Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana, et al.
323 U.S. 459 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Eleventh Amendment, a state's waiver of sovereign immunity to be sued in its own state courts does not constitute a waiver of its immunity from suit in federal court unless the state's consent to be sued in federal court is explicitly and clearly stated in the statute.
Facts:
- Ford Motor Co., a corporation not based in Indiana, conducted business and made sales connected to the state.
- The State of Indiana, through its Department of Treasury, imposed and collected a gross income tax from Ford Motor Co.
- The tax was calculated based on revenue from sales that Indiana considered to have occurred within the state.
- Ford Motor Co. paid the taxes under protest.
- Ford Motor Co. believed the taxes were illegally exacted because they violated the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Procedural Posture:
- Ford Motor Co. filed a petition for a tax refund with the Indiana Department of Treasury as required by state statute.
- After the Department denied the claim, Ford Motor Co. (petitioner) sued the Department of Treasury of Indiana (respondents) in United States District Court for a refund.
- The U.S. District Court, a federal trial court, denied recovery to Ford Motor Co.
- Ford Motor Co. appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, siding with the Department of Treasury.
- The United States Supreme Court granted Ford Motor Co.'s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Circuit Court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute that authorizes a taxpayer to sue the state's treasury department for a tax refund in 'any court of competent jurisdiction' constitute a waiver of the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Reed
No. A state statute authorizing suit against itself is not a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts unless it contains a clear declaration of the state's intention to consent to suit in federal court. This suit is an action against the State of Indiana itself, not against individual officers, because it seeks a refund from the state treasury as prescribed by a specific state statute. The Eleventh Amendment bars such suits against a state in federal court without its consent. While Indiana's statute allows suits in 'any court of competent jurisdiction,' it also specifically grants jurisdiction to its own county circuit or superior courts, indicating the legislature contemplated suits only in state courts. When dealing with a state's sovereign immunity, especially in fiscal matters, federal courts will not infer a waiver; the state's intent to submit to federal jurisdiction must be unequivocally expressed.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'clear statement rule' for waivers of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. It establishes that a general waiver of immunity or consent to be sued in 'any competent court' is insufficient to allow a suit against the state in federal court. The decision forces litigants seeking monetary relief from a state treasury to proceed through the state court system unless the state legislature has explicitly consented to federal jurisdiction. This reinforces principles of federalism by limiting federal judicial power over state fiscal administration and preserving the states' constitutional immunity from suit.
Unlock the full brief for Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana, et al.