Individuals who, as officers of the state, are clothed with some
duty in regard to the enforcement of the law of the state, and who
threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either of a civil
or a criminal nature, to enforce against parties affected an
unconstitutional act, violating the federal Constitution, may be
enjoined by a federal court of equity from such action, and such an
action is not prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States.
Ex Parte Young,
209 U. S. 123.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case grows out of alleged actions about to be taken to
enforce against the Western Union Telegraph Company the penalties
denounced in the Act of May 13, 1907, of the Legislature of
Arkansas, entitled, "An Act to Permit Foreign Corporations to Do
Business in Arkansas, and Fix Fees to Be Paid by All
Corporations."
As this act has just been the subject of consideration in
Ludwig v. Western Union Telegraph
Page 216 U. S. 166
Company, decided today,
ante, p.
216 U. S. 146, it
is unnecessary to set out at large the provisions of the statute in
question.
The bill in this case was brought against the prosecuting
attorneys of the seventeen judicial circuits of the State of
Arkansas to enjoin them from instituting actions against the
Western Union Telegraph Company to recover the penalties of $1,000
for each alleged violation of the act. It was averred in the bill
that the defendant prosecuting attorneys would, unless restrained
by the order of the court, institute numerous actions, as they had
threatened to do, for the recovery of the penalties aforesaid. The
learned district judge sustained the demurrer to the bill and
dismissed the case upon the ground that the action is, in effect, a
suit against the State of Arkansas, and for that reason prohibited
by the Eleventh Amendment to the federal Constitution. The sole
question presented upon this record is as to the correctness of
that ruling.
Since the decision in the circuit court, this Court has decided
the case of
Ex Parte Young, 209 U.
S. 123. In that case, the previous cases in this Court
concerning the application of the Eleventh Amendment of the
Constitution were fully considered, and it was then said by Mr.
Justice Peckham, speaking for the Court:
"The various authorities we have referred to furnish ample
justification for the assertion that individuals who, as officers
of the state, are clothed with some duty in regard to the
enforcement of the laws of the state, and who threaten and are
about to commence proceedings, either of a civil or criminal
nature, to enforce against parties affected an unconstitutional
act, violating the federal Constitution, may be enjoined by a
federal court of equity from such action."
This doctrine is precisely applicable to the case at bar. The
statute specifically charges the prosecuting attorneys with the
duty of bringing actions to recover the penalties. It is averred in
the bill, and admitted by the demurrer, that they threatened and
were about to commence proceedings for that purpose.
Page 216 U. S. 167
The unconstitutionality of the act is averred, and relief is
sought against its enforcement. As this case is ruled, upon the
question of jurisdiction, by the case of
Ex Parte Young,
it is unnecessary to consider the question further. Upon the
authority of that case, the decree of the circuit court dismissing
the bill for want of jurisdiction is reversed, and the cause
remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed.