Publication Date
4-12-2026
Abstract
Ex parte Young ushered in a new era of the American judicial system. Most famously, the decision allowed plaintiffs, in certain circumstances, to sue state officials without having to worry about sovereign immunity. Young’s other holding, though perhaps lesser known, is no less important: individuals, the Supreme Court held, have an equitable cause of action to sue government officials for injunctive relief.
Even today, that second holding remains something of a riddle. Did this cause of action always exist in American law? Or was it an invention of the Young Court? And, at any rate, does the Ex parte Young cause of action have a place among today’s federal court doctrines? This Article does not promise firm answers to these difficult questions. What it does offer, however, is fresh research suggesting that the Ex parte Young cause of action would not have been recognized at the Founding and was instead the product of a gradually developing equitable common law. What’s more, the Article argues, Young fits uncomfortably with modern federal courts jurisprudence, which tends to view non-statutory causes of action (like the one announced by the Young Court) with considerable skepticism.
Recommended Citation
Andrew S. Oldham, Adam I. Steene, and John W. Tienken,
The Ex Parte Young Cause of Action: A Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma,
120
Nw. U. L. Rev.
1697
(2026).
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol120/iss6/4
Included in
Civil Procedure Commons, Common Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, Litigation Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons