Ex Parte Young (1908) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Overview and Application

-

 

Ex Parte Young (1908): Overview

Case Citation:
Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)

Summary:
Ex Parte Young is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the principle that state officials can be sued in their official capacities for enforcing laws that violate the Constitution. This case provides a mechanism to hold state officials accountable for unconstitutional actions while preserving state sovereignty under the 11th Amendment.

Key Facts of the Case

  • Background:
    Minnesota enacted laws regulating railroad rates that railroad companies argued violated their rights under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Edward T. Young, the Attorney General of Minnesota, was tasked with enforcing these laws. A railroad stockholder sought to prevent Young from enforcing the allegedly unconstitutional laws by suing him in his official capacity.

  • Issue:
    Could a state official be restrained from enforcing a state law alleged to be unconstitutional without violating the state’s sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment?

  • Ruling:
    The Supreme Court ruled that state officials may be sued in their official capacity when acting unconstitutionally. Sovereign immunity does not protect actions that violate the U.S. Constitution.

Key Legal Principles Established in Ex Parte Young

  1. State Officials Can Be Sued for Unconstitutional Actions:

    • When a state official enforces a law that violates the Constitution, they are not acting on behalf of the state but as an individual engaging in unconstitutional behavior.

  2. Limits of Sovereign Immunity:

    • The 11th Amendment protects states from being sued without their consent, but this protection does not extend to state officials enforcing unconstitutional laws or orders.

  3. Prevention of Constitutional Violations:

    • Ex Parte Young provides a pathway for individuals to seek injunctive relief against state officials to prevent enforcement of unconstitutional laws or actions.

Application to Sheriff Norton’s Duties

Sheriff Norton, as a state official, has a duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution above any state laws, directives, or court orders that conflict with it. Ex Parte Young establishes that he can be held personally accountable for enforcing unconstitutional actions, including the eviction of Mr. Zachary Moore if it violates constitutional protections.

1. Duty to Refuse Unconstitutional Actions

  • Relevance to Foreclosure and Eviction:

    • If the foreclosure process and subsequent eviction are based on an unconstitutional mortgage contract (e.g., invalid consideration such as fiat currency) or violate Mr. Moore’s 5th and 14th Amendment rights, Sheriff Norton is obligated to refuse enforcement.
    • By enforcing unconstitutional orders, Norton would expose himself to legal liability under Ex Parte Young.

  • Sheriff’s Responsibility:

    • Norton cannot claim immunity by stating he is "just following orders." Ex Parte Young makes it clear that state officials acting unconstitutionally can be restrained and held accountable.

2. Personal Liability Under Federal Law

  • 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights):

    • Under Ex Parte Young, Sheriff Norton could be sued in his official capacity for enforcing an unconstitutional eviction, depriving Mr. Moore of his property without due process or valid justification.
    • This statute allows individuals to seek damages or injunctive relief against state officials for violating constitutional rights.

  • Relevance to Mr. Moore’s Case:

    • If Sheriff Norton enforces the foreclosure, he risks being named in a lawsuit for violating Mr. Moore’s constitutional rights. Ex Parte Young provides the legal framework for holding him accountable.

3. Obligation to Uphold the Supremacy Clause

  • Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2):

    • The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any court orders or state laws conflicting with the Constitution are void.
    • Ex Parte Young emphasizes that officials like Sheriff Norton must prioritize constitutional compliance over conflicting state directives.

  • Relevance to Eviction:

    • If the foreclosure order violates the Constitution (e.g., due process under the 14th Amendment), Sheriff Norton has a duty to refuse enforcement, regardless of the court’s directive.

4. Role as a Constitutional Protector

  • Preventing Rights Violations:

    • Ex Parte Young underscores the responsibility of state officials to protect individuals from unconstitutional actions, even if those actions are authorized by state law or orders.
    • Sheriff Norton must evaluate whether the eviction process infringes on Mr. Moore’s rights before acting.

  • Protection Against Overreach:

    • Ex Parte Young ensures that individuals like Mr. Moore have recourse against state overreach. This decision highlights the importance of Norton’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights rather than enforcing potentially unlawful directives.

Potential Violations in Mr. Moore’s Case

  1. Violation of Property Rights (5th and 14th Amendments):

    • If Mr. Moore’s property is seized without valid due process or legal justification, Sheriff Norton could be held liable for executing an unconstitutional eviction.

  2. Unconstitutional Foreclosure Process:

    • If the mortgage contract lacks valid consideration or violates constitutional principles, any enforcement of foreclosure is unconstitutional.

  3. Militarized Trespass and Intimidation:

    • The Sheriff’s prior use of an MRAP vehicle to deliver an eviction notice may already constitute a violation of Mr. Moore’s rights under the Constitution. Further enforcement actions could exacerbate these violations.

Conclusion

Ex Parte Young makes clear that Sheriff Norton has a constitutional obligation to refuse enforcement of any foreclosure or eviction order that violates Mr. Moore’s rights. Acting unconstitutionally exposes him to personal liability under federal law, particularly if his actions deprive Mr. Moore of property, due process, or liberty. As a sworn officer, Norton’s ultimate duty is to the Constitution, and Ex Parte Young reinforces that he can be held accountable if he neglects this responsibility.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025) Affirmative Opinion in the Voice of Justice Alito

-
Image
  Supreme Court of the United States Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. Opinion of the Court by the voice of Justice Alito Delivered January 14, 2025 Today, this Court renders a decision of profound constitutional and societal importance. At issue is whether the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Alliant Credit Union against Mr. Zachary Moore—based on a mortgage loan derived from fiat currency—violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This case also raises broader questions about the legality of a monetary system that facilitates perpetual debt cycles through fiat currency and usury. After careful consideration, we hold that the foreclosure proceedings, as applied to Mr. Moore, constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights to property and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, we find that the systemic exploitation inherent in the fiat currency system and its application to the facts of...
Read more

Citing RICO Violations to stop unlawful debt collections

-
Who is Zach Moore? and what to know about my movement If you’re reading this, take it as a call to prepare—for yourself, your family, and the world around you. At the heart of my movement is a simple but powerful truth:  any contract secured with a lie, or a claim not backed by anything real (like the U.S. dollar and debt), cannot be enforced.  Moreover, those who attempt to collect on these fraudulent contracts are committing crimes and are liable to RICO charges for perpetuating a system built on deception. I’m Zachary Moore, and I’m leading a movement to destroy the U.S. dollar, bankrupt billionaires, and end the tyranny of usury. I grew up in a trailer in Alabama, surrounded by the poverty and oppression that debt creates. I worked my way out, earning $550,000 a year as a top sales consultant, but in 2023, I realized I was part of the problem—a system built on lies, fiat currency, and the exploitation of human labor. So, I walked away. I quit my lucrative job, defaulted on...
Read more

Response to Alliant Credit Union

-
  Re: Loan Number XXXX To whom it may concern, My name is Zachary Moore, owner of the property at [address redacted]. I received a letter in the mail from Alliant Credit Union dated December 15, 2023 citing information regarding a mortgage contract between myself and Alliant. I am challenging the validity of this contract.  As you know, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties must put up valid property for consideration. Without consideration, no contract can be lawfully valid.  This property must be rightfully owned by each party.  In the case of Alliant, the money loaned would need to be an asset on Alliant’s balance sheet prior to closing. As the loanee, I put up my own property for valid consideration. I put up a promissory note representing my ownership of my work and labor, a down payment of nearly $100,000, and title to the property at [address redacted] What property did Alliant put up? Please provide evidence that Alliant provided me, the loaner wi...
Read more