Ex Parte Young

209 U.S. 123 (1908)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The plaintiffs in the original suit were Perkins and Shepard, who were shareholders of the Northern Pacific Railway Company and citizens, respectively, of Iowa and Minnesota. The defendants were the railway company, Edward T. Young, Attorney General of Minnesota, the several members of the State Railroad and Warehouse Commission, and certain persons who were shippers of freight over the lines of that railway. The suit was taken 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. It was asked that Edward T. Young, 'as Attorney General of the State of Minnesota,' and the members of the State Railroad and Warehouse Commission be enjoined from all attempts to compel the railway company to put in force the rates or any of them prescribed by said orders. The court gave a temporary injunction. The Attorney General of Minnesota (P) appeared specially and, without submitting to or acknowledging the jurisdiction of the court, moved to dismiss the suit as to him, upon the ground that the State had not consented to be sued. The Court enjoined the company and also P from 'taking or instituting any action, suit, step or proceeding to enforce the penalties and remedies specified in said acts or either thereof, or to compel obedience to said act or compliance therewith or any part thereof.' The very next day, September 24, 1907, the State of Minnesota, 'on the relation of P, Attorney General,' commenced an action in one of its own courts against the Northern Pacific Railway Company -- the only relief sought being a mandamus ordering the company to adopt, publish, keep for public inspection, and put into effect, as the rates and charges to be maintained for the transportation of freight between stations in Minnesota. That was the act which it was the object of the Perkins-Shepard suit in the Federal court to strike down and nullify. An alternative writ of mandamus, such as the State asked, was issued by the state court. The Federal Circuit Court issued an order for P to show cause why he should not be punished as for contempt. D invoked the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. P was held to be in contempt and fined the sum of one hundred dollars and stand committed in the custody of the Marshal of this court until the same be paid, and until he purges himself of his contempt by dismissing or causing to be dismissed said suit last herein mentioned. P applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus.