Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana

Supreme Court of the United States · 1945 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsEleventh AmendmentState Sovereign ImmunityTax Refund SuitsEleventh Amendmentstate sovereign immunitytax refundconsent to suit

Facts

Ford Motor Company, a nonresident foreign manufacturing corporation, sought a refund of Indiana gross income taxes measured by sales the state claimed occurred in Indiana. It followed the Indiana statutory refund procedure by filing a timely application with the Department of Treasury and then suing after denial. The suit named the department and the Governor, Treasurer, and Auditor as the board of the department, but sought a refund payable from state funds rather than a personal judgment against any official. The action was brought in federal court on constitutional grounds, including the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Issue

Was Ford's federal action for a tax refund, brought under Indiana's refund statute against the Department of Treasury and state officials acting as the board, a suit against the State of Indiana? If so, had Indiana consented to being sued in federal court, either by statute or through the attorney general's litigation conduct?

Rule

The nature of a suit is determined by its essential nature and effect. When a taxpayer proceeds under a state statute authorizing an action against a state agency in its official capacity for a refund to be paid out of the state treasury, the action is one against the state, not against officials personally. Such a suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment in federal court unless the state has clearly consented to suit there, and that consent will not be lightly inferred from general statutory language or from unauthorized acts of state officials.

🔒

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.

Lakeview Tools, Inc., an Illinois manufacturer, paid a business-activity tax to the State of Ohio. After the Ohio Revenue Board denied its administrative refund petition, Lakeview sued the board and its three members in federal district court in Columbus under an Ohio statute authorizing a refund action and directing that any judgment be paid from the state treasury.

Is the federal action most likely barred?

Explanation. The suit's essential nature and effect control. When the taxpayer proceeds under a state refund statute, sues a state agency or officials as official representatives, and seeks payment from the state treasury, the state is the real, substantial party in interest. Under the majority opinion, that makes the case a suit against the state barred in federal court absent consent. (Derived from Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana (1945).)