Ex Parte Young
- Decided
- March 23, 1908
- Docket
- 10, Original
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 9,586 timesOverruled (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled (not yet verified) · Sandra Lee Becker, Etc., Richard Guy Steffel v. John R. Thompson, Etc.
What later courts said
- holding that a suit challenging the constitutionality of a state official’s action is not a suit against the state — Keitt v. New York City (2011)
- holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal courts from enjoining unconstitutional actions of state officers — Rosewell v. LaSalle National Bank (1981)
- holding that suits against state officers, rather than against State itself, are permitted when seeking prospective relief — Burnette v. Carothers (1999)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court..
We recognize and appreciate' to the fullest extent the very great importance of this case, not only to the parties now before the court, but also to the great mass of the citizens of this country^ all of whom are interested in the practical working of the courts of justice throughout the land, both Federal and state, and in the proper exercise of the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, as limited and controlled by the Federal Constitution and the laws of Congress.
That there has been room for difference of opinion with regard to such limitations the reported cases in this court bear conclusive testimony. It cannot be stated that the case before us is entirely free from any possible doubt nor that intelligent men may not differ as to the correct answer to the question we are called upon to decide.
Cite this
Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.