Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar

Summary

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar Pennoyer v. McConnaughy — Opinion of the Court

It is well settled that no action can be maintained in any federal court by the citizens of one of the states against a state, without its consent, even though the sole object of such suit be to bring the state within the operation of the constitutional provision which provides that 'no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.' This immunity of a state from suit is absolute and unqualified, and the constitutional provision securing it is not to be so construed as to place the state within the reach of the process of the court.
Source: Wikisource

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar Pennoyer v. McConnaughy — Opinion of the Court

All that he asks is that the defendants may be restrained and enjoined from doing certain acts which he alleges are violative of his contract made with the state when he purchased his lands. He merely asks that an injunction may issue against them to restrain them from acting under a statute of the state alleged to be unconstitutional, which acts will be destructive of his rights and privileges, and will work irreparable damage and mischief to his property rights.
Source: Wikisource

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar Pennoyer v. McConnaughy — Opinion of the Court

Justice BRADLEY said: 'The objections to proceeding against state officers by mandamus or injunction are: First, that it is, in effect, proceeding against the state itself; and, secondly, that it interferes with the official discretion vested in the officers. It is conceded that neither of these things can be done. A state, without its consent, cannot be sued by an individual; and a court cannot substitute its own discretion for that of executive officers in matters belongin to the proper jurisdiction of the latter.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature