent might well a of this fact party. have made it was been light 530): said in the opinion (page .
Ex YOUNG. parte 1C7 Opinion of the Court. U. 8. as said, we have neither of the State case, “In the present relation to stat- any special particular named held officers be They expressly unconstitutional. were ute alleged they see to its were law If, enforcement. because directed made for the State, purpose of the case could be officers statute, constitutionality by injunction testing them, constitutionality then the of every brought against suit could be tested suit by legislature act passed attorney theory based general, the governor was, the executive the State in a former, general that with laws, the execution all its and the latter, sense, charged in- attorney might represent general, litigation enforcement of its statutes. That would be a very volving determination way speedy judicial for obtaining convenient law of constitutional be in- may raised questions it a mode which cannot be applied but is dividuals, with, consistently Union the fundamental princi- States without be they cannot, their into assent, brought ple of private persons.” at the suit of the State a in a party an officer defendant In making of an act to be alleged the enforcement unconstitu- enjoin officer must that such have some connection it is plain tional it or else a,ct, merely enforcement making thereby as a at- representative a party him. a party. make the State tempting (cid:127) held it necessary been however, has not, It same which is to be declared act should duty it is of enforcement cases, true, duty In some enforced. (154 S. 19 of the but 362, 366, act), U. imposed has § been.so it ex- duty more if. otherwise clear; make the that'may possibly that the state officer fact efficacious. ist it equally with' the enforcement has some connection virtue of his office and whether fact, and material important is the of. the act *29 - is the act or created law, specially arises out of general so exists. long material itself, not as Reagan Fitts case opinion In the course TERM, 1907. Opinion of the Court. (with others) referred to as instances of state were
Smyth cases with the execution of a state enact- charged specially officers unconstitutional, and who commit to be under ment alleged or to the specific wrong trespass injury some authority only those cases the or injury or wrong rights. plaintiff’s was the threatened commencement of suits involved trespass rates, threat of com- the statute to enforce case as sufficient to each authorize regarded mencement the same. The injunction prevent of an threat the issuing those suits under such circumstances was there- to commence be to any held to other threatened necessarily equivalent fore plaintiff to the had there- injury property or wrong sufficient to authorize the suit been held tofore with the specially duty The enforce being charged officer. sufficiently when such apparent duty exists the statute authority law, some even such au- the general though under in the It particular is not to found act. exist thority might duties of the officer to enforce it as a general reason law of the State. . Fitts occupied position officers case having act, to the and could not be properly all duty at regard
no suit for the reason stated. parties made statute that as the does objected specifically It is also he has duty it the (assuming make to enforce he has under such circum- it, right) general its enforce- attempt full discretion whether general stances him court' cannot to control and the interfere not, ment (cid:127) in the exercise of his discretion. Attorney General is no interference with his there discretion under
In our view There is no doubt the court cannot herein. the facts It of the discretion of officer. can only the exercise control action where the officer some duty affirmative having direct merely but ministerialin its na- discretion, not involving perform take such action. In that case the ture, refuses neglects this merely direct the defendant to ministe- perform court can McComb, v. 92 U. Board S. duty. Liquidation rial *30 YOUNG. parte Ex Cn. CO Opinion U. 8. of the Court. discretion the enforcement of the laws general regarding when and as he deems is not interfered with appropriate an which restrains the state officer from injunction taking an towards the enforcement of unconstitutional steps any In such to the case no injury complainant. enactment directed, affirmative action of nature is and the officer is any an from act which ho had no prohibited simply doing legal An him to do. to from injunction prevent right doing he has no to do is not an interference with which legal right discretion of an officer. only It is'also that the proceeding argued take far as his statute, could to enforce the so office General which would be by mandamus, one com- concerned, is in its char- menced sovereign governmental is a and that such action acter, necessary right bring of a It is contended attribute sovereign government. they do not care about complainants complain nothing action which take or as an Mr. Young might bring ordinary an
individual, but that he was of as complained officer, to discretion is the use of the name of the whose confided State- far and that concerned, Minnesota so when litigation how he shall use it is a matter his discretion and resting by any cannot be controlled court. all every
The answer to this is the same as made in case an official authority where claims to be under the acting The act the State. to be enforced be unconsti- alleged and if.it be the use of the name of the State to tutional, so, an unconstitutional act to injury complainants enforce authority of and one which does is a without proceeding the State in its sovereign governmental capacity. not affect of a official in act state part It is simply illegal of the name of the State enforce a the use attempting void because unconstitutional. which is enactment legislative seeks to enforce Attorney which the state If. the act the officer in Constitution, pro- Federal. be a violation of the into conflict with comes enactment under such ceeding TERM, 1907. 209 U. Opinion of the Court. S. and he is that case Constitution, of that authority superior sub- character and is of his official or representative stripped of his individual jected to the person consequences in his him im- has no power impart The State conduct. authority munity responsibility supreme would See re It Ayers, supra, United States. page to harass'it with a complainant multiplicity be an injury *31 in an endeavor to enforce pen- suits litigation generally an unconstitutional enactment, alties under and prevent If within the jurisdiction to be of a court of equity. it ought least, unconstitutionality with at reference, the question the Federal Constitution be first raised in a Federal court think as we is shown the authorities cited here- by to decide it has the to the exclusion of all other after, right courts. had, remains whether Attorney General so far State, the law of the as concerns rate
by acts, these his to the enforcement of the duty By same. regard it seems that he con- duty official conduct it as regarded the com- compel obey with his office to company nected for he commenced modity act, enforce proceedings immediately- issued, after at the risk injunction obedience so contempt by found guilty of being doing. Attorney General,
The duties decided the Su of the State of Minnesota,- Court are created preme partly at statute and exist common State ex rel. Young, law.- partly General, (decided v. Robinson June Attorney 7, 1907), 112 N. the above-cited W. Rep. was held that the case^it Attorney General conduct might institute, and maintain all suits and he necessary deem for proceedings might the enforce laws of ment of the preservation order and that protection, rights, there were no statu public restrictions that State tory the duties of At the. limiting in such torney General case. 3 227 of chapter
Section .of General Laws of Minnesota, §58, law, (same Revised 1905 Laws Minnesota., 1905), parte
Ex YOUNG. Opinion of the Court. U. S. Attorney General to cause duty imposes upon pro- be instituted corporation whenever ceedings offended the law's of the State. By it shall have § Laws of 1905 it is also of the Revised the Attor- provided attorney shall be ex for railroad com- ney General officio duty and it is made his institute prosecute mission all Commission shall order and shall brought, actions which the all counsel and advice necessary render the commissioners of their duties. proper performance only General is bound to Attorney It is said that act action to be and that brought, when the orders Commission 1907) commodity expressly provides act (April 5§ to enforce the act, that no shall rest the Commission duty upon than that which is duty discretionary and hence no other rests in that matter. The Attorney provision for its insertion in somewhat but' the reasons unusual, nor comment require justify' act are not material, neither by this court. General, under
It would seem to be clear that the virtue these his at common law power existing *32 which duty imposed upon him, various had a statutes, general to enforce statutes includes the and the power right if it were question, the act course, including, virtue of his office by sufficiently constitutional. His power to make him a duty connected him with of enforcement of the one now before the of the nature to proper party a. United States Circuit Court. (and really the objection forms.part
It is further objected' sued) that -a cannot be that the State court- of the contention criminal to enjoin proceedings, has no equity jurisdiction state law. as' This, under the a otherwise, by indictment or When exceptions. there are such But is true. general rule, . enforce an un- to alleged is brought indictment or proceeding matter subject inquiry is statute, constitutional the latter court, Federal court in a already a suit pending jurisdiction first obtained over subject matter, has having vol. ccix —11 TERM, 1907.
Opinion of the Court.
209 U. S.
criminal
and main
civil and
to hold
cases,
in both
the right,
courts,
to the exclusion of all other
until
jurisdiction,
tain
Front
Starr,
v.
188 U. S.
fully
537,
is
544.
duty
performed.
cannot,
course, interfere in a case
Federal
But the
cpurt
already
were
in a
court.
pending
-¡state
the proceedings
where
370;
16 Wall.
Harkrader
Taintor,
Wadley,
v.
Taylor
v.
criminal
commences a
who is already
Where one
proceeding
in a court of
if
to a suit then
pending
equity,
party
criminal
to enforce the
are
brought
same'right
proceedings
latter may
such criminal
court,
enjoin
before that
issue
Los Angeles,
Davis &c. Co. v.
These cases show court is not equity always pre injunction to stay cluded- granting proceedings have no cases, criminal we doubt the principle appliés a case such re present. Sawyer, U. S. 200, 211,- That case contrary. is not holds that in general no bill has equity stay criminal pro but it states an expressly ceedings, exception, “unless they are instituted the suit party already before it and pending the same that is in try issue right there.” authori Various ties are cited to sustain the exception. The criminal pro here that could commenced ceedings state authori ties under statutes relating would-be passenger freight rates, validity very their involved in the. *33 the United to States Circuit Court. The Restrain right by mandamus is-based upon the same proceedings foundation and the same governed principles.
Ex YOUNG. parte Opinion of the
209 U: Court. S. It is to add that the to an proper enjoin individual, even right from official, a state suits under circum- .though commencing already stated, stances does not include the to power restrain in any a- court from case before it, either acting brought or criminal nor does it include nature, power civil prevent or action jury. latter investigation grand body machinery a criminal and an court, is part injunction a state court would bé a violation of the whole scheme If of our Government. an injunction individual is and disobeyed, commences before a jury proceedings grand he. or in a such disobedience is personal only, the court without can on jury proceed penalty incurring account.
The difference power enjoin an individual between certain things, power enjoin courts from doing own way in their to exercise proceeding jurisdiction is plain, to do the latter and no exists because of a power power do n former.
It further objected there is a plain and adequate at law remedy open complainants that a court of has no therefore, It equity, has case. been that the toway test the proper constitutionality of suggested at disobey it, is to least after once, the act which the company obey the act subsequent might pending test its proceedings But in the event of a validity. violation single the prosecutor himself, not avail opportunity make the might test, to the law was thereafter as obedience continued, and he unnecessary think it to start an inquiry. If, might however, do while the he should so was' thereafter company obeying years several law, before there was a final might elapse deter- mination of the question, and if it should be determined that the law was 'property the company would invalid have taken been time without during due process law, would be no possibility there of its recovery.
Another obstacle to on making test part the com- be to find an pany might agent ór employé who would disobey *34 OCTOBER'TERM,
Opinión of the Court. U. S. him fine and law, possible imprisonment staring be valid. Take the passenger face if the act .should held A sale of a ticket above the price for instance: act, single rate to a that act the ticket subject agent might mentioned and conviction to a fine of five thousand felony, upon charge for It:is true the com- years. and five imprisonment dollars but fine, imprisonment pay agent, pany might , It would wonderful have to suffer not personally. would be be a crowd of there would not circumstances, under such if, disobey The wonder would be that law. offering agents be found to take the risk. ready should single agent be found and the should however, prosecutor one should If, the act the defense him, elect to proceed against it were the ratés too low, because invalid, established. and difficult examination of com- quite would require long validity of the act dépended.' facts upon plicated would almost to make impossible it investigation Such as such not jury, body pass before a could intelligently upon (cid:127) Questions of transportation pas- the matter. the cost road, net the separation and freight, earnings sengers within those earnings, cost arising all boundaries, beyond depending upon testimony and the examination of experts figures these sub- relating well, as the jects, possibly, expenses attending building road, cost of the would and proper necessarily form the chief inquiry, matter intelligent only answers- could be given a careful and after examination of prolonged the whole evi- calculations dence, making based thereon. All material evidence been having taken these it issues, has held that been it to be referred to ought the most competent and reliable master to all make needed computations find necessary therefrom the facts upon which a judgment be rendered that be reviewed might by this court. might Co. v. Chicago Railway Tompkins, &c. 176 U. S. 167. Prom all plain these considerations this is not a proper suit for aby jury. investigation or in- penalties, Suits
Ex YOUNG. parte
209 u: s.- Opinion of the Court. for a violation or other criminal proceedings
dictment furnish no reasonable or adequate oppor- would therefore act, a defense founded upon for the tunity presentation in- the act were too low and therefore that the rates assertion valid. not this defense interpose could say company
We do *35 the trial of an indict upon action to recover penalties in an S. but the (St. Gill, 649), Louis Co. v. U. Ry. ment &c. which falls so far below that it in either case facility of proving is scarcely court of equity comparison in a would obtain possible. in a state court the company
To await proceedings and if act, then, necessary, a disobedience grounded this court writ of to the by review in error highest obtain loss and company peril would place large state it risk of fines and if should imprisonment in great its agents This the act was valid. risk the determined finally to' not to be take. Over eleven required company ought estimated, it is are invested in dollars, millions thousand thousands of who by many people owned property, railroad from océan to country the whole .ocean, over are scattered the laws and from equal protection are entitléd they kinds of owners of all other no property, with the courts, ‘ Federal or jurisdiction, The courts having no less. more, to them as well as to others, all times be open at should state, their their property of protecting legal the purpose for. rights. law as remedy plainly.in- at being objections
All the all-who equity, a suit in by making obviated are adequate and. suit, to the enjoining parties interested directly are the court upon decision of act until the of the enforcement legal'question. either .rates, passengers. the legislature'1fixing
An act .of valid, and the onus las prima is to be regarded or freight, facie the contrary. assertion to company provedts rests upon Mr. Justice by Miller, it stated circumstances was Under such Opinion of the Court. 209 U. S. in Chicago Minnesota, &c. Co. v. opinion in his concurring ju if proper, only, that the not mode 418, 460, U. S. by the tariff rates established the leg dicial relief chancery, Commission is a bill asserting islature or that until of the character, and decree its unreasonable not was obtained was equity competent court in such or for the dealings carrier, individual having for' each its services, individual who demands each carrier regard over the courts questions ought to raise a contest This in this and conclusive manner. general to be settled is referred to and Mr. approved bill remedy by equity court in St. Louis opinion Shiras, delivering Justice 649, 659, 666, Gill, although v. &c. Co. directly remedy before court. Such un then the most convenient, comprehensive the most
doubtedly way parties in which of all can be orderly rights most It passed upon. cannot be fairly adequately properly, injure anyone cripple interest resources real because companies country, pros railroad *36 intimately the railroads and the is most country both perity is of rates sufficiency important connected. of a it judicial and nature to be controlling, being and ought by earliest moment some and when a settled at first obtains it on jurisdiction ought, Federal general- to be to finish the in permitted of jurisprudence, principles make a conclusive to the exclusion of all judgment and quiry This all that is and claimed, this, think, other is we courts.x must be admitted. objected that the result of necessary it is
Finally upholding will the Circuit Court to draw to this in be the lower flood of of this character, courts great Federal litigation would have it in his power Federal to enjoin where one judge state officials enforce acts by legislative proceedings may or civil To it by either criminal actions. State, be in the that no place, injunction answered, ought .first in a reasonably case free from doubt. We unless granted
n Ex paHe YOUNG.
n 2Ú9U. Opinion Of S. the Court.
think will such rule and followed all is, be, the judges the Federal courts.
And, must be remembered again, of this character in general has, been exercised fact, Federal courts from the time Osborn v. States United Bank up in only difference present; of Osborn regard case thé case hand this case the com being injury plained of is the threatened commencement of suits, civil criminal, to enforce the act, of, instead the Osborn case, an actual direct trespass upon with interference tangible A property. bill filed to prevent commencement suits to enforce an unconstitutional under act, the circumstances already is mentioned, no new as we invention, have already seen. The difference between an actual and direct interfer ence with and the tangible property of state enjoining officers from an unconstitutional enforcing act, is not of a radical and does not nature, extend, truth, jurisdiction of the courts over the matter. subject case of the interference with property is person enjoined to act in his assuming as an official of capacity justification for his in is terference claimed reason of his position as a state official. Such official cannot so justify when under an acting unconstitu tional enactment of the where the legislature. So, state offi instead of cial, directly interfering tangible property, abouj; to commence suits, have their the en object forcement of act which violates the Federal Constitution, to the injury of the great irreparable complainants, he justification same seeking authority of the State in other cases. The is, sovereignty reality, no more involved in one case than the other. The State cannot in either case to the official impart immunity from re sponsibility supreme authority of the United States. See *37 In re 123 S. Ayers, U. 507.
This supreme authority, arises from the specific pro- visions of Constitution is nowhere itself, more illus- fully the. than- in the series of trated decisions under the Federal habeas 1907. 168 J., dissenting. 209 U. S. Harlan, in Stat.), Rev. some of which cases (§ 753, per corpus statute of state officers for crimes custody alleged sons vthe custody taken from that have been discharged the State because the judge, imprisonment aby Federal court Constitution. violation of the Federal The to be in adjudged court, been doubted this has not to so discharge right the State there was suit against it has been supposed never one of the officers the writ by reason of serving was found. some of custody person State whose discretion, but refused as matter tihe cases the writ has been has been fully while power in others it has been granted, 241; In re Ex 117 U. S. parte Royall, Loney, in all. recognized Baker 1; Grice, 135 U. S. v. 169 372; Neagle, U. In re S. S. Minnesota Brun 276; U. v. 284; Thomas, U. S. Ohio v. 502; Jones, 153; Reid v. 187 U. S. United U. S. 499,
dage, In re 1; Lincoln, 178; S. Lewis, Urqu States v. 200 U. S. Brown, hart v. 205 U. which, difficult to the distinction appreciate
It is somewhat from the. taking person, while admitting the writ virtue of service of on the custody of he found, is is not custody officer whose state a writ on the yet service of his an unconstitutional enactment of a' to prevent enforcing the State. is a suit state legislature is case before us that properly There nothing ought customary hostility to breed Federal operation in cases of character. justice courts Of is rule show cause and the petition discharged habeas writs of and certiorari dismissed. corpus
So ordered. Harlan, Mr. Justice dissenting. history of this
Although set forth litigation I the deem it to restate the opinion appropriate facts of the case my direct connection with ex- principal of the question upon amination which the decision turns.
Ex parte YOUNG. Harlan, J., dissenting.
209 U. S. That of whether suit in the Court question is, Circuit United States was, sought against Attorney relief General forbidden Minnesota, Eleventh Amendment of Constitution of United that “the States, declaring judicial of the United power States shall not be construed to (cid:127) extend to any suit law equity commenced prosecuted of one the United States of by citizens another State, or by of or subjects State.” That exami- foreign citizens nation, at the may say outset, is entered with no I upon little of the fact that embarrassment, view the views expressed by me by. my are not I may shared brethren. also frankly admit embarrassment from certain views stated in arising heretofore me dissenting opinions delivered which did not, at the time, meet the approval my brethren, and which I do not now What I myself say entertain. shall this opinion will inbe substantial accord with what the court has hereto- fore while the decided, opinion the court as I departs, think, from announced principles previously by it full consid- upon eration. I to adhere to propose former decisions of the court, whatever may my have been once as to certain opinion aspects of this general question.
The plaintiffs referred Perkins and to, Shepard, were shareholders the Northern Railway Com'pany Pacific and citizens; of Iowa and respectively, Minnesota. The de- railway fendants were the Edward T. company, Young, Minnesota, several members State Railroad and Warehouse certain Commission, per- railway. who over the of that sons were lines shippers freight of the suit was to object compliance The general prevent Minnesota certain provisions legislature acts of the Com- Warehouse certain .orders of the State Railroad and to be permits State the rates which the mission, indicating and commodities for the transportation passengers charged limits; also, prevent shippers within railroads those railway enforce company actions against bringing acts and orders. TERM,, 1907. J., dissenting.
Harlan, T. Young, Edward prayed other bill, things, among Minnesota,” Attorney General “as Commission Railroad and Warehouse of the State members from all them) attempts compel be enjoined (naming them in force the rates or railway company put any action, step and “from orders, taking said prescribed *39 or Railway any of its Company, said or proceeding any or to enforce employés, penalties officers, directors, agents Railway said of said Company for the violation or remedies Attorney and that said “as them;” Young, or either orders any from or action, step proceed- General,” enjoined taking its or railway the em- company, officers, agents ing the and remedies those penalties specified to enforce ployés, acts. for'. The injunction prayed a temporary court gave with- and, of Minnesota appeared specially
Attorney jurisdiction' to or the the acknowledging submitting out to dismiss the suit' as to the him, upon ground moved to be and also sued, State had not consented the because him the Attor- “as, only as, and was exhibited against the bill him, by to restrain Minnesota,” State of ney General vested in him to the discretion from exercising injunction, on behalf en- actions," State, appropriate commence directly laws. He raised the' validity of its or to test force as to in his official him, capacity, that the suit in violation of the Eleventh Amend- one against ment. why injunction to an order to show cause
In response Attorney not be General also for should granted asked objections and like urged specially suit'against appeared Court. Circuit him in the the court made an parties order, Septem- hearing
After railway di- whereby company, officers, 1907, 23, ber' were until employés, enjoined servants rectors, agents, or of the court from adopting order publishing, further thé rates or in the tariffs, charges specified effect putting into Ex YOUNG. parte Harlan, J., dissenting. act of The court likewise the defend- April 18, enjoined ant “as the State of Minnesota,” General of Young, suit, proceed- "taking instituting action, step to enforce the ing penalties and remedies said acts specified or either thereof, or to compel obedience said act or com- therewith or A pliance part thereof.” like injunction was the defendant shippers. granted against the next day, September 24,
On State Minne- “on the relation Edward T. sota, Young, Attorney Gen- eral,” commenced action one of its own courts against the Northern Pacific Railway Company only sought —the relief a mandamus being ordering company adopt, publish, into keep public inspection, put effect, as the rates to be maintained for the transportation of charges freight in Minnesota, between stations those named specified in what is known as 232 of chapter the Session Laws of Minne- sota for 1907. That was the act which it was object Perkins-Shepard Federal to strike down *40 An nullify. alternative writ of such as mandamus, by was issued court. asked, State state institution, in the court, by The state on the rela- Attorney of its of the mandamus General, tion proceeding railway been company to the at- against having brought Court, of the Federal Circuit a rule was issued tention to why defendant show cause he should not Young be as for that contempt. rule, he punished Answering alleged, that the mandamus other’ was things, among proceeding and on behalf of the him by State,, through its brought in General; every that he had Attorney way possible objected on that action Was com- ground to him for solely Attorney General menced Minne- him from in order to in the prevent proper instituting sota for actions the name of the State enforce civil courts laws; that is no other action or validity of there or test the this contemplated by proceeding pending defendant said mandamus except proceedings railway company, said Harlan, J., dissenting. S.U. ' to. Defendant disclaimed expressly hereinbefore referred intention, treat this the commence- court disrespect of “but referred to, ment proceedings believing this, decision in this that it had action, juris- of holding defendant, General, diction to this as such enjoin Attorney in con- discretionary duties, his official was performing flict with Amendment the Constitution of the the Eleventh United has States, as the same been interpreted applied by States defendant Court, United believed Supreme his duty Attorney be as such General to commence said manda- mus and it was the-State, for and behalf proceedings solely belief that said were commenced proceedings said law of the State of Minne- purpose enforcing sota.” held heard, Attorney was and the was rule
inbe the order of the Federal court “Ordered contempt, being: Edward T. dismiss or cause further, Young that said forthwith the suit The State Minnesota on the Relation be dismissed Plaintiff, v. General, T. Northern Young, of Edward Defendant, heretofore instituted Railway Company, Pacific County Second Ramsey, him in District Court Minnesota. further, Ordered District, Judicial Edward T. be said fined the sum contempt Young for'his said stand committed in dollars and custody hundred one until'the and until paid, this court same he the Marshal of to be his contempt dismissing causing himself of purge mentioned.” last herein said suit dismissed ap- commenced original The present proceeding for writ of this court habeas corpus. by Young plication proceeds upon in his application, the-.ground The petitioner, in violation of the Constitution of custody he is held *41 all the set out taken steps The petition States. the United other among things:- Federal alleging, in the in the suit Attorney office as petitioner’s “That your and provided is established Minnesota State of 1 Article V section of State, said of constitution thereof Ex YOUNG. parte J., Harlan, dissenting. Department.shall wit: Executive as ‘The follows,
providing State, Secretary Governor, Lieutenant Governor, consist of who shall be chosen Attorney General, and Auditor, Treasurer nor That neither statute of the State.’ by the electors duty your special otherwise is petitioner charged said of which or not doing character the doing ministerial Northern or the said in the said bill of complaint complainants what- and that had Railway any. right, Company legal Pacific or has with respect had your petitioner ever duties complaint, bill of the said complained matters several That in no case and nature. discretionary an executive are of intention so to it was his even your though could petitioner, or the said the said not, complainants it was deprive do, them, or either Railway Pacific Company, Northern in any their par- nor could he trespass upon rights property, General as and that all he could do afore- ticular, it was his to do in that and all duty capacity, and all that said was to commence do, to do or would he intended formal court Minnesota appropriate against proceedings judicial its Railway Company, officers, agents the said Northern Pacific its the said and compel company, agents employés, the schedule of force adopt put servants, freight said prescribed by chapter and charges tariffs rates, the State of Minnesota.” He renewed the ob- 1907, of Laws instituted Perkins and Shepard, in so jection was a suit him, same far as the his action in proposed commencing name prevent was in restraint of the State itself., “and said State in is one violation said suit Constitution of the Amendment United States, Eleventh so was, the same is and far your therefore and that peti- concerned, beyond the. said tioner Circuit n etc. Court,” n This statement will sufficiently indicate the nature of merits, now to be examined that the suit it be observed instituted by Let Perkins *42 J., dissenting. 209 U. S.
Harlan, States'was, Court of the United as to in the Circuit Shepard became only him he as, one Young, against the defendant was of Minnesota. relief Attorney sought General was, No. as Attorney but in his individually only capacity him against manifest, admitted, indeed the avowed and And General! such relief was to tie the hands of the State object seeking by any manner or mode of proceed- so that it could not oym validity test the of the statutes and courts, in its ing, within It would therefore seem clear that orders in question. suit Eleventh Amendment the brought the true meaning effect, was State— one, in the Federal court legal on formally if the State had been named as much so as it therefore was a under which, as a party record —and its Attorney so far as the State or Amendment, of the United States did not concerned, judicial power was If this be sound will proposition not' extend. and could it so far as relief is if, conceded indeed, sought follow— General of this be a suit Attorney Minnesota, the order of the Federal court enjoin- the State —then any action, suit, step proceed- that officer taking ing railway obey the Minnesota company compel ing of that and wholly beyond statute was which, liberty was at case, proceed that officer void; his duties as defined the laws of official the discharge him to inbe contempt and the order adjudging in. the- state court the mandamus proceeding bringing nullity. , Court Federal Circuit had, prior
The fact that in the state court, of the mandamus suit prelimi institution (but held statutes of finally)1 Minnesota and narily its Railroad and Warehouse Commission in the orders of ques in violation of the Constitution the United tion to be States, .of why was no reason that court should have laid violent hands General of-Minnesota and its orders State of have the services of its deprived constitutional in its law officer courts. Yet that what was own done by parte
Ex YOUNG. J., Harlan, dissenting. Court; for, the Circuit intangible the Federal called' thing, can State, however extensive never powers, or be appear known court in litigated case, represented except its officers. When, therefore, through Federal court *43 forbade the defendant as Attorney General of Young, Minne from any action, suit, step or sota, taking what proceeding to the ever enforcement the statutes in it looking question, to the “It effect State Minnesota: said true that the not by United States delegated powers Constitution, it to the by are prohibited States, reserved to the nor States its it is or to true that respectively people, under Con of the judicial power stitution the United States dobs not by extend a State brought against a citizen of or by a citizen or subject another State of a foreign State, yet court Federal that adjudges you, State, a although many for important sovereign governmental purposes, shall your courts, own appear by your law officer, with the view even for enforcing, determining validity of the which the enactments Federal has, state court upon a pre declared to be in liminary hearing, violation of the Constitu of the United States.” tion if firmly
This principle, established, would work a radical system. our It change governmental would a inaugurate era in the judicial system new American the relations National of the and state It governments. would enable the subordinate Federal courts supervise and control the official if they of the States as were “dependencies” action or prov- It would States of the place inces. Union in a condition never dreamed of inferiority when 'the Constitution was or when the Eleventh Amendment adopted was made a part Law of the I of the Land. Supreme cannot suppose that the who framed men the Constitution ever great thought when a would come subordinate time Federal court, having compel corporate no power- capacity, ap- as a would yet litigant, before assume to deprive pear be represented in its own of the right courts by its
Harlan, J., dissenting. did, what below as to law That is regular officer. court of the de- Minnesota, appearance when it adjudged in the state as the fendant Young of. law officer, his State as its chief Minnesota, representing court, punishable of the Federal contempt authority has been fine Too little imprisonment. consequence and. by an States are under attached to the fact the courts the courts with that equally strong resting obligation Union to enforce the provisions respect and. Land, Law of the Federal Constitution as the Supreme instrument. guaranteed secured rights guard us requires States respect We must assume—a decent the. every will enforce- right state courts to assume—that they so, party If fail to-do the Constitution. sécured ofhis remedy rights; has a clear for the protection complaining orderly, way, error, judicial writ of for, he can come for redress of the State to tribunal highest *44 instru- by of or secured every respect right granted in state it should courts, the state court. The by ment and denied with the courts have concurrent remembered, be all of a civil at common nature, of suits United States amount, under involving prescribed arising equity law or United or laws of the States. Stat. the Constitution "A court jurisdic- court- Has said: state original And may with exist- it, consistently the before parties having tion, at law or- in cases equity legislation Federal determine ing United Constitution States under the or.laws arising such Constitution laws. pr dependent involving rights cour-ts of the courts, Union, the equally the state Upon enforce,'and every protect right to guard, the obligation rests Constitution -the United the States by or secured granted those in whenever thereof, rights made pursuance the laws them; before for the suit or .proceeding involved are an to sup- are to take oath required state courts the judges and the "they by it, are bound laws Constitution, port in pursuance thereof, States made treaties United .all parte Ex YOUNG. J., dissenting. Hablan, . supreme as the authority, land,
made their law the under of any or laws the con- Constitution ‘anything If they fail and withhold trary notwithstanding.’ therein, by or immunities secured Con- deny rights, privileges, States, and laws the United party stitution aggrieved court the case from the of the State may highest bring could decided to this for final and question which the be court Robb v. Connolly, determination.” U. S. 624, conclusive court 637. So that order of the Federal preventing of its Attorney State from the services General in one having its of his own at risk courts, except being fined and arrested, justified upon ques- cannot be ground tion of involved in the law, constitutional enforcement < beyond question, statutes of a state competency to consider and determine, as between the primarily, before it in a suit parties by State itself. brought At the of this case counsel for argument com- railway insisted that act in pany provisions of the were that they so drastic could enforced own the State courts with such persistency and such manner in a as, very railway brief have the period, officers and all in jail, agents the business destroyed and its company property con- by heavy fiscated successive penalties, before a final judi- cial decision as to the constitutionality of the act could be I obtained. infer some in the court’s language opinion that these shared apprehensions are some my brethren. And this supposed railway danger company and its shareholders seems have been the basis of the action of the Circuit Court Federal its order directed when, *45 Attorney General of it Minnesota, practically the excluded from its own counts in respect the issues here involved no really But question in the state statute is here now considered; volved or need be for it cannot arise possibly present of the of that application on the officer for dis- hearing The corpus. only habeas now question on before this charge suit Perkins and in by Shepard court is whether the the Federal ccix —12 vol. TERM, 1907.
Harlan, J., dissenting. S. 209 U. the as to sought against the face, its not, upon was court relief the State. Stated Minnesota, against General Attorney by may, that court the is whether form, in question another by in his means capacity, upon operating official officer repre- from prevent fine the-State imprisonment, being If Fed- the law in one-of its courts? its officer own by sented so not thus the State put upon eral court could manacles Attorney General by from its prevent represented being pass upon in court from the state court having its own in in the Perkins- validity of state enactment corpus that is an to this habeas Shepard suit, proceeding, end - Attorney discharged General of Minnesota should by custody. of this court from order
It in pro- be observed that when State was effect the order the Federal from by appearing court hibited what- absolutely none courts, its own there was no danger, had done ever, Attorney from that the General ever anything do, railway company that the property proposed and its imprisoned, would be confiscated officers agents stay any of that done beyond company power wrong regular order, any judgment court, bringing final may in the been in the state mandamus have suit, Attorney Federal derogation right. When General state the mandamus proceeding instituted it must railway company force, there not be for- was of' an order Federal court which injunction gotten, state law. There company prevented obeying no from that Besides, consequently danger direction.. was not for the recovery mandamus instituted proceeding state penalties prescribed law, and there- in that case operate fore no could directly upon judgment railway company property persons officers or his response agents. him assured the court that did Federal he rule whatever the rail- contemplate proceeding way the one mandamus. company except Suppose *46 Ex parte YOUNG. Hablan, J., dissenting.
209 U. S. mandamus case had been finally decided the state court, way open railway company preserve any it made as to its question under the rights Constitution, and, in the event of a it in decision adverse to at court, once carry case court of Minnesota and thence highest aby writ of error it to this court. That would course bring have served to every determine constitutional law raised the suit in the Federal court an orderly way without and upon without trampling interfering, in the meantime, operation railway property .in the accustomed way. Instead of that course—so adopting manifestly consistent with the and of both authority dignity the Federal and state judicial tribunals—the Federal court practically closed the state courts the State itself against when it that the adjudged without General, regard of the Governor of Minnesota, wishes without refer- ence to his duties laws prescribed by the of that State, should stand the custody of the Marshal, unless he dismissed the mandamus suit. If the Federal court could thus prohibit the law officer of the State from it in a suit representing brought in the why state bill in court, not the might Federal court be so amended that that court could reach all the district attorneys Minnesota forbid them from bringing the attention of juries the state courts grand violations state act railway company? And if a grand jury was about to inquire into the acts of the railway company respect the matter of its rates, why may not the Federal the same proceeding upon on which it grounds has moved against Attorney General, enjoin finding of indictments returning lailway If company? indictment was returned railway company, and was about to be tried a petit jury, why could not the Fed- eral court, upon principles now announced, forbid the jury to proceed the railway and if it company, did, punish every petit as for juryman of court? contempt Indeed, why itmay on lay hands the Governor of the TERM, 1907. J., dissenting.
Harlan, the courts of Minnesota him from appealing forbid test the of the act in validity question? the State to name lay not the Federal court its hands even why may And *47 itsélf, the state court whenever it proceeds the of judge under the state law? railway company the evidently matter of these has questions The been subject court, this and the that consequences considered startling answer, result from an affirmative to them have not would I in its find these overlooked; for, opinion, been observations: an to add that the right enjoin individual, “It is proper official, a state suits under cir- commencing even though does not include the already stated, power to cumstances any court from case restrain a before acting brought it, civil or criminal nor does it nature, either a include power or action a to prevent investigation grand jury. The body machinery latter is of a part court, criminal a state court would be a an violation injunction against our If government. whole scheme an injunction disobeyed, is and he commences individual before proceedings disobedience, in a or jury personal a only, grand court or can without jury proceed and the incurring pen- on that account. difference between the alty power to an individual from certain and the enjoin doing things, power courts from their own enjoin proceeding way to exercise no to do plain, power the latter exists be- of a to do the former.” If power cause an order of the Fed- 'court state court or its forbidding eral jury from grand to enforce a state enactment would “a attempting viola- tion of the-whole scheme our it is government,” difficult to why an order of that court, perceive forbidding chief law all district attorneys officer and of a State to represent it in the courts, particular case, and practically, that doors of way, the state court closing would not also be inconsistent with the whole scheme of our and, therefore, beyond government, power the to make.
. Ex YOUNG. 1S1 parte J., dissenting. Harlan¿ S. 209 U. Minnesota violative of
Whether the statutes are are not Constitution'is already not. suggested, I corpus habeas do to con stop proceeding. not, therefore, sider whether those statutes are Constitution repugnant the' their when upon ground necessary operation, will enforced, they from con prevent railway company validity, they their are con testing ground fiscatory and therefore obnoxious of due requirement While law. at the bar in process support argument of these was confessedly each force and propositions great I those points need be now persuasiveness, examined. no about opinion them. how- express may, Their soundness for be conceded éVer, Indeed, of this purposes discussion. be assumed may of this purposes discussion these are enactments harsh and intemperate and, state some of invalid. features, But their those are questions wholly apart *48 the If present now proceeding. we consider them we go’. our out of inway order to have go must do We no evi in this as to statutes, the effect which the proceeding, dence enforced, would have the value the upon railway if either of the or of bonds or railway stocks of the property company. their validity has not been decided question finally by and Court, Circuit we have not us before even the evidence the preliminary injunction its was based. The essen upon only and now before us or that tial need be decided by Federal whether order the court which the prevents from being represented its own courts, State chief by an issue officer, .the constitutional upon validity law involving enactments, certain state does not a suit against piake within the If meaning Eleventh Amendment. suit of kind, then, a it is Circuit Court conceded, without fine and imprisón petitioner pur be- he must be as may and whatever views discharged, of those state enactments.! This must neces validity sarily unless the Amendment has less force a more be so .and than it of its now had at time meaning adop restricted J., dissenting.
Hablan, a of State, unless against tion, is not one a State under the capacity, his official . upon it's determination depends when Eleventh Amendment Four or under the power constitutional right a question I In my In that view cannot concur. Amendment. teenth has modified Eleventh Amendment not been opinion the Four by to its or scope degree meaning slightest is one, a suit in its which, essence, Amendment, teenth one of that and is for State remains character statute al- when strike dcwn a state even brought bidden ' that clause of Amend in violation of the Fourteenth to be leged by liberty a State of or life, forbidding deprivation ment of law. If suit be without commenced process property d.ue by involves a secured the Federal court, right (cid:127)in a state our under Constitution, way open incomparable judicial by first, protect right, judgment system (cid:127) ultimately by the this court, court, judgment state of error. But cannot be right protected by writ outset, directly at the which, is, a áuit legal means the State whose action is to be alleged one effect, is absolutely by mode of redress That forbidden illegal. cannot be Amendment and made mere legal Eleventh consideration construction, consequences operation follow from the statute. that'may Parties obtain redress a suit case, against the cannot, State. ruling been uniform and it is Such has most declared it is now. to be competent unfortunate its authority Circuit over Court, by exerting Federal the chief without the consent of the State, law officer *49 in its i State, sovereign capacity, from its exclude own have when of those courts the-ruling courts seeking n under own statutes. Surely, its its powers right aof. ' (cid:127) to invoke own courts is not jurisdiction its less than the individuals invoke the right jurisdiction a The court. preservation Federal dignity sovereignty within the limits of States, constitutional powers, their
Ex parte YOUNG. Hablan, J., dissenting. vital to the of our preservation is of the last importance, The courts should not them system permit of government. real or by hardships, supposed, to be driven selves if they even be results, just cases to accomplish particular the fundamental law. The by in a mode forbidden results, think Constitu never be allowed to country should mere by judicial in be evaded or amended can, any case, tion by be nullified may or that its behests interpretation, construction of provisions. ingenious under consideration question is a importance reference to the for such a authorities justification
sufficient on which this court indicate the has precise as will grounds what is and when what is proceeded determining oftentimes a State within the a suit Eleventh meaning All the cases the incapacity agree declaring Amendment. to éxercise over a jurisdiction Federal court State as a of a But assaults Eleventh Amendment have party. in which been made cases has been, oftenest effort the State a formal to control party, the acts making without such orders directed to officers them as agents, of its by' indirection, the same results that could accomplish, will a suit if directly accomplished be It will be well to look at were some possible. cases. adjudged principal Cunningham was examined v.
The general U. Co., 446-451, R. R. S. where the Macon & Brunswick cases, “may it was conceded all the said court unquestioned, neither departure as a point accepted as defendant in any be sued the United States can State nor consent, except this without their country be made may party cases in which a State class of limited of th Court, by virtue States the United in the Supreme e the Constitu on this court conferred original departed not in case court has tion.” The McConnaughy, v. Pennoyer constitutional principle. from suit a State immunity that “this
U. S. it said 1, 9, *50 . J., dissenting. Harlan, 209 U. S. and the constitutional unqualified, provision absolute to so Staife it is not be construed as to place securing it is reach of the court. process within the Accordingly, well that a suit the officers 'a equally settled to do the acts which a perform to them constitute compel inis, effect, it of its a suit the State contracts; ance In v. Macon & Brunswick R. R. Cunningham Co., itself.” distinction was drawn cited, the between Ú just which is' the real party interest, technically the State although “ record, on the and one which an individual is sued party in tort for some act another in injurious to regard person to which his defense is that he has acted under property, government;” case, the orders which last the court “ because, the defendant is not sued he observed, as, is, the but as an officer and the government, individual, ousted of jurisdiction authority is not because he asserts it not L$t be the defendant forgotten officer.” not as an sued, individual or because he had any Young and n matters, interest' but as, solely because personal these of the State he an officer with the is, charged performancfe certain duties. public v. 52, 67, Hagood Southern, involved of certain validity scrip to have been alleged issued Carolina,
State of" South appeared State having obligation pay, plaintiff denied relief by sought certain officers, state without simply suing such, making formal party» said;' State a The court “These "suits are described as bills for accurately specific performance between the complainants a contract and the State of South only who are the Carolina, parties it. But to these bills is not name made a the State party defendant,' though to it to become if such, leave is it chooses; given and, except it could not consent, with that be before the court brought appear and made to defend. yet And it is the actual contract party which is alleged performance of one decreed, required perform and the decree, only
¿x YOUNG. parte J., dissenting. Harlan, S.U. not nominally Though it can be performed. whom party in interest, only party it is the real and record, party *51 officers and of the agent® the. being defendants the nominal subject-matter interest in the of the no personal State, having State. And only representing and suit, defending and performed by to be done by the decrees required things done and which when very performed, things, .are the them, by contract the State. alleged a performance constitute to the but controversy, not- the real .only party State is The is by suit, which relief and sought party against the real within the therefore, substantially prohibition of is, the suit to the Constitution of the United Amendment the Eleventh that ‘the judicial power which declares United States, to extend to suit in or not be construed law shall States or one of the prosecuted United against commenced equity State, by of another citizens or subjects citizens States ” “If this case is not State.’ within the Again: any foreign forbidden the constitutional guaranty those to the class in Federal it immunity tribunals, from suits is diffi- States of one which would If the frame be. conceive cult only'be it can reached defendant, named as a either is State final officers and process through agents, mesne it neither be could obtained nor enforced, against a judgment n conduct and as the public government ideal except could be reached called State .and body affected political A representatives. judgment against its official these through representative capacity, official and their command- latter, functions on behalf of official perform State them ing of the court, is, the dictates and decrees if any- according judicial State be, proceeding against can itself. thing what asked, well be would may it constitute such a If not, In the cases the decrees were not present only proceeding? in their capacity, but, the defendants there against official as to the mistake nature extent of no the duty might also their successors office.” Is against to be performed, order requiring that an to be said General of a Harlan, J:, dissenting. 209 U. S. official State to certain functions on perform behalf is a suit while an against order forbidding Attorney General, not to an him, perform official function on behalf of the State not a suit the State? case leading general subject, very- one in many important
similar particulars present one, Ayers, 443, 496, 497, re 505. The facts in that briefly case Were these: The in 1887, legislature Virginia, act which sundry passed bonds and tax-receivable .holders of that Commonwealth coupons to be violation of alleged under their the Constitution of rights the United States. instituted a suit They equity the Circuit Court of the States the Attorney United and Auditor of the Treasurers and Commonwealth at Virginia, cities torneys counties, and towns in the rcr Virginia, *52 a decree asked and said being enjoining the state restraining and each of officers, them, or any bringing commencing for by the above act of provided 1887, suit or from any doing that act into put operation. The Circuit Court en thing the order, Attorney tered an General of enjoining Virginia and all the state officers and each named “from or bringing any suit any person who has tendered commencing against the State of tax-receivable in Virginia coupons payment of taxes State, provided by to said for and directed due the act of of approved May the 1887.” Virginia, Subse legislature the Circuit Court of the United States- was quently informed General of Attorney that the had Virginia disobeyed its order that officer Thereupon of was ruled to injunction. show cause and he should be fined why imprisoned. He responded that after rule, the served admitting being with the injunction suit, he had instituted a the state Circuit Court, against Ohio the Baltimore and Railroad Company recover taxes due the and “that he alleging instituted the said suit was required by because he thereunto the act of the General Assembly aforesaid, of Virginia because he believed n had no jurisdiction injunctio court whatever to award the parte
Ex YOUNG. Harlan, J., dissenting. treat violated.” He disclaimed intention to the court that had and stated he been actuated alone disrespect, have law was, the desire to administered. He properly was contempt, required forth- nevertheless, adjudged guilty dismiss $500 he had was fined for with to the suit brought, to the custody and committed marshal contempt until he himself his until paid, purged fine the state court. The Attor- contempt dismissing to this for directly then a writ of ney applied and upon which was he was corpus, granted, hearing 'habeas custody. The order for his dis- by this court from released which the injunctions recited the suit were charge was "in substance and law suit the State granted and “within Eleventh prohibition Virginia,” Constitution;” that it was one “to which Amendment of the United States does not extend;” the judicial power Court was without to entertain jurisdiction Circuit that all its in the exercise of were it; proceedings void; authority that.it had no power null adjudge his General in and that contempt; imprison- In' authority was without law. opinion ment “ It follows, therefore, case the court said: Ayers present act to be personal petitioners sought case, order of Circuit reduced to Court, restrained action in the name the State bringing mere they may have tendered tax-receiv- who, although taxpayers, delinquents, cannot be are coupons, charged alleged able in violation of individual act them as an legal *53 “The relief taxpayers.” Again: of such rights sought contract but in individual, not their their defendants, is against.the State Virginia. as capacity representative of officersof suits by restrained are the of bringing be to sought acts If and for its own use. name its own of Virginia State by this bill name, a defendant to charged made had been State it now supposing the allegations to according contains — been subject would have be maintained —it a suit could such Harlan, J., dissenting. by of the court its jurisdiction
to
served
process
and
to the
Attorney General,
Governor
according
precedents
Jersey
York,
288, 290;
in such cases. New
v. New
Harlan, S.TJ. I cannot conceive how against will. the proceeding against *55 General of Attorney the could be deemed a Virginia suit against the yet the proceeding against Attorney Gen- eral of Minnesota not to be a deemed suit against Minnesota, of object when the effect the latter was, proceeding beyond all to shut that State of its question, entirely out courts, own it' its law-officer prevent through their invoking in a special matter public of concern, involving official about which the duty, State desired to know the views In of its own judiciary. my the decision in the opinion Ayers case determines this case for the petitioner. directly
More
for
point, perhaps,
petitioner
the
Young
is the case of Fitts v. McGhee,
Ex parte YOUNG. Harlan, J., dissenting. After Ayers settled in the stating principles case and “ in other cases this court said: If these principles be applied in the case there is present no from the conclusion escape that, State Alabama was as a although dismissed de party fendant, this suit its officers is one really State. As can act only by order restrain officers, ing those taking any by means steps, judicial officers from in execution of the statute proceedings, February 9, 1895, is one which restrains the State and the suit is itself, consequently as much the State as the State named were party_ if on If the record. the individual defendants held defendant possession or were about to take possession to commit of, trespass upon, property under the belonging control of the plaintiffs, violation the latter’s constitu *56 tional could resist they not rights, judicial determination, in a suit against them, question of the to such right .possession by-simply that they or were asserting held entitled to hold the in their property capacity officers State. In the case they be to supposed, make compelled would good the State’s claim to the arid property, could not shield them suit because against of their official character. Tindal selves. v. 167 U. Wesley, 204, S. 222. No such cáse is before us.” “ in the same case: It Again, is to observed that be neither the Attorney of nor the Solicitor of the Eleventh Alabama Judicial Circuit of the to appear have been charged by law with duty in special connection with act of Feb- ruary 9, 1895. In . of the contention that support the present not one suit the State, by reference was made coun sel to several which cases, among Greenhow, were Poindexter v. 114 U. 270; S. Allen v. Baltimore & Ohio 114 Railroad, U. S. 311; Pennoyer v. In re McConnaughy, 1; 140 U. S. 14 Tyler; 164; U. S. v. Farmers’ Loan & Reagan 154 Co., U. S. Trust 388; Donald, Smyth v. Scott v. 165 U. S. 58, Ames, U. 466. examination it will found Upon S. be of of State, defendants each those cases were officers a with the execution of state enactment especially charged Harlan, J., dissenting. unconstitutional, but under the of authority be alleged or were they were about to averred, committing which, of wrong trespass injury specific commit some wide There is a difference between a suit plaintiff’s rights. official under positions individuals, holding State, of the sanction an under .unconstitutional them, prevent some act a by positive statute, committing wrong a State merely suit test the trespass, officers e a stat constitutionality statute, which enforcement only by will act judicial proceedings those in the formal officers case, as we have present said, courts the State. neither officers named held relation to special the state to be unconstitutional. They statute were particular alleged to its directed see enforcement. If, because expressly officers of the a case could were law be made for they the constitutionality purpose testing statute, them, then the constitu injunction brought against every act could be tested tionality passed legislature and Attorney the Governor based General, a suit against that the former as the executive of the State theory with the execution of all its was, charged general-sense, latter, General, and the laws, might represent the enforcement State in of its statutes. involving litigation very way That would be a convenient a' speedy .obtaining questions determination' constitutional law judicial but it by individuals, be raised is a-mode which may Union States of consistently applied cannot the.. *57 that they cannot, without principle
the fundamental their into at the suit of private be court persons. assent, brought commit acts of or trespass If their officers citi wrong individually be zen, they may proceeded for against Under the view we or take of the trespasses wrong. question, citizen is not without effective when remedy, proceeded enactment void' under a against legislative repugnancy law of the land; for, whatever the form of supreme he can make his him, defense against proceeding parte Ex YOUNG. Harlan, J., dissenting. S.U. that the statute is unconstitutional and
ground' void. And that can ultimately this court brought for final I determination.” am unable to distinguish case, now the one before us. principle, The Fitts case is not away I overruled, is, but frittered fear, out of put sight unwarranted distinctions.
Two cases are much relied on to support the that the proposition Perkins-Shepard suit in the Circuit Court I is not a suit State. refer to Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 362, Smyth v. Ames, U. S. 472. But each of those cases differs in material from the one instituted respects Perkins and Shepard in the court below. the Reagan case it appears that under which the railroad very act, commission au proceeded; thorized the railroad company, any interested if party, with dissatisfied the action of the commission in establishing rates, commission in bring named county, a to a right appeal higher court. This court when combatting suggestion only the state court had jurisdiction proceed commission, “ relief of the rates it respect established, said: It give be laid down as may general proposition that, whenever a of a State can citizen into the courts of a go State to defend his acts of its property against illegal officers, citizen of invoke may another the Federal courts to maintain a like A defense. State cannot tie aup of another State, citizen having property within its rights territory invaded acts of its own unauthorized officers, own suits for redress courts. Given a case where a suit maintained in the courts can be of the State to protect prop may another State erty invoke rights, juris citizen It diction of the Federal courts. ... comes, therefore, terms of the act. It cannot be doubted that very within can any other waive exemption like government, a. the court in The declaration of the Reagan case, from suit.” within the true not, meaning Eleventh that that suit ccix — 13 VOL. *58 TERM, 1907. ’
Harlan, J., dissenting. as a suit State, to be must Amendment, regarded against in with the be taken connéction declaration in the therefore the State consented that the case that commis haying same in one of its own in courts, be sued respect sion might must by be taken to have waived statute, established rates (cid:127) in from suit the Circuit of the United immunity its Court in Texas. v. above Smyth Ames, cited, States sitting States, Circuit Court of the United involv a suit in a validity of certain rates established the constitutional ing expressly it that the statute Nebraska, appeared railroads in rates were railroad that the company claiming authorized an action the State before unreasonable to bring in the name of the railroad or com company Court Supreme the same. Thus the State of Nebraska waived panies bringing authorized a suit immunity suit,- its having in its in of the rates there courts, respect ques itself one of case, to the decision in the tion, not, Reagan could according deny liability its to like suit a court of the United States. Ames, It this in its v. did court, opinion Smyth is true that by on the fact that lay any Nebraska, not stress special but it sued, that it took care statute, especial agreed might of the case to out its extended statement bring fact. point extraordinary, Its silence on view the opinion from the fact, ques appears was to be tion whether that suit deemed one the State at the bar was not discussed Nebraska State Board. from the' Reagan We there case these words: “When quoted a State ever a citizen of can into the courts of.a State to go defend his acts of its property against officers, illegal citizen of may another State invoke- the A Federal cannot courts to maintain like defense. tie within citizen of another up property rights having acts of its own territory officers, invaded unauthorized That the Reagan suits for redress its own courts.” Smyth far as is now claimed for them is cases did not go clear the later case of Fitts v. re- macje McGhee, already
Ex YOUNG. parte, 209 U. S. Hablan, J., dissenting. *59 doctrines of In re Ayers
ferred in which the were reaffirmed to, and applied. refer in this connection to Gunter v. Atlantic Coast
mayWe
in
U. S.
which case one of the
Line,
273, 291,
points
made
was that the Circuit Court of the United States had no power
South
to restrain the
General of
Carolina and the
counsel associated with him from
in the state
prosecuting
actions
laws
courts
authorized
of the
and hence
State,
in
the court erred
said
injunction
awarding
officers. This court said:
is
“Support
the proposition
rested
the terms of the' Eleventh
and the
upon
Amendment
of section
provision^
the Revised Statutes, forbidding
of a writ by any court of the United States to
granting
stay
a
in
any court of
cases where
proceedings
State, except
may
law
to
injunction
by any
authorized
relating
.in
bankruptcy.
soundness
doctrine
proceedings
443;
relied
is undoubted.
re
S.
Ayers, 123 U.
Fitts
v. McGhee,
difficulty
Harlan, Jy, a contro- authority entertain its want jurisdiction not possessed.” which as to versy oh some reliance railway company placed for the Counsel the previ which 1, 18, McConnaughy, v. Pennoyer the States of suits subject the general ous cases.on certain was a suit in equity against That .case classified.. were Governor, under the constitution Oregon, “who, parties State, of that comprised and Treasurer State, Secretary restrain of that Commissioners of Land Board amount and conveying large them from selling enjoin That title.” asserted plaintiff in that State, to land rela of the relief asked, of the nature view suit, was held involved, the matters the defendants tions of *60 of the Eleventh the State within the meaning to be one against as the facts the court, But after a review of Amendment. care reached took by it, especial the conclusion explanatory of that it must borne in mind “In this connection observe: Secretary of Governor, nominally not against this suit is col as but them such Treasurer, officers, against State, commissioners.” The present board of land as the lectively, Attorney “as in terms, Young is, against as such him; was sought against and the decree Minnesota,” or as a adminis individually, him mere not officer, against with certain duties. officer charged trative in now cases cited the décision ren- support One Kansas & Texas Co. v. Missouri Missouri, Railway dered Commissioners, 53, 58, 183 U. S. 59. But & R. R. Warehouse suit was held not to be one particular against although announced principles the case, respect State, I harmony is in with the views have court, expressed. says: the court there “Was the State the real For, party plain- was at an held early day tiff? It construing Eleventh all cases Amendment, jurisdic- where on the it is the in the party, party tion record. depends named States Bank, United Wheat. 738. But that technical Osbornv. has to one more in' yielded consonance construction
Ex parte YOUNG. Harlan, J., dissenting.
209 U. S. spirit of in In Amendment, re Ayers, 443, it was ruled full upon consideration the Amendment covers not suits only name also but those against its agents and officers, representatives where the State, as though not named real such, is nevertheless the only party asked, which in which the fact relief or judgment decree. And that construction effectively operates. of the Amendment has In since been followed.” the present case, the not named on the record State, although party, is the real whose action it is party control. sought
There are other cases in in which scope this court of the Eleventh Amendment Were under considera- meaning tion, but need cited, not be are well known. they they They are all cited In “The re U. S. Ayers, vital all this court principle Ayers said in the cases,” case, “is that the act as offi- defendants, though professing cers of are a violation of the personal threatening property rights they for which are complainant, personally and in which individually liable,” cases the- officer sued refused ministerial about perform duty, purely which no he had discretion and performance had a us plaintiff direct interest. The case before is al- together different. statutes did impose Minnesota any General of special duty to their see. enforcement. the mandamus suit he bringing acted under the in him the chief general authority inhering *61 law officer of his State. He not become could liable personally because his the railway company bringing simply mandamus suit. The that all he Attorney did, General stated or the suit. was to contemplated doing, bring mandamus The mere of such could not against' a suit bringing be;'alleged him of the rail- as ah in of any individual violation legal -right 443, its U. S. way Ayers, or re 123 company shareholders. did this fact and not The plaintiffs recognized 496. hence the in the defendant proceed their was. ground him Attorney General, sued as only liable. individually They J., dissenting. Harlan, S.U. a decree hinTin his official sought against capacity, otherwise.
Some reference has been made to Ex parte Roy all, U. S. and other that affirm cases, of a authority Federal under existing statutes, habeas discharge upon corpus custody from of a state officer one who isiheld in violation of the Federal Constitution for an crime a alleged against arq State. Those cases not at all in in point dis present cussion. Such a habeas corpus ex proceeding parte, having object only its .to whether inquire for the applicant Writ is restrained of his If liberty. he then illegally is, him in state officer custody a and can holding trespasser, not defend the or tort committed wrong by him, by pleading his official Character. The power a Federal court dis a from custody of a person well charge trespasser may the court exist, yet has a suit power before it, by .no directed against order General of a State, from the State such, prevent represented being by that a in one of its own officer, as courts. The former litigant cases, within come may decisions hold argued, a suit- which seeks to only prevent restrain a trespass upon (cid:127) one who person to be a property happens officer, state but is violation of the Constitution of proceeding the United not a suit a within States, is meaning but a suit Amendment, Eleventh trespasser or But the authority wrongdoer. Federal court to pro tect one a committed or trespass about to be com mitted a state officer violation of the Constitution of States is very United different from the power now as serted, and this court recognized by to shut out existing, State from its own sovereign courts by the device of for its Attorney under bidding General, penalty fine and imprisonment, in such courts its appearing behalf. The mere bringing suit on State, by Attorney behalf of (this General, cannot has decided Ayers case) - make that officer a trespasser liable to individually
Ex YOUNG. parte 199 Harlan, J., dissenting,' 209 U. S. him from enjoin sued. To the State in
party representing therefore, every such suit is practical purpose, to legal This in enjoin the State itself. the Debs Case, U. S. "Every 564, said: 584, government, entrusted, by very and duties terms of its to be being, powers exercised welfare, for the has a to discharged general apply its right in any own courts for assistance proper the one exercise it' and the is no discharge other, sufficient answer to its one of those courts that appeal to' it has pecuniary no in matter. interest The which it obligation is under to interest of and to promote all, prevent the wrongdoing in injury of one is often resulting general welfare, it a in itself sufficient court. This give standing proposi- in relations tion some of its has heretofore received the sanction If of this court.” there be one power a State possesses, be deemed beyond ought control, mode, of the National Government or of courts, its it is the by judicial proceedings appear its own power courts, by attorneys, its law-officer or and seek the of those guidance of matters of justiciable If respect courts nature. in such a court, by judgment, suit, should
state disregard of the Federal Constitution, injunctions judgment to review this court writ of subject would be error or appeal. at the will look course
It bo well'now decisions other courts. Federal Blackburn, Arbuckle directed to v.
