Ex parte New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1921 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsState sovereign immunityAdmiralty jurisdictionWrit of prohibitionEleventh Amendmentstate sovereign immunityadmiraltyin personam

Facts

Three admiralty libels in rem were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York against two steam tugs for canal damage allegedly caused while the tugs were towing boats on the Erie Canal. The tug owners responded that, at the time of the accidents, the tugs were under charter to Edward S. Walsh, Superintendent of Public Works of the State of New York, acting under state statutory authority, and they petitioned under Admiralty Rule 59 to bring Walsh into the suits. The district court issued monitions to Walsh in his official capacity and, if he could not be found, directed attachment of goods and chattels of the State used and controlled by him, but no state property was ever attached or brought within the court's jurisdiction. By the time of the proceedings, the charters had expired and the tugs were back in the owners' possession, and no relief was sought against Walsh personally.

Issue

May a federal admiralty court, through proceedings nominally directed at a state officer under Admiralty Rule 59, entertain an in personam action that is in substance a suit by private parties against a State without its consent? Relatedly, may the Supreme Court issue prohibition to stop such proceedings before final decree?

Rule

A State is immune from suit by private parties without its consent in federal court, and that immunity applies in admiralty as well as at law and in equity. Whether a proceeding is a suit against the State is determined by its essential nature and effect, as shown by the whole record, not by the names of the parties; if relief runs against a state officer only in his official capacity and would operate upon the State or its treasury, the suit is against the State. An admiralty proceeding lacks an in rem basis where no state property or other res is attached or brought within the court's jurisdiction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal district court in Louisiana, Nina Flores files an admiralty negligence action against Owen Mercer, the director of Louisiana's Coastal Transport Division, after a state-operated ferry allegedly damaged her shrimp boat near Houma. She names Mercer only in his official capacity and seeks damages to be paid from public funds; no property has been arrested or attached.

How should the federal court rule on Mercer's motion to dismiss?

Explanation. The majority held that a State's immunity from private suit applies in admiralty as well as at law and in equity. Whether the suit is against the State depends on its essential nature and effect, not the caption. Because Mercer is sued only officially and any decree would operate on the State's funds, the action is in substance an unconsented suit against the State and must be dismissed.