Ex parte Young
| Ex parte Young | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 2–3, 1907 Decided March 23, 1908 |
|
| Full case name | Ex parte Edward T. Young, Petitioner |
| Citations | 209 U.S. 123 (more)
28 S. Ct. 441; 52 L. Ed. 714; 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1726
|
| Prior history | Petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari |
| Holding | |
| A lawsuit seeking an injunction against a state official did not violate the sovereign immunity of the state, because the state official was not acting on behalf of the state when he sought to enforce an unconstitutional law. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Peckham, joined by Fuller, Brewer, White, McKenna, Holmes, Day, Moody |
| Dissent | Harlan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XI | |
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally.
The state of Minnesota passed laws limiting what railroads could charge in that state and established severe penalties, including fines and jail for violators. Some shareholders of Northern Pacific Railway filed a lawsuit in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota asserting that the laws were unconstitutional as violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Dormant Commerce Clause. The shareholders sued the railroads to prevent them from complying with the law. They also sued Edward T. Young, the Attorney General of Minnesota, to prevent him from enforcing the law.
Young argued that the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits states from being sued by citizens of other states, meant that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The federal circuit court still issued an injunction against Young enforcing the law. The following day, Young filed a proceeding in Minnesota state court to force the railroads to comply with the statute. The court ordered Young to explain his actions, and he reiterated his Eleventh Amendment claim, whereupon the court held Young in contempt. Young was placed in the custody of the U.S. Marshal, and so he filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus for his release.
...
Wikipedia