Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/209/123.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:57:04+00:00

Document:
[209 U.S. 123, 126] An original application was made to this court for leave to file a petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari in behalf of Edward T. Young, petitioner, as attorney general of the state of Minnesota.
The marshal, upon the return of the order to show cause, justified his detention on the petitioner by virtue of an order of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota, which adjudged the petitioner builty of contempt of that court, and directed that he be fined the sum of $100, and that he should dismiss the mandamus proceedings brought by him in the name and in behalf of the state, in the circuit court of the state, and that he should stand committed to the custody of the marshal until that order was obeyed. The case [209 U.S. 123, 127] involves the validity of the order of the circuit court committing him for contempt.
It was averred in the bill that the suit was not a collusive one to confer on the court jurisdiction of a case of which it could not otherwise have cognizance, but that the objects and purposes of the suit were to enjoin the railway company from publishing or adopting (or continuing to observe, if already adopted) the rates and tariffs prescribed and set forth in the two acts of the legislature above mentioned and in the orders of the railroad and warehouse commission, and also to enjoin the other defendants from attempting to enforce such provisions, or from instituting any action or proceeding against [209 U.S. 123, 130] the defendant railway company, its officers, etc., on account of any violation thereof, for the reason that the said acts and orders were and each of them was violative of the Constitution of the United States.
The bill also alleged that the orders of the railroad commission of September 6, 1906, May 3, 1907, the passenger-rate act of April 4, 1907, and the act of April 18, 1907, reducing the tariffs and charges which the railway company had theretofore been permitted to make, were each and all of them unjust, unreasonable, and confiscatory, in that they each of them would, and will if enforced, deprive complainants and the railway company of their property without due process of law, and deprive them and it of the equal protection of the laws, contrary to and in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the amendments thereof. It was also averred that the complainants had demanded of the president and managing directors of the railway company that they should cease obedience to the orders of the commission dated September 6, 1906, and May 3, 1907, and to the acts already mentioned, and that the rates prescribed in such orders and acts should not be put into effect, and that the said corporation, its officers and directors, should institute proper suit or suits to prevent said rates (named in the orders and in the acts of the legislature) from continuing or becoming effective, as the case might be, and to have the same declared illegal; but the said corporation, its president and directors, had positively declined and refused to do so, not because they considered the rates a fair and just return upon the capital invested, or that they would not be confiscatory, but because of the severity of the penalties provided for the violation of such acts and orders, and therefore they could not subject themselves to the ruinous consequences which would inevitably result from failure on their part to obey the said laws and orders,-a result which no action by themselves, their stockholders or directors, could possibly prevent.
The bill further alleged that the orders of the commission [209 U.S. 123, 131] of September, 1906, and May, 1907, and the acts of April 4, 1907, and April 18, 1907, were, in the penalties prescribed for their violation, so drastic that no owner or operator of a railway property could invoke the jurisdiction of any court to test the validity thereof, except at the risk of confiscation of its property, and the imprisonment for long terms in jails and penitentiaries of its officers, agents, and employees. For this reason the complainants alleged that the above-mentioned orders and acts, and each of them, denied to the defendant railway company and its stockholders, including the complainants, the equal protection of the laws, and deprived it and them of their property without due process of law, and that each of them was, for that reason, unconstitutional and void.
The bill also contained an averment that if the railway company should fail to continue to observe and keep in force, or to observe and put in force, the orders of the commission and the acts of April 4, 1907, and April 18, 1907, such failure might result in an action against the company or criminal proceedings against its officers, directors, agents, or employees, subjecting the company and such officers to an endless number of actions at law and criminal proceedings; that if the company should fail to obey the order of the commission or the acts of April 4, 1907, and April 18, 1907, the said Edward T. Young, as attorney general of the state of Minnesota, would, as complainants were advised and believed, institute proceedings by mandamus or otherwise against the railway company, its officers, directors, agents, or employees, to enforce said orders and all the provisions thereof, and that he threatened and would take other proceedings against the company, its officers, etc., to the same end and for the same purpose, and that he would, on such failure, institute mandamus or other proceedings for the purpose of enforcing said acts and each thereof, and the provisions and penalties thereof. Appropriate relief by injunction against the action of the defendant Young and the railroad commission was asked for. [209 U.S. 123, 132] A temporary restraining order was made by the circuit court, which only restrained the railway company from publishing the rates as provided for in the act of April 18, 1907, and from reducing its tariffs to the figures set forth in that act; the court refusing for the present to interfere by injunction with regard to the orders of the commission and the act of April 4, 1907, as the railroads had already put them in operation; but it restrained Edward T. Young, attorney general, from taking any steps against the railroads to enforce the remedies or penalties specified in the act of April 18, 1907.
[209 U.S. 123, 139] Messrs. Charles W. Bunn, Jared How, J. F. McGee, Pierce Butler, William D. Mitchell, William A. Lancaster, Frank B. Kellogg, Cordenio A. Severance, Robert E. Olds, Stiles W. Burr, and Walker D. Hines for respondent.
Coming to a consideration of the case, we find that the complainants in the suit commenced in the circuit court were stockholders in the Northern Pacific Railway Company, and the reason for commencing it and making the railroad company one of the parties defendant is sufficiently set forth in the bill. Davis & F. Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles, 189 U.S. 207, 220 , 47 S. L. ed. 778, 781, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; equity rule 94, Supreme Court.
It is primarily asserted on the part of the petitioner that jurisdiction did not exist in the circuit court because there was not the requisite diversity of citizenship, and there was no question arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States to otherwise give jurisdiction to that court. There is no claim made here of jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship, and the claim, if made, would be unfounded in fact. If no other ground exists, then the order of the circuit court, assuming to punish petitioner for contempt, was an unlawful order, made by a court without jurisdiction. In such case this court, upon proper application, will discharge the person from imprisonment. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 , 26 L. ed. 274, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U.S. 713 , 28 L. ed. 1117, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 724; Re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 485 , 31 S. L. ed. 216, 223, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 164. But an examination of the record before us shows that there are Federal questions in this case.
It is insisted by the petitioner that there is no Federal ques- [209 U.S. 123, 144] tion presented under the 14th Amendment, because there is no dispute as to the meaning of the Constitution, where it provides that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; and whatever dispute there may be in this case is one of fact simply, whether the freight or passenger rates, as fixed by the legislature or by the railroad commission, are so low as to be confiscatory; and that is not a Federal question.
Jurisdiction is given to the circuit court in suits involving the requisite amount, arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States (18 Stat. at L. 470, chap. 137, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 508), and the question really to be determined under this objection is whether the acts of the legislature and the orders of the railroad commission, if enforced, would take property without due process of law; and although that question might incidentally involve a question of fact, its solution, nevertheless, is one which raises a Federal question. See Hastings v. Ames ( C. C. App. 8th C.) 15 C. C. A. 628, 32 U. S. App. 485, 68 Fed. 726. The sufficiency of rates with reference to the Federal Constitution is a judicial question, and one over which Federal courts have jurisdiction by reason of its Federal nature. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418 , 33 L. ed. 970, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 209, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 462, 702; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 154 U.S. 369 -399, 38 L. ed. 1014-1024, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 560, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1047; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gill, 156 U.S. 649 , 39 L. ed. 567, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 484; Covington & L. Turnp. Road Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578 , 41 L. ed. 560, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 198; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 -522, 42 L. ed. 819-840, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Rompkins, 170 U.S. 167, 172 , 44 S. L. ed. 417, 420, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336.
Another Federal question is the alleged unconstitutionality of these acts because of the enormous penalties denounced for their violation, which prevent the railway company, as alleged, or any of its servants or employees, from resorting to the courts for the purpose of determining the validity of such acts. The contention is urged by the complainants in the suit that the company is denied the equal protection of the laws and its property is liable to be taken without due process of law, because it is only allowed a hearing upon the claim of of [209 U.S. 123, 145] the unconstitutionality of the acts and orders in question, at the risk, if mistaken, of being subjected to such enormous penalties, resulting in the possible confiscation of its whole property, that rather than take such risks the company would obey the laws, although such obedience might also result in the end (though by a slower process) in such confiscation.
Coming to the inquiry regarding the alleged invalidity of these acts, we take up the contention that they are invalid on their face on account of the penalties. For disobedience to the freight act the officers, directors, agents, and employees of the company are made guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction each may be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding ninety days. Each violation would be a separate offense, and, therefore, might result in imprisonment of the various agents of the company who would dare disobey for a term of ninety days each for each offense. Disobedience to the passenger-rate act renders the party guilty of a felony and subject to a fine not exceeding $ 5,000 or imprisonment in the state prison for a period not exceeding five years, or both fine and imprisonment. The sale of each ticket above the price permitted by the act would be a violation thereof. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the company to obtain officers, agents, or employees willing to carry on its affairs except in obedience to the act and orders in question. The company itself would also, in case of disobedience, be liable to the immense fines provided for in violating orders of the commission. The company, in order to test the validity of the acts, must find some [209 U.S. 123, 146] agent or employee to disobey them at the risk stated. The necessary effect and result of such legislation must be to preclude a resort to the courts ( either state or Federal) for the purpose of testing its validity. The officers and employees could not be expected to disobey any of the provisions of the acts or orders at the risk of such fines and penalties being imposed upon them, in case the court should decide that the law was valid. The result would be a denial of any hearing to the company. The observations upon a similar question, made by Mr. Justice Brewer in Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. (Cotting v. Godard) 183 U.S. 79, 99 , 100 S., 102, 46 L. ed. 92, 105, 106, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 30, 38-40, are very apt. At page 100 he stated: 'Do the laws secure to an individual an equal protection when he is allowed to come into court and make his claim or defense subject to the condition that, upon a failure to make good that claim or defense, the penalty for such failure either appropriates all his property or subjects him to extravagant and unreasonable loss?' Again, at page 102, he says: 'It is doubtless true that the state may impose penalties such as will tend to compel obedience to its mandates by all, individuals or corporations, and if extreme and cumulative penalties are imposed only after there has been a final determination of the validity of the statute, the question would be very different from that here presented. But when the legislature, in an effort to prevent any inquiry of the validity of a particular statute, so burdens any challenge thereof in the courts that the party affected is necessarily constrained to submit rather than take the chances of the penalties imposed, then it becomes a serious question whether the party is not deprived of the equal protection of the laws.' The question was not decided in that case, as it went off on another ground. We have the same question now before us, only the penalties are more severe in the way of fines, to which is added, in the case of officers, agents, or employees of the company, the risk of imprisonment for years as a common felon. See also Mercantile Trust Co. v. Texas & P. R. Co. 51 Fed. 529-543; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. McChord, 103 [209 U.S. 123, 147] Fed. 216-223; Consolidated Gas Co. v. Mayer, 146 Fed. 150-153. In McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U.S. 662 -694, 34 L. ed. 304-314, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 972, it was held that to provide a different remedy to enforce a contract, which is unreasonable, and which imposes conditions not existing when the contract was made, was to offer no remedy; and, when the remedy is so onerous and impracticable as to substantially give none at all, the law is invalid, although what is termed a remedy is in fact given. See also Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311, 317, 11 L. ed. 143, 145; Seibert v. Lewis ( Seibert v. United States) 122 U.S. 284 , 30 L. ed. 1161, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1190. If the law be such as to make the decision of the legislature or of a commission conclusive as to the sufficiency of the rates, this court has held such a law to be unconstitutional. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, supra. A law which indirectly accomplishes a like result by imposing such conditions upon the right to appeal for judicial relief as work an abandonment of the right rather than face the conditions upon which it is offered or may be obtained is also unconstitutional. It may therefore be said that when the penalties for disobedience are by fines so enormous and imprisonment so severe as to intimidate the company and its officers from resorting to the courts to test the validity of the legislation, the result is the same as if the law in terms prohibited the company from seeking judicial construction of laws which deeply affect its rights.
It is urged that there is no principle upon which to base the claim that a person is which to bse the claim that a person is entitled to disobey a statute at least once, for the purpose of testing its validity, without subjecting himself to the penalties for disobedience provided by the statute in case it is valid. This is not an accurate state ment of the case. Ordinarily a law creating offenses in the nature of misdemeanors or felonies relates to a subject over which the jurisdiction of the legislature is complete in any event. In the case, however, of the establishment of certain rates without any hearing, the validity of such rates necessarily depends upon whether they are high enough to permit at least some return upon the investment (how much it is not now [209 U.S. 123, 148] necessary to state), and an inquiry as to that fact is a proper subject of judicial investigation. If it turns out that the rates are too low for that purpose, then they are illegal. Now, to impose upon a party interested the burden of obtaining a judicial decision of such a question ( no prior hearing having ever been given) only upon the condition that, if unsuccessful, he must suffer imprisonment and pay fines, as provided in these acts, is, in effect, to close up all approaches to the courts, and thus prevent any hearing upon the question whether the rates as provided by the acts are not too low, and therefore invalid. The distinction is obvious between a case where the validity of the act depends upon the existence of a fact which can be determined only after investigation of a very complicated and technical character, and the ordinary case of a statute upon a subject requiring no such investigation, and over which the jurisdiction of the legislature is complete in any event.
Various affidavits were received upon the hearing before the court prior to the granting of the temporary injunction, and the hearing itself was, as appears from the opinion, full and deliberate, and the fact was found that the rates fixed by the commodity act, under the circumstances existing with [209 U.S. 123, 149] reference to the passenger-rate act and the orders of the commission, were not sufficient to be compensatory, and were in fact confiscatory, and the act was therefore unconstitutional. The injunction was thereupon granted with reference to the enforcement of the commodity act.
This inquiry necessitates an examination of the most material and important objection made to the jurisdiction of the circuit court,-the objection being that the suit is, in effect, one against the state of Minnesota, and that the injunction issued against the attorney general illegally prohibits state action, either criminal or civil, to enforce obedience to the statutes of the state. This objection is to be considered with reference to the 11th and 14th Amendments to the Federal Constitution. The 11th Amendment prohibits the commencement or prosecution of any suit against one of the United States by citizens of another state or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. The 14th Amendment provides that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall it deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [209 U.S. 123, 150] The case before the circuit court proceeded upon the theory that the orders and acts heretofore mentioned would, if enforced, violate rights of the complainants protected by the latter amendment. We think that whatever the rights of complainants may be, they are largely founded upon that Amendment, but a decision of this case does not require an examination or decision of the question whether its adoption in any way altered or limited the effect of the earlier Amendment. We may assume that each exists in full force, and that we must give to the 11th Amendment all the effect it naturally would have, without cutting it down or rendering its meaning any more narrow than the language, fairly interpreted, would warrant. It applies to a suit brought against a state by one of its own citizens, as well as to a suit brought by a citizen of another state. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 , 33 L. ed. 842, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 504. It was adopted after the decision of this court in Chisholm v. Georgia (1792) 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. ed. 440, where it was held that a state might be sued by a citizen of another state. Since that time there have been many cases decided in this court involving the 11th Amendment, among them being Osborn v. Bank of United States (1824) 9 Wheat. 738, 846, 857, 6 L. ed. 204, 229, 232, which held that the Amendment applied only to those suits in which the state was a party on the record. In the subsequent case of Sundry African Slaves v. Madrazo (1828) 1 Pet. 110, 122, 123, 7 L. ed. 73, 79, that holding was somewhat enlarged, and Chief Justice Marshall, delivering the opinion of the court, while citing Osborn v. Bank of United States, supra, said that where the claim was made, as in the case then before the court, against the governor of Georgia as governor, and the demand was made upon him, not personally, but officially (for moneys in the treasury of the state and for slaves in possession of the state government), the state might be considered as the party on the record ( page 123), and therefore the suit could not be maintained.
Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 220, 21 L. ed. 447, 453, reiterates the rule of Osborn v. Bank of United States, so far as concerns the right to enjoin a state officer from executing a state law in conflict with [209 U.S. 123, 151] the Constitution or a statute of the United States, when such execution will violate the rights of the complainant.
In Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 296 , 29 S. L. ed. 185, 194, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 903, 962, it was adjudged that a suit against a tax collector who had refused coupons in payment of taxes, and, under color of a void law, was about to seize and sell the property of a taxpayer for nonpayment of his taxes, was a suit against him personally, as a wrongdoer, and not against the state.
Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52 -67, 29 L. ed. 805-810, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 608, decided that the bill was, in substance, a bill for the specific performance of a contract between the complainants and the state of South Carolina; and, although the state was not in name made a party defendant, yet, being the actual party to the alleged contract the performance of which was sought, and the only party by whom it could be performed, the state was, in effect, a party to the suit, and it could not be maintained for that reason. The things required to be done by the actual defendants were the very things which, when done, would constitute a performance of the alleged contract by the state.
The cases upon the subject were reviewed, and it was held (Re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443 , 31 L. ed. 216, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 164), that a bill in equity brought against officers of a state, who, as individuals, have no personal interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and defend only as representing the state, where the relief prayed for, if done, would constitute a performance by the state of the alleged contract of the state, was a suit against the state (page 504), following in this respect Hagood v. Southern, supra.
On the other hand, United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 , 27 L. ed. 171, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240, determined that an individual in possession of real estate under the government of the United States, which claimed to be [209 U.S. 123, 152] its owner, was, nevertheless, properly sued by the plaintiff, as owner, to recover possession, and such suit was not one against the United States, although the individual in possession justified such possession under its authority. See also Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U.S. 204 , 42 L. ed. 137, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770, to the same effect.
In Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1, 9 , 35 S. L. ed. 363, 365, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699, a suit against land commissioners of the state was said not to be against the state, although the complainants sought to restrain the defendants, officials of the state, from violating, under an unconstitutional act, the complainants' contract with the state, and thereby working irreparable damage to the property rights of the complainants. Osborn v. Bank of United States, supra, was cited, and it was stated: 'But the general doctrine of Osborn v. Bank of United States, that the circuit courts of the United States will restrain a state officer from executing an unconstitutional statute of the state, when to execute it would violate rights and privileges of the complainant which had been guaranteed by the Constitution, and would work irreparable damage and injury to him, has never been departed from.' The same principle is decided in Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58 -67, 41 L. ed. 632, 633, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265. And see Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Missouri R. & Warehouse Comrs. (Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Hickman) 183 U.S. 53 , 46 L. ed. 78, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18.
The cases above cited do not include one exactly like this under discussion. They serve to illustrate the principles upon which many cases have been decided. We have not cited all the cases, as we have not thought it necessary. But the injunction asked for in the Ayers Case, 123 U. S., supra, was to restrain the state officers from commencing suits under the act of May 12, 1887 (alleged to be unconstitutional), in the name of the state and brought to recover taxes for its use, on the ground that, if such suits were commenced, they would be a breach of a contract with the state. The injunction was declared illegal because the suit itself could not be entertained, as it was one against the state, to enforce its alleged contract. It was said, however, that, if the court had power to entertain such a suit, it would have power to grant the restraining order [209 U.S. 123, 153] preventing the commencement of suits. (Page 487.) It was not stated that the suit or the injunction was necessarily confined to a case of a threatened direct trespass upon or injury to property.
Whether the commencement of a suit could ever be regarded as an actionable injury to another, equivalent, in some cases, to a trespass such as is set forth in some of the foregoing cases, has received attention of the rate cases, so called. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 154 U.S. 362 , 38 L. ed. 1014, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 560, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1047 (a rate case), was a suit against the members of a railroad commission (created under an act of the state of Texas) and the attorney general, all of whom were held suable, and that such suit was not one against the state. The commission was enjoined from enforcing the rates it had established under the act, and the attorney general was enjoined from instituting suits to recover penalties for failing to conform to the rates fixed by the commission under such act. It is true the statute in that case creating the board provided that suit might be maintained by any dissatisfied railroad company, or other party in interest, in a court of competent jurisdiction in Travis county, Texas, against the commission as defendant. This court held that such language permitted a suit in the United States circuit court for the western district of Texas, which embraced Travis county, but it also held that, irrespective of that consent, the suit was not in effect a suit against the state (although the attorney general was enjoined), and therefore not prohibited under the Amendment. It was said in the opinion, which was delivered by Mr. Justice Brewer, that the suit could not, in any fair sense, be considered a suit against the state (page 392), and the conclusion of the court was that the objection to the jurisdiction of the circuit court was not tenable, whether that jurisdiction was rested (page 393) 'upon the provisions of the statute, or upon the general jurisdiction of the court, existing by virtue of the statutes of Congress, under the sanction of the Constitution of the United States.' Each of these grounds is effective and both are of equal force. [209 U.S. 123, 154] Union P. R. Co. v. Mason City & Ft. D. R. Co. 199 U.S. 160 -166, 50 L. ed. 134-137, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 19.
In Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 , 42 L. ed. 819, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418 ( another rate case), it was again held that a suit against individuals, for the purpose of preventing them, as officers of the state, from enforcing, by the commencement of suits or by indictment, an unconstitutional enactment, to the injury of the rights of the plaintiff, was not a suit against a state, within the meaning of the Amendment. At page 518, in answer to the objection that the suit was really against the state, it was said: 'It is the settled doctrine of this court that a suit against individuals, for the purpose of preventing them, as officers of a state, from enforcing an unconstitutional enactment, to the injury of the rights of the plaintiff, is not a suit against the state within the meaning of that Amendment.' The suit was to enjoin the enforcement of a statute of Nebraska because it was alleged to be unconstitutional, on account of the rates being too low to afford some compensation to the company, and contrary, therefore, to the 14th Amendment.
The final decree enjoined the attorney general from bringing any suit ( page 477) by way of injunction, mandamus, civil action, or indictment, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the act. The 5th section of the act provided that an action might be brought by a railroad company in the supreme court of the state of Nebraska; but this court did not base its decision on that section when it held that a suit of the nature of that before it was not a suit against a state, although brought against individual state officers, for the purpose of enjoining them from enforcing, either by civil proceeding or indictment, an unconstitutional enactment to the injury of the plaintiff's right. Page 518. [209 U.S. 123, 155] This decision was reaffirmed in Prout v. Starr, 188 U.S. 537, 542 , 47 S. L. ed. 584, 586, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 398.
Attention is also directed to the case of Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Missouri R. & Warehouse Comrs. (Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Hickman) 183 U.S. 53 , 46 L. ed. 78, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18. That was a suit brought in a state court of Missouri by the railroad commissioners of the state, who had the powers granted them by the statutes set forth in the report. Their suit was against the railway company, to compel it to discontinue certain charges it was making for crossing the Boonville bridge over the Missouri river. The defendant sought to remove the case to the Federal court, which the plaintiffs resisted, and the state court refused to remove, on the ground that the real plaintiff was the state of Missouri, and it was proper to go behind the face of the record to determine that fact. In regular manner the case came here, and this court held that the state was not the real party plaintiff, and the case had therefore been properly removed from the state court, whose judgment was thereupon reversed.
The doctrine of Smyth v. Ames is also referred to and reiterated in Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 200 U.S. 273, 283 , 50 S. L. ed. 477, 483, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 252. See also McNeill v. Southern R. Co. 202 U.S. 543 -559, 50 L. ed. 1142-1147, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722; Mississippi R. Commission v. Illinois C. R. Co. 203 U.S. 335, 340 , 51 S. L. ed. 209, 211, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 90.
The various authorities we have referred to furnish ample justification for the assertion that individuals who, as officers [209 U.S. 123, 156] 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.
It is objected, however, that Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516 , 43 L. ed. 535, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269, has somewhat limited this principle, and that, upon the authority of that case, it must be held that the state was a party to the suit in the United States circuit court, and the bill should have been dismissed as to the attorney general on that ground.
It has not, however, been held that it was necessary that such duty should be declared in the same act which is to be enforced. In some cases, it is true, the duty of enforcement has been so imposed ( 154 U.S. 362 , 366, 19 of the act), but that may possibly make the duty more clear; if it otherwise exist it is equally efficacious. The fact that the state officer, by virtue of his office, has some connection with the enforcement of the act, is the important and material fact, and whether it arises out of the general law, or is specially created by the act itself, is not material so long as it exists.
In the course of the opinion in the Fitts Case the Reagan and [209 U.S. 123, 158] Smyth Cases were referred to (with others) as instances of state officers specially charged with the execution of a state enactment alleged to be unconstitutional, and who commit, under its authority, some specific wrong or trespass, to the injury of plaintiff's rights. In those cases the only wrong or injury or trespass involved was the threatened commencement of suits to enforce the statute as to rates, and the threat of such commencement was in each case regarded as sufficient to aughorize the issuing of an injunction to prevent the same. The threat to commence those suits under such circumstances was therefore necessarily held to be equivalent to any other threatened wrong or injury to the property of a plaintiff which had theretofore been held sufficient to authorize the suit against the officer. The being specially charged with the duty to enforce the statute is sufficiently apparent when such duty exists under the general authority of some law, even though such authority is not to be found in the particular act. It might exist by reason of the general duties of the officer to enforce it as a law of the state.
In our view there is no interference with his discretion under the facts herein. There is no doubt that the court cannot control the exercise of the discretion of an officer. It can only direct affirmative action where the officer having some duty to perform not involving discretion, but merely ministerial in its nature, refuses or neglects to take such action. In that case the court can direct the defendant to perform this merely ministerial duty. Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U.S. 531 -541, 23 L. ed. 623-628. [209 U.S. 123, 159] The general discretion regarding the enforcement of the laws when and as he deems appropriate is not interfered with by an injunction which restrains the state officer from taking any steps towards the enforcement of an unconstitutional enactment, to the injury of complainant. In such case no affirmative action of any nature is directed, and the officer is simply prohibited from doing an act which he had no legal right to do. An injunction to prevent him from doing that which he has no legal right to do is not an interference with the discretion of an officer.
The answer to all this is the same as made in every case where an official claims to be acting under the authority of the state. The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional; and if it be so, the use of the name of the state to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of complainants is a proceeding without the authority of, and one which does not affect, the state in its sovereign or governmental capacity. It is simply an illegal act upon the part of a state official in attempting, by the use of the name of the state, to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state attorney general seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment, comes into conflict with the [209 U.S. 123, 160] superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See Re Ayers, 123 U.S. 507 , 31 L. ed. 230, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 164. It would be an injury to complainant to harass it with a multiplicity of suits or litigation generally in an endeavor to enforce penalties under an unconstitutional enactment, and to prevent it ought to be within the jurisdiction of a court of equity. If the question of unconstitutionality, with reference, at least, to the Federal Constitution, be first raised in a Federal court, that court, as we think is shown by the authorities cited hereafter, has the right to decide it, to the exclusion of all other courts.
Section 3 of chapter 227 of the General Laws of Minnesota, 1905 (same law, 58, Revised Laws of Minnesota, 1905), [209 U.S. 123, 161] imposes the duty upon the attorney general to cause proceedings to be instituted against any corporation whenever it shall have offended against the laws of the state. By 1960 of the Revised Laws of 1905 it is also provided that the attorney general shall be ex officio attorney for the railroad commission, and it is made his duty to institute and prosecute all actions which the commission shall order brought, and shall render the commissioners all counsel and advice necessary for the proper performance of their duties.
It is said that the attorney general is only bound to act when the commission orders action to be brought, and that 5 of the commodity act ( April 18, 1907) expressly provides that no duty shall rest upon the commission to enforce the act, and hence no duty other than that which is discretionary rests upon the attorney general in that matter. The provision is somewhat unusual, but the reasons for its insertion in that act are not material, and neither require nor justify comment by this court.
It is further objected (and the objection really forms part of the contention that the state cannot be sued) that a court of equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin criminal proceedings, by indictment or otherwise, under the state law. This, as a general rule, is true. But there are exceptions. When such indictment or proceeding is brought to enforce an alleged unconstitutional statute, which is the subject-matter of inquiry in a suit already pending in a Federal court, the latter court, having first obtained jurisdiction over the subject-matter, has [209 U.S. 123, 162] the right, in both civil and criminal cases, to hold and maintain such jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, until its duty is fully performed. Prout v. Starr, 188 U.S. 537 -542-544, 47 L. ed. 584-586, 587, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 398. But the Federal court cannot, of course, interfere in a case where the proceedings were already pending in a state court. Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366-370, 21 L. ed. 287-290; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 , 43 L. ed. 399, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 119.
Where one commences a criminal proceeding who is already party to a suit then pending in a court of equity, if the criminal proceedings are brought to enforce the same right that is in issue before that court, the latter may enjoin such criminal proceedings. Davis & F. Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles, 189 U.S. 207 , 47 L. ed. 778, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498. In Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U.S. 223 -241, 49 L. ed. 169-177, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18, it is remarked by Mr. Justice Day, in delivering the opinion of the court, that 'it is well settled that where property rights will be destroyed, unlawful interference by criminal proceedings under a void law or ordinance may be reached and controlled by a decree of a court of equity.' Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 , 42 L. ed. 819, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418, distinctly enjoined the proceedings by indictment to compel obedience to the rate act.
These cases show that a court of equity is not always precluded from granting an injunction to stay proceedings in criminal cases, and we have no doubt the principle applies in a case such as the present. Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200, 211 , 31 S. L. ed. 402, 406, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 482, is not to the contrary. That case holds that, in general, a court of equity has no jurisdiction of a bill to stay criminal proceedings, but it expressly states an exception, 'unless they are instituted by a party to the suit already pending before it, and to try the same right that is in issue there.' Various authorities are cited to sustain the exception. The criminal proceedings here that could be commenced by the state authorities would be under the statutes relating to passenger or freight rates, and their validity is the very question involved in the suit in the United States circuit court. The right to restrain proceedings by mandamus is based upon the same foundation and governed by the same principles. [209 U.S. 123, 163] It is proper to add that the right to enjoin an individual, even though a state official, from commencing suits under circumstances already stated, does not include the power to restrain a court from acting in any case brought before it, either of a civil or criminal nature, nor does it include power to prevent any investigation or action by a grand jury. The latter body is part of the machinery of a criminal court, and an injunction against a state court would be a violation of the whole scheme of our government. If an injunction against an individual is disobeyed, and he commences proceedings before a grand jury or in a court, such disobedience is personal only, and the court or jury can proceed without incurring any penalty on that account.
Another obstacle to making the test on the part of the company might be to find an agent or employee who would disobey [209 U.S. 123, 164] the law, with a possible fine and imprisonment staring him in the face if the act should be held valid. Take the passenger-rate act, for instance: A sale of a single ticket above the price mentioned in that act might subject the ticket agent to a charge of felony, and, upon conviction, to a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for five years. It is true the company might pay the fine, but the imprisonment the agent would have to suffer personally. It would not be wonderful if, under such circumstances, there would not be a crowd of agents offering to disobey the law. The wonder would be that a single agent should be found ready to take the risk.
If, however, one should be found, and the prosecutor should elect to proceed against him, the defense that the act was invalid, because the rates established by it were too low, would require a long and difficult examination of quite complicated facts upon which the validity of the act depended. Such investigation it would be almost impossible to make before a jury, as such body could not intelligently pass upon the matter. Questions of the cost of transportation of passengers and freight, the net earnings of the road, the separation of the cost and earnings within the state from those arising beyond its boundaries, all depending upon the testimony of experts and the examination of figures relating to these subjects, as well, possibly, as the expenses attending the building and proper cost of the road, would necessarily form the chief matter of inquiry, and intelligent answers could only be given after a careful and prolonged examination of the whole evidence, and the making of calculations based thereon. All material evidence having been taken upon these issues, it has been held that it ought to be referred to the most competent and reliable master to make all needed computations, and to find therefrom the necessary facts upon which a judgment might be rendered that might be reviewed by this court. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Tompkins, 176 U.S. 167 , 44 L. ed. 417, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336. From all these considerations it is plain that this is not a proper suit for investigation by a jury. Suits for penalties, or in- [209 U.S. 123, 165] dictment or other criminal proceedings for a violation of the act, would therefore furnish no reasonable or adequate opportunity for the presentation of a defense founded upon the assertion that the rates were too low and therefore the act invalid.
We do not say the company could not interpose this defense in an action to recover penalties or upon the trial of an indictment (St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gill, 156 U.S. 649 , 39 L. ed. 567, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 484), but the facility of proving it in either case falls so far below that which would obtain in a court of equity that comparison is scarcely possible.
To await proceedings against the company in a state court, grounded upon a disobedience of the act, and then, if necessary, obtain a review in this court by writ of error to the highest state court, would place the company in peril of large loss and its agents in great risk of fines and imprisonment if it should be finally determined that the act was valid. This risk the company ought not to be required to take. Over eleven thousand millions of dollars, it is estimated, are invested in railroad property, owned by many thousands of people, who are scattered over the whole country, from ocean to ocean, and they are entitled to equal protection from the laws and from the courts, with the owners of all other kinds of property,-no more, no less. The courts having jurisdiction, Federal or state, should, at all times, be opened to them as well as to others, for the purpose of protecting their property and their legal rights.
An act of the legislature fixing rates, either for passengers or freight, is to be regarded as prima facie valid, and the onus rests upon the company to prove its assertion to the contrary. Under such circumstances it was stated by Mr. Justice Miller, [209 U.S. 123, 166] in his concurring opinion in Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418 -460, 33 L. ed. 970-982, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 209, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 462, 702, that the proper, if not the only, mode of judicial relief against the tariff of rates established by the legislature or by its commission is by a bill in chancery, asserting its unreasonable character; and that until the decree of the court in such equity suit was obtained, it was not competent for each individual having dealings with a carrier, or for the carrier in regard to each individual who demands its services, to raise a contest in the courts over the questions which ought to be settled in this general and conclusive manner. This remedy by bill in equity is referred to and approved by Mr. Justice Shiras, in delivering the opinion of the court in St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gill, 156 U.S. 649, 659 , 666 S., 39 L. ed. 567, 570, 573, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 484, although that question was not then directly before the court. Such remedy is undoubtedly the most convenient, the most comprehensive, and the most orderly way in which the rights of all parties can be properly, fairly, and adequately passed upon. It cannot be to the real interest of anyone to injure or cripple the resources of the railroad companies of the country, because the prosperity of both the railroads and the country is most intimately connected. The question of sufficiency of rates is important and controlling; and, being of a judicial nature, it ought to be settled at the earliest moment by some court, and when a Federal court first obtains jurisdiction it ought, on general principles of jurisprudence, to be permitted to finish the inquiry and make a conclusive judgment, to the exclusion of all other courts. This is all that is claimed, and this, we think, must be admitted.
Finally, it is objected that the necessary result of upholding this suit in the circuit court will be to draw to the lower Federal courts a great flood of litigation of this character, where one Federal judge would have it in his power to enjoin proceedings by state officials to enforce the legislative acts of the state, either by criminal or civil actions. To this it may be answered, in the first place, that no injunction ought to be granted unless in a case reasonably free from doubt. We [209 U.S. 123, 167] think such rule is, and will be, followed by all the judges of the Federal courts.
And, again, it must be remembered that jurisdiction of this general character has, in fact, been exercised by Federal courts from the time of Osborn v. Bank of United States up to the present; the only difference in regard to the case of Osborn and the case in hand being that in this case the injury complained of is the threatened commencement of suits, civil or criminal, to enforce the act, instead of, as in the Osborn Case, an actual and direct trespass upon or interference with tangible property. A bill filed to prevent the commencement of suits to enforce an unconstitutional act, under the circumstances already mentioned, is no new invention, as we have already seen. The difference between an actual and direct interference with tangible property and the enjoining of state officers from enforcing an unconstitutional act, is not of a radical nature, and does not extend, in truth, the jurisdiction of the courts over the subject- matter. In the case of the interference with property, the person enjoined is assuming to act in his capacity as an official of the state, and justification for his interference is claimed by reason of his position as a state official. Such official cannot so justify when acting under an unconstitutional enactment of the legislature. So, where the state official, instead of directly interfering with tangible property, is about to commence suits which have for their object the enforcement of an act which violates the Federal Constitution, to the great and irreparable injury of the complainants, he is seeking the same justification from the authority of the state as in other cases. The sovereignty of the state is, in reality, no more involved in one case than in the other. The state cannot, in either case, impart to the official immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See Re Ayers, 123 U.S. 507 , 31 L. ed. 230, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 164.
This supreme authority, which arises from the specific provisions of the Constitution itself, is nowhere more fully illustrated than in the series of decisions under the Federal habeas [209 U.S. 123, 168] corpus statute ( 753, U. S. Rev. Stat. U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 592), in some of which cases persons in the custody of state officers for alleged crimes against the state have been taken from that custody and discharged by a Federal court or judge, because the imprisonment was adjudged to be in violation of the Federal Constitution. The right to so discharge has not been doubted by this court, and it has never been supposed there was any suit against the state by reason of serving the writ upon one of the officers of the state in whose custody the person was found. In some of the cases the writ has been refused as matter of discretion; but in others it has been granted, while the power has been fully recognized in all. Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 , 29 L. ed. 868, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734; Re Loney (Thomas v. Loney) 134 U.S. 372 , 33 L. ed. 949, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 584; Re Neagle (Cunningham v. Neagle) 135 U.S. 1 , 34 L. ed. 55, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 658; Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284 , 42 L. ed. 748, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 323; Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U.S. 276 , 43 L. ed. 699, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 453; Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 U.S. 499, 502 , 45 S. L. ed. 639, 640, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 455; Reid v. Jones, 187 U.S. 153 , 47 L. ed. 116, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 89; United States ex rel. Drury v. Lewis, 200 U.S. 1 , 50 L. ed. 343, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 229; Re Lincoln, 202 U.S. 178 , 50 L. ed. 984, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 602.
Although the history of this litigation is set forth in the opinion of the court, I deem it appropriate to restate the principal facts of the case in direct connection with my examination of the question upon which the decision turns. [209 U.S. 123, 169] That question is whether the suit in the circuit court of the United States was, as to the relief sought against the attorney general of Minnesota, forbidden by the 11th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, declaring that 'the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.' That examination, I may say at the outset, is entered upon with no little embarrassment, in view of the fact that the views expressed by me are not shared by my brethren. I may also frankly admit embarrassment arising from certain views stated in dissenting opinions heretofore delivered by me which did not, at the time, meet the approval of my brethren, and which I do not now myself entertain. What I shall say in this opinion will be in substantial accord with what the court has heretofore decided, while the opinion of the court departs, as I think, from principles previously announced by it upon full consideration. I propose to adhere to former decisions of the court, whatever may have been once my opinion as to certain aspects of this general question.
The general object of the suit was to prevent compliance with the provisions of certain acts of the Minnesota legislature and certain orders of the state railroad and warehouse commission, indicating the rates which the state permits to be charged for the transportation of passengers and commodities upon railroads within its limits; also, to prevent shippers from bringing actions against the railway company to enforce those acts and orders. [209 U.S. 123, 170] The bill, among other things, prayed that Edward T. Young, 'as attorney general of the state of Minnesota,' and the members of the state railroad and warehouse commission (naming them) be enjoined from all attempts to compel the railway company to put in force the rates or any of them prescribed by said orders, and 'from taking any action, step, or proceeding against said railway company, or any of its officers, directors, agents, or employees, to enforce any penalties or remedies for the violation by said railway company of said orders or either of them;' and that said Young, 'as attorney general,' be enjoined from taking any action, step, or proceeding against the railway company, its officers, agents, or employees, to enforce the penalties and remedies specified in those acts.
After hearing the parties, the court made an order, September 23d, 1907, whereby the railway company, its officers, directors, agents, servants, and employees, were enjoined until the further order of the court from publishing, adopting, or putting into effect the tariffs, rates, or charges specified in the [209 U.S. 123, 171] act of April 18th, 1907. The court likewise enjoined the defendant Young, 'as attorney general of the state of Minnesota,' from 'taking or instituting any action, suit, step, or proceeding to enforce the penalties and remedies specified in said act or either thereof, or to compel obedience to said act or compliance therewith or any part thereof.' A like injunction was granted against the defendant shippers.
The present proceeding was commenced by an original application by Young to this court for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner, in his application, proceeds upon the ground that he is held in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The petition set out all the steps taken in the suit in the Federal court, alleging, among other things: 'That your petitioner's office as attorney general of the state of Minnesota is established and provided for by the Constitution of the said state, 1 of article 5 thereof [209 U.S. 123, 173] providing as follows, to wit: 'The executive department shall consist of a governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and attorney general, who shall be chosen by the electors of the state.' That neither by statute nor otherwise is your petitioner charged with any special duty of a ministerial character in the doing or not doing of which said complainants in the said bill of complaint or the said Northern Pacific Railway Company had any legal right, and that whatever duties your petitioner had or has with respect to the several matters complained of in the said bill of complaint are of an executive and discretionary nature. That in no case could your petitioner, even though it was his intention so to do, which it was not, deprive the said complainants or the said Northern Pacific Railway Company, or either of them, of any property, nor could he trespass upon their rights in any particular, and that all he could do as attorney general, as aforesaid, and all that it was his duty to do in that capacity, and all that he intended to do or would do, was to commence formal judicial proceedings in the appropriate court of Minnesota against the said Northern Pacific Railway Company, its officers, agents, and employees, to compel the said company, its officers, agents, and servants, to adopt and put in force the schedule of freight rates tariffs, and charges prescribed by said chapter 232, Laws 1907, of the state of Minnesota.' He renewed the objection that the suit instituted by Perkins and Shepard, in so far as the same is against him, was a suit against the state, to prevent his commencing the proposed action in the name of the state, and was in restraint of the state itself, 'and that the said suit is one against the said state, in violation of the 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that therefore the same is and was, so far as your petitioner is concerned, beyond the jurisdiction of the said circuit court,' etc.
Let it be observed that the suit instituted by Perkins and [209 U.S. 123, 174] Shepard in the circuit court of the United States was, as to the defendant Young, one against him as, and only because he was, attorney general of Minnesota. No relief was sought against him individually, but only in his capacity as attorney general. And the manifest, indeed the avowed and admitted, object of seeking such relief, was to tie the hands of the state so that it could not in any manner or by any mode of proceeding, in its own courts, test the validity of the statutes and orders in question. It would therefore seem clear that within the true meaning of the 11th Amendment the suit brought in the Federal court was one, in legal effect, against the state,-as much so as if the state had been formally named on the record as a party,-and therefore it was a suit to which, under the Amendment, so far as the state or its attorney general was concerned, the judicial power of the United States did not and could not extend. If this proposition be sound it will follow,-indeed, it is conceded that if, so far as relief is sought against the attorney general of Minnesota, this be a suit against the state,-then, the order of the Federal court enjoining that officer from taking any action, suit, step, or proceeding to compel the railway company to obey the Minnesota statute was beyond the jurisdiction of that court and wholly void; in which case, that officer was at liberty to proceed in the discharge of his official duties as defined by the laws of the state, and the order adjudging him to be in contempt for bringing the mandamus proceeding in the state court was a nullity.
This principle, if firmly established, would work a radical change in our governmental system. It would inaugurate a new era in the American judicial system and in the relations of the national and state governments. It would enable the subordinate Federal courts to supervise and control the official action of the states as if they were 'dependencies' or provinces. It would place the states of the Union in a condition of inferiority never dreamed of when the Constitution was adopted or when the 11th Amendment was made a part of the supreme law of the land. I cannot suppose that the great men who framed the Constitution ever thought the time would come when a subordinate Federal court, having no power to compel a state, in its corporate capacity, to appear before it as a litigant, would yet assume to deprive a state of the right to be represented in its own courts by its [209 U.S. 123, 176] regular law officer. That is what the court below did, as to Minnesota, when it adjudged that the appearance of the defendant Young in the state court, as the attorney general of Minnesota, representing his state as its chief law officer, was a contempt of the authority of the Federal court, punishable by fine and imprisonment. Too little consequence has been attached to the fact that the courts of the states are under an obligation equally strong with that resting upon the courts of the Union to respect and enforce the provisions of the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and to guard rights secured or guaranteed by that instrument. We must assume-a decent respect for the states requires us to assume-that the state courts will enforce every right secured by the Constitution. If they fail to do so, the party complaining has a clear remedy for the protection of his rights; for he can come by writ of error, in an orderly, judicial way, from the highest court of the state to this tribunal for redress in respect of every right granted or secured by that instrument and denied by the state court. The state courts, it should be remembered, have jurisdiction concurrent with the courts of the United States of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or equity, involving a prescribed amount, arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 25 Stat. at L. 434, chap. 866, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 508. And this court has said: 'A state court of original jurisdiction, having the parties before it, may, consistently with existing Federal legislation, determine cases at law or in equity arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States or involving rights dependent upon such Constitution or laws. Upon the state courts, equally with the courts of the Union, rests the obligation to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof, whenever those rights are involved in any suit or proceeding before them; for the judges of the state courts are required to take an oath to support that Constitution, and they are bound by it, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties [209 U.S. 123, 177] made under their authority, at the supreme law of the land, 'anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.' If they fail therein, and withhold or deny rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the party aggrieved may bring the case from the highest court of the state in which the question could be decided to this court for final and conclusive determination.' Robb v. Connolly, 111 U.S. 624, 637 , 28 S. L. ed. 542, 547, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 544, 551. So that an order of the Federal court preventing the state from having the services of its attorney general in one of its own courts, except at the risk of his being fined and arrested, cannot be justified upon the ground that the question of constitutional law, involved in the enforcement of the statutes in question, was beyond the competency of a state court to consider and determine, primarily, as between the parties before it in a suit brought by the state itself.
At the argument of this case counsel for the railway company insisted that the provisions of the act in question were so drastic that they could be enforced by the state in its own courts with such persistency and in such a manner as, in a very brief period, to have the railway officers and agents all in jail, the business of the company destroyed, and its property confiscated by heavy and successive penalties, before a final judicial decision as to the constitutionality of the act could be obtained. I infer from some language in the court's opinion that these apprehensions are shared by some of my brethren. And this supposed danger to the railway company and its shareholders seems to have been the basis of the action of the Federal circuit court when, by its order directed against the attorney general of Minnesota, it practically excluded the state from its own courts in respect of the issues here involved. But really no such question as to the state statute is here involved or need be now considered; for it cannot possibly arise on the hearing of the present application of that officer for discharge on habeas corpus. The only question now before this court is whether the suit by Perkins and Shepard in the Federal [209 U.S. 123, 178] court was not, upon its face, as to the relief sought against the attorney general of Minnesota, a suit against the state. Stated in another form, the question is whether that court may, by operating upon that officer in his official capacity, by means of fine and imprisonment, prevent the state from being represented by its law officer in one of its own courts? If the Federal court could not thus put manacles upon the state so as to prevent it from being represented by its attorney general in its own court and from having the state court pass upon the validity of the state enactment in question in the Perkins-Shepard suit, that is an end to this habeas corpus proceeding, and the attorney general of Minnesota should be discharged by order of this court from custody.
It is to be observed that when the state was, in effect, prohibited by the order of the Federal court from appearing in its own courts, there was no danger, absolutely none whatever, from anything that the attorney general had ever done or proposed to do, that the property of the railway company would be confiscated and its officers and agents imprisoned, beyond the power of that company to stay any wrong done by bringing to this court, in regular order, any final judgment of the state court, in the mandamus suit, which may have been in derogation of a Federal right. When the attorney general instituted the mandamus proceeding in the state court against the railway company there was in force, it must not be forgotten, an order of injunction by the Federal court which prevented that company from obeying the state law. There was consequently no danger from that direction. Besides, the mandamus proceeding was not instituted for the recovery of any of the penalties prescribed by the state law, and therefore no judgment in that case could operate directly upon the property of the railway company or upon the persons of its officers or agents. The attorney general, in his response to the rule against him, assured the Federal court that he did not contemplate any proceeding whatever against the railway company except the one in mandamus. Suppose the [209 U.S. 123, 179] mandamus case had been finally decided in the state court,-the way was open for the railway company to preserve any question it made as to its rights under the Constitution, and, in the event of a decision adverse to it in that court, at once to carry the case to the highest court of Minnesota, and thence, by a writ of error, bring it to this court. That course would have served to determine every question of constitutional law raised by the suit in the Federal court in an orderly way, without trampling upon the state, and without interfering, in the meantime, with the operation of the railway property in the accustomed way. Instead of adopting that course,-so manifestly consistent with the dignity and authority of both the Federal and state judicial tribunals,-the Federal court practically closed the state courts against the state itself when it adjudged that the attorney general, without regard to the wishes of the governor of Minnesota, and without reference to his duties as prescribed by the laws of that state, should stand in 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 representing it in a suit brought in the state court, why might not the bill in the Federal court be so amended that that court could reach all the district attorneys in Minnesota, and forbid them from bringing to the attention of grand juries and the state courts violations of the state act by the railway company? And if a grand jury was about to inquire into the acts of the railway company in respect of the matter of its rates, why may not the Federal court, proceeding upon the same grounds on which it has moved against the attorney general, enjoin the finding or returning of indictments against the railway company? If an indictment was returned against the railway company, and was about to be tried by a petit jury, why could not the Federal court upon the principles now announced, forbid the jury to proceed against the railway company, and, if it did, punish every petit juryman as for contempt of court? Indeed, why may it not lay its hands on the governor of the state and [209 U.S. 123, 180] forbid him from appealing to the courts of Minnesota in the name of the state, to test the validity of the act in question? And why may not the Federal court lay its hands even upon the judge of the state court itself, whenever it proceeds against the railway company under the state law?
The subject-matter of these questions has evidently been considered by this court, and the startling consequences that would result from an affirmative answer to them have not been overlooked; for, in its opinion, I find these observations: 'It is proper to add that the right to enjoin an individual, even though a state official, from commencing suits under circumstances already stated, does not include the power to restrain a court from acting in any case brought before it, either of a civil or criminal nature, nor does it include power to prevent any investigation or action by a grand jury. The latter body is part of the machinery of a criminal court, and an injunction against a state court would be a violation of the whole scheme of our government. If an injunction against an individual is disobeyed, and he commences proceedings before a grand jury or in a court, such disobedience is personal only, and the court or jury can proceed without incurring any penalty on that account. The difference between the power to enjoin an individual from doing certain things, and the power to enjoin courts from proceeding in their own way to exercise jurisdiction, is plain, and no power to do the latter exists because of a power to do the former.' If an order of the Federal court forbidding a state court or its grand jury from attempting to enforce a state enactment would be 'a violation of the whole scheme of our government,' it is difficult to perceive why an order of that court, forbidding the chief law officer and all the district attorneys of a state to represent it in the courts, in a particular case, and practically, in that way, closing the doors of the state court against the state, would not also be inconsistent with the whole scheme of our government, and, therefore, beyond the power of the court to make. [209 U.S. 123, 181] Whether the Minnesota statutes are or are not violative of the Constitution is not, as already suggested, a question in this habeas corpus proceeding. I do not, therefore, stop to consider whether those statutes are repugnant to the Constitution upon the ground that, by their necessary operation, when enforced, they will prevent the railway company from contesting their validity, or upon the ground that they are confiscatory and therefore obnoxious to the requirement of due process of law. While the argument at the bar in support of each of these propositions was confessedly of great force and persuasiveness, those points need not be now examined. I express no opinion about them. Their soundness may, however, be conceded for the purposes of this discussion. Indeed, it may be assumed for the purposes of this discussion that these state enactments are harsh and intemperate and, in some of their features, invalid. But those questions are wholly apart from the present proceeding. If we now consider them we must go out of our way in order to do so. We have no evidence in this proceeding as to the effect which the statutes, if enforced, would have upon the value either of the railway property or of the bonds or stocks of the railway company. The question of their validity has not been finally decided by the circuit court, and we have not before us even the evidence upon which its preliminary injunction was based. The essential and only question now before us or that need be decided is whether an order by the Federal court which prevents the state from being repressented in its own courts, by its chief law officer, upon an issue involving the constitutional validity of certain state enactments, does not make a suit against the state within the meaning of the 11th Amendment. If it be a suit of that kind, then, it is conceded, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to fine and imprison the petitioner, and he must be discharged, whatever our views may be as to the validity of those state enactments. This must necessarily be so unless the Amendment has less force and a more restricted meaning now than it had at the time of its adop- [209 U.S. 123, 182] tion, and unless a suit against the attorney general of a state, in his official capacity, is not one against a state under the 11th Amendment when its determination depends upon a question of constitutional power or right under the 14th Amendment. In that view I cannot concur. In my opinion the 11th Amendment has not been modified in the slightest degree as to its scope or meaning by the 14th Amendment, and a suit which, in its essence, is one against the state, remains one of that character and is forbidden even when brought to strike down a state statute alleged to be in violation of that clause of the 14th Amendment, forbidding the deprivation by a state of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. If a suit be commenced in a state court, and involves a right secured by the Federal Constitution, the way is open under our incomparable judicial system to protect that right, first, by the judgment of the state court, and ultimately by the judgment of this court, upon writ of error. But such right cannot be protected by means of a suit which, at the outset, is, directly or in legal effect, one against the state whose action is alleged to be illegal. That mode of redress is absolutely forbidden by the 11th Amendment, and cannot be made legal by mere construction, or by any consideration of the consequences that may follow from the operation of the statute. Parties cannot, in any case, obtain redress by a suit against the state. Such has been the uniform ruling in this court, and it is most unfortunate that it is now declared to be competent for a Federal circuit court, by exerting its authority over the chief law officer of the state, without the consent of the state, to exclude the state, in its sovereign capacity, from its own courts when seeking to have the ruling of those courts as to its powers under its own statutes. Surely, the right of a state to invoke the jurisdiction of its own courts is not less than the right of individuals to invoke the jurisdiction of a Federal court. The preservation of the dignity and sovereignty of the states, within the limits of their constitutional powers, [209 U.S. 123, 183] is of the last importance, and vital to the preservation of our system of government. The courts should not permit themselves to be driven by the hardships, real or supposed, of particular cases, to accomplish results, even if they be just results, in a mode forbidden by the fundamental law. The country should never be allowed to think that the Constitution can, in any case, be evaded or amended by mere judicial interpretation, or that its behests may be nullified by an ingenious construction of its provisions.
The general question was examined in Cunningham v. Macon & B. R. Co. 109 U.S. 446 -451, 27 L. ed. 992-994, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 292-296, 609, where the court said that it was conceded in all the cases, and 'may be accepted as a point of departure unquestioned, that neither a state nor the United States can be sued as defendant in any court in this country without their consent, except in the limited class of cases in which a state may be made a party in the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue of the original jurisdiction conferred on this court by the Constitution.' The court has not in any case departed from this constitutional principle. In Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1, 9 , 35 S. L. ed. 363, 365, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699, 701, it is said that 'this immunity of a state from suit is [209 U.S. 123, 184] absolute and unqualified, and the constitutional provision securing it is not to be so construed as to place the state within the reach of the process of the court. Accordingly, it is equally well settled that a suit against the officers of a state, to compel them to do the acts which constitute a performance by it of its contracts, is, in effect, a suit against the state itself.' In Cunningham v. Macon & B. R. Co., just cited, the distinction was drawn between a suit in which the state is the real party in interest, although not technically a party on the record, and one in which 'an individual is sued in tort for some act injurious to another in regard to person or property, to which his defense is that he has acted under the orders of the government;' in which last case, the court observed, the defendant 'is not sued as, or because he is, the officer of the government, but as an individual, and the court is not ousted of jurisdiction because he asserts authority as such officer.' Let it not be forgotten that the defendant Young was sued, not as an individual or because he had any personal interest in these matters, but as, and solely because be is, an officer of the state, charged with the performance of certain public duties.
In Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52, 67 , 68 S., 29 L. ed. 805, 810, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 608, 615, 616, which involved the validity of certain scrip alleged to have been issued by the state of South Carolina, it appeared that the state, having denied its obligation to pay, the plaintiff sought relief by simply suing certain state officers, as such, without making the state a formal party. The court said: 'These suits are accurately described as bills for the specific performance of a contract between the complainants and the state of South Carolina, who are the only parties to it. But to these bills the state is not in name made a party defendant, though leave is given to it to become such, if it chooses; and, except with that consent, it could not be brought before the court and be made to appear and defend. And yet it is the actual party to the alleged contract the performance of which is decreed, the one required to perform the decree, and the only [209 U.S. 123, 185] party by whom it can be performed. Though not nominally a party to the record, it is the real and only party in interest, the nominal defendants being the officers and agents of the state, having no personal interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and defending only as representing the state. And the things required by the decrees to be done and performed by them are the very things which, when done and performed, constitute a performance of the alleged contract by the state. The state is not only the real party to the controversy, but the real party against which relief is sought by the suit, and the suit is, therefore, substantially within the prohibition of the 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which declares that 'the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." Again: 'If this case is not within the class of those forbidden by the constitutional guaranty to the states of immunity from suits in Federal tribunals, it is difficult to conceive the frame of one which would be. If the state is named as a defendant, it can only be reached either by mesne or final process through its officers and agents, and a judgment against it could neither be obtained nor enforced, except as the public conduct and government of the ideal political body called a state could be reached and affected through its official representatives. A judgment against these latter, in their official and representative capacity, commanding them to perform official functions on behalf of the state according to the dictates and decrees of the court, is, if anything can be, a judicial proceeding against the state itself. If not, it may well be asked, what would constitute such a proceeding? In the present cases the decrees were not only against the defendants in their official capacity, but, that there might be no mistake as to the nature and extent of the duty to be performed, also against their successors in office.' Is it to be said that an order requiring the attorney general of a [209 U.S. 123, 186] state to perform certain official functions on behalf of the state is a suit against the state, while an order forbidding him, as attorney general, not to perform an official function on behalf of the state, is not a suit against the state?
It is said that the Ayers Case is not applicable here, because the orders made by the Federal circuit court had for their object to compel Virginia to perform its contract with bondholders, which is not this case. But that difference between the Ayers Case and this case cannot affect the principle involved. The proceeding against the attorney general of Virginia had for its object to compel, by indirection, the performance of the contract which that commonwealth was alleged to have made with bondholders,-such performance, on the part of the state, to be effected by means of orders in a Federal circuit court directly controlling the official action of that officer. The proceeding in the Perkins-Shepard suit against the attorney general of Minnesota had for its object, by means of orders in a Federal circuit court, directed to that officer, to control the action of that state in reference to the enforcement of certain statutes by judicial proceedings commenced in its own courts. The relief sought in each case was to control the state by controlling the conduct of its law officer, [209 U.S. 123, 190] against its will. I cannot conceive how the proceeding against the attorney general of Virginia could be deemed a suit against that state, and yet the proceeding against the attorney general of Minnesota is not to be deemed a suit against Minnesota, when the object and effect of the latter proceeding was, beyond all question, to shut that state entirely out of its own courts, and prevent it, through its law officer, from invoking their jurisdiction in a special matter of public concern, involving official duty, about which the state desired to know the views of its own judiciary. In my opinion the decision in the Ayres Case determines this case for the petitioner.
More directly in point, perhaps, for the petitioner Young, is the case of Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516 , 528-530, 43 L. ed. 535, 541, 542, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269, 274, 275. That suit was brought by the receivers of a railroad company against the governor and attorney general of Alabama. Its object was to prevent the enforcement of the provisions of an Alabama statute prescribing the maximum rates of toll to be charged on a certain bridge across the Tennessee river. The statute imposed a penalty for each time that the owners, lessees, or operators of the bridge demanded or received any higher rate of toll than was prescribed by it. The relief asked was an injunction prohibiting the governor and attorney general of the state and all other persons from instituting any proceeding against the complainants, or either of them, to enforce the statute. An injunction, as prayed for, was granted. In the progress of the cause the solicitor of the district in which the case was pending was made a defendant and the injunction was extended to him. By amended pleadings it was made to appear that the tollgate keepers at the public crossing of the bridge were indicted for collecting tolls in violation of the statute. In the progress of the cause the plaintiffs dismissed the case as to the state, and the cause was discontinued as to the governor. But the case was heard upon the motion to dismiss the bill upon the ground that the suit was one against the state, in violation of the Constitution of the United States. [209 U.S. 123, 191] After stating the principles settled in the Ayers Case and in other cases this court said: 'If these principles be applied in the present case, there is no escape from the conclusion that, although the state of Alabama was dismissed as a party defendant, this suit against its officers is really one against the state. As a state can act only by its officers, an order restraining those officers from taking any steps, by means of judicial proceedings, in execution of the statute of February 9, 1895, one which restrains the state itself, and the suit is consequently as much against the state as if the state were named as a party defendant on the record. If the individual defendants held possession or were about to take possession of, or to commit any trespass upon, any property belonging to or under the control of the plaintiffs, in violation of the latter's constitutional rights, they could not resist the judicial determination, in a suit against them, of the question of the right to such possession by simply asserting that they held or were entitled to hold the property in their capacity as officers of the state. In the case supposed, they would be compelled to make good the state's claim to the property, and could not shield themselves against suit because of their official character. Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U.S. 204, 222 , 42 S. L. ed. 137, 143, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770. No such case is before us.' Again, in the same case: 'It is to be observed that neither the attorney general of Alabama nor the solicitor of the eleventh judicial circuit of the state appear to have been charged by law with any special duty in connection with the act of February 9, 1895. In support of the contention that the present suit is not one against the state, reference was made by counsel to several cases, among which were Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 , 29 L. ed. 185, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 903, 962; Allen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 114 U.S. 311 , 29 L. ed. 200, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 925, 962; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1 , 35 L. ed. 363, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699; Re Tyler, 149 U.S. 164 , 37 L. ed. 689, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 785; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 154 U.S. 362, 388 , 38 S. L. ed. 1014, 1020, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 560, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1047; Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58 , 41 L. ed. 632, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265; and Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 , 42 L. ed. 819, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418. Upon examination it will be found that the defendants in each of those cases were officers of the state, especially charged with the execution of a state enactment [209 U.S. 123, 192] alleged to be unconstitutional, but under the authority of which, it was averred, they were committing or were about to commit some specific wrong or trespass, to the injury of the plaintiff's rights. There is a wide difference between a suit against individuals, holding official positions under a state, to prevent them, under the sanction of an unconstitutional statute, from committing, by some positive act, a wrong or trespass, and a suit against officers of a state merely to test the constitutionality of a state statute, in the enforcement of which those officers will act only by formal judicial proceedings in the courts of the state. In the present case, as we have said, neither of the state officers named held any special relation to the particular statute alleged to be unconstitutional. They were not expressly directed to see to its enforcement. If, because they were law officers of the state, a case could be made for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of the statute, by an injunction suit brought against them, then the constitutionality of every act passed by the legislature could be tested by a suit against the governor and attorney general, based upon the theory that the former, as the executive of the state, was, in a general sense, charged with the execution of all its laws, and the latter, as attorney general, might represent the state in litigation involving the enforcement of its statutes. That would be a very convenient way for obtaining a speedy judicial determination of questions of constitutional law which may be raised by individuals, but it is a mode which cannot be applied to the states of the Union consistently with the fundamental principle that they cannot, without their assent, be brought into any court at the suit of private persons. If their officers commit acts of trespass or wrong to the citizen, they may be individually proceeded against for such trespasses or wrong. Under the view we take of the question, the citizen is not without effective remedy, when proceeded against under a legislative enactment void for repugnancy to the supreme law of the land; for, whatever the form of proceeding against him, he can make his defense upon the [209 U.S. 123, 193] ground that the statute is unconstitutional and void. And that question can be ultimately brought to this court for final determination.' I am unable to distinguish that case, in principle, from the one now before us. The Fitts Case is not overruled, but is, I fear, frittered away or put out of sight by unwarranted distinctions.
Two cases in this court are much relied on to support the proposition that the Perkins-Shepard suit in the circuit court is not a suit against the state. I refer to Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 154 U.S. 362 , 38 L. ed. 1014, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 560, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1047, and Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 472 , 42 S. L. ed. 819, 836, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418, 422. But each of those cases differs in material respects from the one instituted by Perkins and Shepard in the court below. In the Reagan Case it appears that the very act under which the railroad commission proceeded, authorized the railroad company, or any interested party, if dissatisfled with the action of the commission in establishing rates, to bring suit against that commission in any court, in a named county, with right to appeal to a higher court. This court when combating the suggestion that only the state court had jurisdiction to proceed against the commission, and give relief in respect of the rates it established, said: 'It may be laid down as a general proposition that, whenever a citizen of a state can go into the courts of a state to defend his property against the illegal acts of its officers, a citizen of another state may invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to maintain a like defense. A state cannot tie up a citizen of another state, having property rights within its territory invaded by unauthorized acts of its own officers, to suits for redress in its own courts. Given a case where a suit can be maintained in the courts of the state to protect property rights, a citizen of another state may invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. . . . It comes, therefore, within the very terms of the act. It cannot be doubted that a state, like any other government, can waive exemption from suit.' The declaration of the court in the Reagan Case, that that suit was not, within the true meaning of the 11th [209 U.S. 123, 194] Amendment, to be regarded as a suit against the state, must therefore be taken in connection with the declaration in the same case that the state having consented that the commission might be sued in one of its own courts, in respect of the rates established by the statute, must be taken to have waived its immunity from suit in the circuit court of the United States sitting in Texas. In Smyth v. Ames, above cited, which was a suit in a circuit court of the United States, involving the constitutional validity of certain rates established for railroads in Nebraska, it appeared that the statute expressly authorized any railroad company claiming that the rates were unreasonable to bring an action against the state before the supreme court, in the name of the railroad company or companies bringing the same. Thus, the state of Nebraska waived its immunity from suit, and having authorized a suit against itself in one of its courts, in respect of the rates there in question, it could not, according to the decision in the Reagan Case, deny its liability to like suit in a court of the United States. It is true that this court, in its opinion in Smyth v. Ames, did not lay any special stress on the fact that Nebraska, by the statute, agreed that it might be sued, but it took especial care in its extended statement of the case to bring out that fact. Its silence on that point is not extraordinary, in view of the fact, as appears from the opinion of this court, that the question whether that suit was to be deemed one against the state was not discussed at the bar by the Nebraska state board. We there quoted from the Reagan Case these words: 'Whenever a citizen of a state can go into the courts of a state to defend his property against the illegal acts of its officers, a citizen of another state may invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to maintain a like defense. A state cannot tie up a citize of another state, having property rights within its territory invaded by unauthorized acts of its own officers, to suits for redress in its own courts.' That the Reagan and Smyth Cases did not go as far as is now claimed for them is made clear by the later case of Fitts v. McGhee, already re- [209 U.S. 123, 195] ferred to, in which the doctrines of Re Ayers were reaffirmed and applied.
Counsel for the railway company placed some reliance on Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1, 18 , 35 S. L. ed. 363, 368, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699, 704, in which the previous cases on the general subject of suits against the states were classified. That case was a suit in equity against certain parties 'who, under the Constitution of Oregon, as governor, secretary of state, and treasurer of state, comprised the board of land commissioners of that state, to restrain and enjoin them from selling and conveying a large amount of land in that state, to which the appellee asserted title.' That suit, in view of the nature of the relief asked, and of the relations of the defendants to the matters involved, was held not to be one against the state within the meaning of the 11th Amendment. But after a review of the facts the court, as explanatory of the conclusion reached by it, took especial care to observe: 'In this connection it must be borne in mind that this suit is not nominally against the governor, secretary of state, and treasurer, as such officers, but against them collectively, as the board of land commissioners.' The present suit is, in terms, against Young 'as attorney general of Minnesota,' and the decree was sought against him as such officer; not against him individually, or as a mere administrative officer charged with certain duties.
One of the cases cited in support of the decision now rendered is Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Missouri R. & Warehouse Comrs. (Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Hickman) 183 U.S. 53, 58 , 59 S., 46 L. ed. 78, 83, 84, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18, 20. But although that particular suit was held not to be one against the state, the case, in respect of the principles announced by the court, is in harmony with the views I have expressed. For the court there says: 'Was the state the real party plaintiff? It was at an early day held by this court, construing the 11th Amendment, that, in all cases where jurisdiction depends on the party, it is the party named in the record. Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 6 L. ed. 204. But that technical construction has yielded to one more in consonance with the [209 U.S. 123, 197] spirit of the Amendment, and in Re Ayers, supra, it was ruled upon full consideration that the Amendment covers not only suits against a state by name, but those also against its officers, agents, and representatives where the state, though not named as such, is nevertheless the only real party against which in fact the relief is asked, and against which the judgment or decree effectively operates. And that construction of the Amendment has since been followed.' In the present case, the state, although not named on the record as a party, is the real party whose action it is sought to control.
There are other cases in this court in which the scope and meaning of the 11th Amendment were under consideration, but they need not be cited, for they are well known. They are all cited in Re Ayres, 123 U.S. 443, 500 , 31 S. L. ed. 216, 228, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 164, 180. 'The vital principle in all such cases,' this court said in the Ayers Case, 'is that the defendants, though professing to act as officers of the state, are threatening a violation of the personal or property rights of the complainant, for which they are personally and individually liable,' or cases in which the officer sued refused to perform a purely ministerial duty, about which he had no discretion and in the performance of which the plaintiff had a direct interest. The case before us is altogether different. The statutes in question did not impose upon the attorney general of Minnesota any special duty to see to their enforcement. In bringing the mandamus suit he acted under the general authority inhering in him as the chief law officer of his state. He could not become personally liable to the railway company simply because of his bringing the mandamus suit. The attorney general stated that all he did, or contemplated doing, was to bring the mandamus suit. The mere bringing of such a suit could not be alleged against him as an individual, in violation of any legal right of the railway company or its shareholders. Re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 496 , 31 S. L. ed. 216, 226, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 164. The plaintiffs recognized this fact, and hence did not proceed in their suit upon the ground that the defendant was individually liable. They sued him only as attorney general, [209 U.S. 123, 198] and sought a decree against him in his official capacity, not otherwise.
Some reference has been made to Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 , 29 L. ed. 868, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734, and other cases, that affirm the authority of a Federal court, under existing statutes, to discharge upon habeas corpus, from the custody of a state officer, one who is held in violation of the Federal Constitution for an alleged crime against a state. Those cases are not at all in point in the present discussion. Such a habeas corpus proceeding is ex parte, having for its object only to inquire whether the applicant for the writ is illegally restrained of his liberty. If he is, then the state officer holding him in custody is a trespasser, and cannot defend the wrong or tort committed by him, by pleading his official character. The power in a Federal court to discharge a person from the custody of a trespasser may well exist, and yet the court have no power in a suit before it, by an order directed against the attorney general of a state, as such, to prevent the state from being represented by that officer, as a litigant in one of its own courts. The former cases, it may be argued, come within the decisions which hold that a suit which only seeks to prevent or restrain a trespass upon property or person by one who happens to be a state officer, but is proceeding in violation of the Constitution of the United States, is not a suit against a state within the meaning of the 11th Amendment, but a suit against the trespasser or wrongdoer. But the authority of the Federal court to protect one against a trespass committed or about to be committed by a state officer, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, is very different from the power now asserted, and recognized by this court as existing, to shut out a sovereign state from its own courts by the device of forbidding its attorney general, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment from appearing in such courts in its behalf. The mere bringing of a suit on behalf of a state, by its attorney general, cannot ( this court has decided in the Ayers Case) make that officer a trespasser and individually liable to the [209 U.S. 123, 199] party sued. To enjoin him from representing the state in such suit is therefore, for every practical or legal purpose, to enjoin the state itself. This court, in Re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 584 , 39 S. L. ed. 1092, 1102, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 900, 906, said: 'Every government, intrusted, by the very terms of its being, with powers and duties to be exercised and discharged for the general welfare, has a right to apply to its own courts for any proper assistance in the exercise of the one and the discharge of the other, and it is no sufficient answer to its appeal to one of those courts that it has no pecuniary interest in the matter. The obligations which it is under to promote the interest of all, and to prevent the wrongdoing of one resulting in injury to the general welfare, is often of itself sufficient to give it a standing in court. This proposition in some of its relations has heretofore received the sanction of this court.' If there be one power that a state possesses, which ought to be deemed beyond the control, in any mode, of the national government or of any of its courts, it is the power by judicial proceedings to appear in its own courts, by its law officer or by attorneys, and seek the guidance of those courts in respect of matters of a justiciable nature. If the state court, by its judgment, in such a suit, should disregard the injunctions of the Federal Constitution, that judgment would be subject to review by this court upon writ of error or appeal.
Upon the fullest consideration and after a careful examination of the authorities, my mind has been brought to the conclusion that no case heretofore determined by this court requires us to hold that the Federal circuit court had authority to forbid the attorney general of Minnesota from representing the state in the mandamus suit in the state court, or to adjudge that he was in contempt and liable to be fined and imprisoned simply because of his having, as attorney general, brought that suit for the state in one of its courts. On the contrary, my conviction is very strong that, if regard be had to former utterances of this court, the suit of Perkins and Shepard in the Federal court, in respect of the relief sought therein against Young, in his official capacity, as attorney general of Minnesota, is to be deemed-under the Ayers and Fitts Cases particularly-a suit against the state, of which the circuit court of the United States could not take cognizance without violating the 11th Amendment of the Constitution. Even if it were held that suits to restrain the instituting of actions directly to recover the prescribed penalties would not be suits against the state, it would not follow that we should go further and hold that a proceeding under which the state was, in effect, denied access, by its attorney general, to its own courts, would be consistent with the 11th Amendment. A different view means, as I think, that although the judicial power of the United States does not extend to any suit expressly brought against a state by a citizen of another state without its consent, or to any suit the legal effect of which is to tie the hands of the state, although not formally named as a party, yet a circuit court of the United States, in a suit brought against the attorney general of a state, may, by orders directed specifically against that officer, control, entirely control, by indirection, the action of the state itself in judicial proceedings in its own courts involving the constitutional validity of its statutes. This court has heretofore held that [209 U.S. 123, 204] that could not be done, and that such a result would, for most purposes, practically obliterate the 11th Amendment, and place the states, in vital particulars, as absolutely under the control of the subordinate Federal courts, as if they were capable of being directly sued. I put the matter in this way, because to forbid the attorney general of a state under the penalty of being punished as for contempt) from representing his state in suits of a particular kind, in its own courts, is to forbid the state itself from appearing and being heard in such suits. Neither the words nor the policy of the 11th Amendment will, under our former decisions, justify any order of a Federal court the necessary effect of which will be to exclude a state from its own courts. Such an order, attended by such results, cannot, I submit, be sustained consistently with the powers which the states, according to the uniform declarations of this court, possess under the Constitution. I am justified, by what this court has heretofore declared, in now saying that the men who framed the Constitution, and who caused the adoption of the 11th Amendment, would have been amazed by the suggestion that a state of the Union can be prevented, by an order of a subordinate Federal court, from being represented by its attorney general in a suit brought by it in one of its own courts; and that such an order would be inconsistent with the dignity of the states as involved in their constitutional immunity from the judicial process of the Federal courts ( except in the limited cases in which they may constitutionally be made parties in this court), and would be attended by most pernicious results.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.