About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

40 U. Tol. L. Rev. ix (2008-2009)
Ex Parte Young: The Font of Civil Rights Law

handle is hein.journals/utol40 and id is 827 raw text is: INTRODUCTION EXPARTE YOUNG: THE FONT OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW IN the 1908 case of Ex parte Young, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state's sovereign immunity did not prevent a private individual from suing a state official for his unconstitutional actions.' One hundred years later, this symposium looks back at what is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in the history of our country. Ex parte Young is the font of our civil rights law because it provides a mechanism for civil rights suits that would otherwise be unavailable to people injured by state officials. Without Ex parte Young, thousands of people who have been deprived of their individual rights by state officials would never have a chance to vindicate those rights. Indeed, without Ex parte Young, courts likely would have been unable to develop the vast constitutional jurisprudence of the twentieth century. Yet Ex parte Young remains a relatively unknown case, even to lawyers and law professors. This symposium seeks to remedy this oversight. In this symposium, the authors discuss the history of Ex parte Young, its present day impact, and the likely future of Ex parte Young suits. The case was widely criticized by progressives when it came down, because it made it easier for federal courts to enjoin progressive policies on the grounds that they violated the Court's conservative doctrine of substantive due process.2 Over the years, however, progressive lawyers came to embrace Ex parte Young, because it enabled them to bring civil rights and other law reform suits. Conservatives became concerned about the cost of such lawsuits and urged the courts to limit available remedies. More recently, the Court has limited the scope of Ex parte Young suits. Most importantly, the Court held that Ex parte Young suits are limited to injunctive relief and cannot be used to sue states for damages.4 On the other hand, the Court has strengthened the doctrine of sovereign immunity but preserved Ex parte Young as an exception to that doctrine, enhancing the doctrine's importance.' Public interest lawyers today still rely on the case as a 1. 209 U.S. 123 (1908). 2. See generally Edward A. Purcell, Jr., Ex parte Young and the Transformation of the Federal Courts, 1890-1917, 40 U. TOL. L. REV. 931 (2009); Michael E. Solimine, Ex parte Young: An Interbranch Perspective, 40 U. TOL. L. REv. 999 (2009). 3. See generally James Leonard, Ex parte Young and Hard Times, 40 U. TOL. L. REV, 889 (2009). 4. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974). 5. See generally Charlton C. Copeland, Ex parte Young: Sovereignty, Immunity, and the Constitutional Structure of American Federalism, 40 U. TOL. L. REv. 843 (2009); Marcia L. McCormick, Solving the Mystery of How Ex parte Young Escaped the Federalism Revolution, 40 U. TOL. L. REV. 909 (2009). ix

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most