LARSON v. DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN COMMERCE CORPORATION 337 U.S. 682 (1949)

This is a leading decision concerning the sovereign immunity of the United States. Plaintiff sued the head of the War Assets Administration (WAA), alleging that the Administrator had sold certain surplus coal to plaintiff, had refused to deliver the coal, and had entered into a contract to sell the coal to others. Because plaintiff sought injunctive relief against WAA officials, ordering them not to sell the coal or to deliver it to anyone other than plaintiff, and because the suit concerned property of the United States, the Supreme Court found the suit to be one against the United States and, therefore, to be barred by sovereign immunity. The Court distinguished Larson from suits against officers for acts beyond their statutory powers and from suits seeking to enjoin allegedly unconstitutional behavior, both of which the Court stated would not constitute suits against the sovereign, even if the plaintiff alleges the officer acted unconstitutionally or beyond his statutory powers, "if the relief requested cannot be granted merely by ordering the cessation of the conduct complained of but will require affirmative action by the sovereign or the disposition of unquestionably sovereign property." In cases involving suits against state officials, part of this passage apparently was contradicted by edelman v. jordan (1974) and milliken v. bradley (1977). In each of these cases the Court found that litigation to require a state to pay the costs of future compliance with the Constitution did not constitute a suit against the sovereign. The precise holding in Larson became an important and debated issue in pennhurst state school and hospital v. halderman (1984), where the Court relied in part on Larson to hold that actions in federal court against state officials, alleging violations of state law, are prohibited by the eleventh amendment.

Theodore Eisenberg
(1986)