The Story of Ex parte Young: Once Controversial, Now Canon
Files
Description
On its face the law of federal jurisdiction often appears technical and dry. It purports to a certain neutrality of application. Not far below the surface of jurisdictional doctrine, however, rest deeply important substantive choices. That is why such a seemingly arid subject matter is so closely studied and hotly contested. Time, though, plays funny tricks on jurisdictional doctrines. The law of jurisdiction grants access to the courts, and access is required to protect rights. Yet, over time, the kinds of plaintiffs coming to federal court, and the rights they seek to assert, change. In the Lochner era, at the turn of the twentieth century, corporate plaintiffs and their allies sought protection of property and contract rights in federal court. In the 1960s and 1970s, civil rights plaintiffs came to federal court seeking redress on issues of equality and personal liberty. The doctrine that at its inception favors one ideology may come in a later day to favor another. That is why the law of federal jurisdiction is constantly changing. It is the rare jurisdictional doctrine that stands the test of time unaltered, but the rule of Ex parte Young is one that has. Born in the crucible of the class wars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Ex parte Young has become bedrock. The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution protects states from certain suits as defendants in federal court. Despite that amendment, Ex parte Young holds that plaintiffs may sue state officials in federal court to enjoin the enforcement of unconstitutional acts. The doctrine has been relied upon, over the course of one hundred years, by plaintiffs of all ideological stripes. Ex parte Young is also a case that, in a sense, gives a lie to broad notions of “parity” between state and federal courts. One of the most enduring issues of federal jurisdiction is whether state courts will be as protective as their federal cousins in protecting federal constitutional rights. Yet, even at times when the Supreme Court has developed jurisdictional doctrine that appears to favor state court jurisdiction, the rule of Ex parte Young has endured. As the history and application of that doctrine indicate, when state laws are being challenged as violative of federal constitutional rights, there is often a preference for, and a sense to, having a choice to adjudicate those claims in federal court. The implicit message of Ex parte Young is that when a state law is challenged as unconstitutional, adjudication of the constitutionality of that law ought not to be left to the state courts.
Source Publication
Federal Courts Stories
Source Editors/Authors
Vicki C. Jackson, Judith Resnik
Publication Date
2010
Recommended Citation
Friedman, Barry, "The Story of Ex parte Young: Once Controversial, Now Canon" (2010). Faculty Chapters. 632.
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-chapt/632
