Opinion of the Court.

the present case that the plaintiffs do not appear to be citizens of another State than Alabama, and may be citizens of that State.

What is and what is not a suit against a State has so frequently been the subject of consideration by this court that nothing of importance remains to be suggested on either side of that question. It is only necessary to ascertain, in each case as it arises, whether it falls on one side or the other of the line marked out by our former decisions.

We are of opinion that the present case comes within the principles announced in In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 485, 496– 500, 505. It appears from the report of that case that the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia in Cooper v. Marye made an order forbidding the Attorney General of Virginia and other officers of that Commonwealth from bringing suits under a certain statute of Virginia, in its name and on its behalf, for the recovery of taxes, in payment of which the taxpayers had previously tendered tax-receivable coupons. The state officers did not obey this order, and having been proceeded against for contempt of court, they sued out writs of habeas corpus, and asked to be discharged upon the ground that the Circuit Court had no power to make the order for disobeying which the proceedings in contempt were commenced. This court said that the question really was whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in which that order was made, the sole purpose and prayer of the bill therein being by final decree to enjoin the defendants, officers of Virginia, from taking any steps in execution of the statute the validity of which was questioned.

It was adjudged that although Virginia was not named on the record as a party defendant, nevertheless, when the nature of the case against its officers was considered, that Commonwealth was to be regarded as the actual party in the sense of the constitutional prohibition. The court said: "It follows, therefore, in the present case, that the personal act of the petitioners sought to be restrained by the order of the Circuit Court, reduced to the mere bringing of an ac

Opinion of the Court.

tion in the name of and for the State against taxpayers who, although they may have tendered the tax-receivable coupons, are charged as delinquents, cannot be alleged against them. as an individual act in violation of any legal or contract rights of such taxpayers." Again: "The relief sought is against the defendants, not in their individual, but in their representative capacity as officers of the State of Virginia. The acts sought to be restrained are the bringing of suits by the State of Virginia in its own name and for its own use. If the State had been made a defendant to this bill by name, charged according to the allegations it now contains-supposing that such a suit could be maintained it would have been subjected to the jurisdiction of the court by process served upon its Governor and Attorney General, according to the precedents in such cases. New Jersey v. New York,

5 Pet. 284, 288, 290; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 96, 97; Rule 5 of 1884, 108 U. S. 574. If a decree could have been rendered enjoining the State from bringing suits against its taxpayers, it would have operated upon the State only through the officers who by law were required to represent it in bringing such suits, viz., the present defendants, its Attorney General and the Commonwealth's attorneys for the several counties. For a breach of such an injunction, these officers would be amenable to the court as proceeding in contempt of its authority, and would be liable to punishment therefor by attachment and imprisonment. The nature of the case, as supposed, is identical with that of the case as actually presented in the bill, with the single exception that the State is not named as a defendant. How else can the State be forbidden by judicial process to bring actions in its name, except by constraining the conduct of its officers, its attorneys and its agents? And if all such officers, attorneys and agents are personally subjected to the process of the court, so as to forbid their acting in its behalf, how can it be said that the State itself is not subjected to the jurisdiction. of the court as an actual and real defendant?"

One of the arguments made in the Ayers case was that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to restrain by injunction officers

Opinion of the Court.

of the State from executing the provisions of state enactments, void by reason of repugnancy to the Constitution of the United States. In support of that position reference was made to Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738. But this court said: "There is nothing, therefore, in the judgment in that cause, as finally defined, which extends its authority beyond the prevention and restraint of the specific act done in pursuance of the unconstitutional statute of Ohio, and in violation of the act of Congress chartering the bank, which consisted of the unlawful seizure and detention of its property. It was conceded throughout that case, in the argument at the bar and in the opinion of the court, that an action at law would lie, either of trespass or detinue, against the defendants as individual trespassers guilty of a wrong in tak ing the property of the complainant illegally, vainly seeking to defend themselves under the authority of a void act of the General Assembly of Ohio. One of the principal questions in the case was whether equity had jurisdiction to restrain the commission of such a mere trespass, a jurisdiction which was upheld upon the circumstances and nature of the case, and which has been repeatedly exercised since. But the very ground on which it was adjudged not to be a suit against the State, and not to be one in which the State was a necessary party, was that the defendants personally and individually were wrongdoers, against whom the complainants had a clear right of action for the recovery of the property taken, or its value, and that therefore it was a case in which no other parties were necessary. The right asserted and the relief asked were against the defendants as individuals. They sought to protect themselves against personal liability by their official character as representatives of the State. This they were not permitted to do, because the authority under which they professed to act was void." And these were stated by the court to be the grounds upon which it had proceeded in other cases-citing Allen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 114 U. S. 311; Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270, 282; United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196. The court further said: "The very object and purpose of the

Opinion of the Court.

Eleventh Amendment were to prevent the indignity of subjecting a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the instance of private parties. It was thought to be neither becoming nor convenient that the several States of the Union, invested with that large residuum of sovereignty which had not been delegated to the United States, should be summoned as defendants to answer the complaints of private persons, whether citizens of other States or aliens, or that the course of their public policy and the administration of their public affairs should be subject to and controlled by the mandates of judicial tribunals without their consent, and in favor of individual interests. To secure the manifest purposes of the constitutional exemption guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment requires that it should be interpreted, not literally and too narrowly, but fairly, and with such breadth and largeness as effectually to accomplish the substance of its purpose. In this spirit it must be held to cover, not only suits brought 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 alone in fact the relief is asked, and against which the judgment or decree effectively operates. But this is not intended in any way to impinge upon the principle which justifies suits against individual defendants, who, under color of the authority of unconstitutional legislation by the State, are guilty of personal trespasses and wrongs, nor to forbid suits against officers in their official capacity either to arrest or direct their official action by injunction or mandamus, where such suits are authorized by law, and the act to be done or omitted is purely ministerial, in the performance or omission of which the plaintiff has a legal interest."

It was accordingly adjudged that the suit in which injunctions were granted against officers of Virginia was in substance and in law one against that Commonwealth, of which the Circuit Court of the United States could not take cognizance.

If these principles be applied in the present case there is no

Opinion of the Court.

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, is 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. No such case is before us.

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; Allen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 114 U. S. 311; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1; In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, 388; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, and Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466. Upon examination it will be found that the defendants in each of those cases were officers of the State, specially charged with the execution of a state enactment 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.

VOL. CLXXII-34