Hans v. Louisiana

Me. JustiCe Beadley, after stating tbe case as above, delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.

Tbe question is presented, whether a State can be sued in a. Circuit Court of tbe .United States by one of its own citizens Upon a suggestion that- tbe casé is one that arises under tbe Constitution or laws of tbe United States.

Tbe ground taken is, that under the Constitution, as well as under the. act of Congress passed to carry it into- effect, a case is within tbe jurisdiction of the federal courts, without regard to tbe character of tbe parties, if it arises under, tbe Constitution or laws of the United States, or, which is tbe same thing, if it necessarily involves a, question under said Constitution or laws. .The language relied on is that clause of tbe 3d article of the Constitution, which declares that’ “tbe judicial power of tbe United States shall extend to. all cases in law and equity ■ arising under this Constitution, tbe laws of tbe United States, and treaties made, or which shall' be made, .under tbeir authority;” and the corresponding'-clause' of tbe act conferring jurisdiction upon tbe Circuit Court, which, as found in tbe act of March 3,1875,18 Stat. 470, c. 137,. § 1, is as follows, to wi,t:' “ That tbe Circuit Courts' of the United States, shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states; of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, • . . ■. arising under tbe Constitution or laws of tbe'United States, o"r treaties made, or which shall be made,, ■under tbeir' authority.” ' It is said that these jurisdictional •clauses make no exception arising from the character of the parties, and, therefore, that a State. can claim no exemption; from suit, if the case is really one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. It is conceded that where the jurisdiction depends aloné upon the character of the parties, a controversy between á State and its own' [*10] citizens is not embraced within it;,but it is contended that though jurisdiction does not exist on that ground, it nevertheless does exist if the cíase itself is,one which necessarily involves a federal question; and with regard to ordinary parties this is undoubtedly true. The question now to be decided is, whether it is true where one of the parties is a State, and is sued as a defendant, by one of its own citizens. . That a State cannot be sued by a citizen of.another State, or of a foreign state, on the' mere ground that the case is one arising .under the Constitution or laws of the United States,, is clearly established by the decisions of this court in several recent caseá. Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711; Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52; In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443. Those were cases arising under the Constitution of the United Stales, upon laws complained of as impairing- the obligation of contracts, one of which'was the constitutional amendment of Louisiana complained, of in the present case. Eelief was sought against state officers who professed to act- in obedience to those laws. This court held that the suits were "virtually against the States, themselves and were consequently violative of the Eleventh Amendment .of the Constitution, and could not be maintained.- It-was not denied that they presented cases arising under the-Constitution; but, notwithstanding that, they were held to be prohibited by the amendment referred to.