Attention is first which was 622, one of the equity,, Rep. Fed. of which was restrain the enforcement objects principal act the Ohio to food legislature relating of an products, .of a named in' which the plaintiffs coffee were particularly Circuit Appeals Court of held that bill interested. other dismissed, saying, among “What, was properly things: this, injunction It object sought is the case? then, than to the officer of restrain the State from is no or less more for violations an act which said offi- prosecutions bringing J., Harlan, dissenting. *63 to enforce in is he is au- expressly charged only way
cer
criminal
proceed by bringing
prosecutions
thorized
—
This is
from
virtually
of the State.
the State
name
enjoin
its
If
duly qualified and
officers.
through
acting
proceeding
from
such
may
enjoined
the food commissioner
instituting
not
why may
attorney,
prosecutions,
prosecuting
with
officer of the State
the execution of the criminal
charged
may
laws of the State? While the State
not be
if the bill
sued,
can
its
it is as
officers,
effectually
be sustained against
pre-
from
its laws as it
by
vented
enforce
would be
proceeding
directly
This
case,
action
State.
view the
against
by
in our
sustained
the cases above
amply
cited,
judgment,
the later case of Fitts v.
-In Trust Stearns, 791, 792, Union Co. v. Rep. 790, Fed. the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of the Eleventh scope Rhode had occasion consider the Island to a The case related statute regulating Amendment. of street and im employés railways, hours of labor certain a fine a violation its The court provisions. upon posing for. of all the cases in this court an elaborate review dismissed the The defendants Stearns and were, action. Greenough respec and Assistant tively, Attorney Attorney General of They the State. were not named in the nor act, charged in connection therewith. The court special duty said: “The in substance and purpose present bill, effect, of Rhode Island from enjoin the State the enforcement of statute. Indictments penal under the act are brought the name and on behalf of the State for the protection State. These defendants, Attorney General and his as sistant, merely represent the State in such proceedings. They are officers and It is simply the State. agents as. (cid:127)
Ex parte YOUNG. <N O J., dissenting. Harlan, 8. U. virtue of individuals, solely by but their holding offices, that they in the prefer prosecute indictments name of the State. A only State can act or be proceeded against through If officers. a decree could be entered the State of Rhode Island prosecutions enjoining under this it could act, only operate the State these through defend- enjoining An ants. order General and his restraining assistant from the enforcement this statute is an order re- the State straining itself. The present is as suit, therefore, much the State of Rhode Island as if the State itself were named a party After to In defendant.” re referring Ayers, and Fitts v. McGhee, review of the cases, *64 proceeded: “The defendants Stearns and hold no Greenough special relation to the act of June 1, They 1902. are not spe- cially with its charged execution. are not They thereby con- stituted a board or commission with administrative powers, nor are as they individuals, from the apart official au- thority under they act, to seize the threatening prop- erty of the or to complainant, commit any or wrong trespass its personal property have no rights. They other connection with this statute than the institution of formal judicial for proceedings enforcement the courts of the State in the name and behalf of the Upon State. reason and authority the bill is present a suit the State of Rhode within Island, of the Eleventh meaning Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
In Morenci Co. v. Copper 127 Fed. Freer, Rep. 199, 205, which was an action in to restrain equity and inhibit the de- in his fendant, official as capacity Attorney General of West an action in Virginia, to institute proceeding state court for forfeiture of the charter of the plaintiff corporation for a failure to a a license tax state pay imposed statute, which statute was to in violation of be the Federal alleged Constitution, the Circuit Court reviewed the decisions of this court what were what were not suits The the State. Circuit Court held that it had no juris- 1907.
Harlan, dissenting. J., “But if the said, may of the case, saying: diction will this sort in the Circuit Court no lie remedy holds a contract breach of States prevent of the United machinery means of the State of West Virginia how States, Constitution of United violative law answer to be preserved? of corporations are the rights of defense to unconstitutionality matter alleged that such forfeiture complainant’s charter, for the brought bill an answer and defense be set up and could if the court of State for that and, highest purpose, brought - lie to the Su- contention, would adversely appeal ruled States. Or can be removed Court of United the case preme the United if it case presents Circuit Court of States laws of the United States.” under Constitution arising is that Union Tel. Co. v. A case Western well-considered Fed. Rep. 95, telegraph case Andrews, attorneys enjoin by bill, prosecuting company sought circuits of Arkansas from judicial various instituting for for its to com- failure or refusal penalties any proceeding, act of an Arkansas provisions with the legislature ply in that business foreign corporations doing relating The bill that the various fees, charged prose- etc. fixing attorneys unless institute numerous would, restrained, cuting recovery penalties prescribed by for the actions no $1,000 which was less than each act, violation. alleged *65 other was, The defense that the action things, one among State, and, therefore, prohibited by the Constitu- against After a careful review of the in this tion. cases adjudged and in the subordinate courts, Federal Circuit Court held to be the action one the Elev- against State, by forbidden Amendment, enth other “The saying among things: allega- in the bill tions show that this to prevent the attempt State of laws Arkansas, officers, its who its are by' through its in merely it in actions attorneys, all its represent legal favor or in which and pros- it is from interested, instituting suits for for incurred ecuting recovery penalties alleged
Ex YOUNG. parte Harlan, J., dissenting. violation of its only actions which can be laws, instituted name of the and for its and benefit.” State use a the fullest consideration and after careful
Upon examina tion of the mind authorities, my has been brought the con that no clusion case heretofore determined court re us to hold that the Federal Circuit Court quires had authority to forbid the General of Attorney Minnesota representing the State suit in court, the mandamus the state or to ad that he was in to be contempt liable fined and im judge of his prisoned simply because as Attorney having, General, that suit the State in its one of brought courts. On the my if contrary, very conviction that, be ha strong regard r dto forme of this utterances the suit court, Perkins and the Federal Shepard respect relief sought therein in his against official as Young, capacity, Attorney of Minnesota, General is to be deemed—under Ayers and suit particularly' cases the State of against which the .Fitts —a Court of the United not take Circuit States could cognizance the Eleventh Amendment of the without Constitu violating, if it held that Even were suits to restrain tion. instituting to recover directly penalties would prescribed of actions would not follow that State, suits we should not that a which and hold under the State further proceeding go effect, access, by its to its General, denied was, consistent with the Eleventh Amend would be courts,, own I means, 'think, A view although different ment. does extend to any United States power
judicial citizen of another State brought expressly suit effect of legal consent or without its not formally named although fie the hands of tois in a suit States, United Court a Circuit yet a party, State may, by or Attorney brought entirely officer, control, specifically against directed ders itself in judicial the State the action of indirection, control, the constitutional courts involving own proceedings heretofore This court has held of its statutes. validity *66 Harlan, dissenting. J., could not be that such done, a result for most would, purposes, obliterate the Eleventh practically Amendment in vital place States, as particulars, under the absolutely control of subordinate Federal as courts, they if were I capable directly sued. the matter in put way, being (under because of a Attorney to forbid General penalty of from punished contempt) being representing his State in its in suits of a own is to partiular kind, courts, forbid itself from the State heard such appearing being nor suits. Neither the words Amend- policy Eleventh ment former decisions, justify under our order of a will, will Federal of which to exclude necessary court effect be courts. order by State from its own Such an attended I be results with the cannot, submit, consistently sustained States, which the to the uniform declara- powers according tions I am court, possess of this under the Constitution. this court in now justified, declared, what has heretofore by and who the men who framed the Constitution saying Amendment have caused of the Eleventh would adoption State of Union can that a been amazed suggestion Federal be an order a subordinate prevented by in a represented brought being that such an order would be courts; by it in one of its own and. States involved their inconsistent with dignity of the Fed- process from the immunity judicial constitutional they may cases in the limited (except eral courts court) and would be in this parties made constitutionally results. attended most pernicious
I from the opinion dissent judgment.
Dissent.