United States v. Lee
106 U.S. 196, 1 S. Ct. 240 (1882)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of sovereign immunity does not prevent an individual from bringing an ejectment action against federal officers in their individual capacities to recover property they are wrongfully withholding, even if they claim to be acting under the authority of the United States government.
Facts:
- George Washington Parke Custis devised his property, the Arlington estate, to his daughter for life, with the remainder to his grandson, George W. P. C. Lee.
- During the Civil War, the United States imposed a direct tax on the property.
- Federal tax commissioners established a rule refusing to accept tax payments from anyone other than the property owner in person.
- An agent for the owner, Mrs. Robert E. Lee, attempted to pay the taxes on her behalf, but the commissioners refused the payment based on their rule.
- As a result of the purported non-payment, the property was sold at a tax sale in 1864, where it was purchased by the United States.
- The United States government took possession of the estate, establishing a military fort and the Arlington National Cemetery.
- Frederick Kaufman and Richard P. Strong, as officers of the United States, occupied the property under government orders.
Procedural Posture:
- George W. P. C. Lee filed an action in ejectment against Frederick Kaufman, Richard P. Strong, and others in the Circuit Court for the county of Alexandria, Virginia.
- The case was removed by a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of the United States.
- The U.S. Attorney General filed a 'suggestion' with the federal court, asserting that the property was possessed by the United States for public purposes and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity, moving to dismiss the suit.
- The plaintiff, Lee, demurred to the Attorney General's suggestion.
- The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer, rejecting the government's jurisdictional challenge and allowing the case to proceed.
- The case was tried before a jury, and the suit was dismissed against all defendants except Kaufman and Strong.
- The jury found for the plaintiff, and the Circuit Court entered a judgment ordering Kaufman and Strong to return possession of separate parcels of the land to Lee.
- The United States and the individual defendants, Kaufman and Strong, each prosecuted a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 the doctrine of sovereign immunity bar a landowner from bringing an ejectment action against federal officers who are in possession of the landowner's property on behalf of the United States government?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Miller
No. The doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar a landowner from bringing an ejectment action against federal officers holding property on behalf of the government. The court reasoned that the principle of sovereign immunity, which prevents suits directly against the United States without its consent, does not extend to protecting government officers from liability for their own illegal or unconstitutional acts. When an officer seizes or holds private property without lawful authority, they are acting as a tortfeasor and can be sued as an individual. The court first determined that the tax sale of the Arlington estate was invalid because the commissioners' refusal to accept payment from the owner's agent was unlawful, rendering the government's title void and Lee's title valid. The court held that to deny a judicial remedy would violate the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation and deprivation of property without due process. It concluded that no officer is above the law and that courts must have the power to inquire into the legality of an officer's authority to possess property, rather than being stopped by a mere assertion of that authority.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Gray
Yes. The doctrine of sovereign immunity does bar such an action. The dissent argued that a suit to recover possession of property held by government officers in their official capacity for public use is functionally a suit against the sovereign itself. The fundamental principle that the sovereign cannot be sued without its consent applies equally in a republic as in a monarchy and is essential to protect property used for critical public purposes like military forts and arsenals from judicial interference. The dissent contended that the moment the Attorney General formally informed the court that the property was held by the United States for public use, the court's jurisdiction should have ceased. The proper remedy for the plaintiff, if any, is not through an ejectment action in the courts but through a petition to Congress, which retains the authority to provide relief for claims against the government.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of sovereign immunity by establishing that the doctrine does not shield government officers from personal liability for illegal acts. It affirms the judiciary's power to review the legality of executive actions and protect private property rights under the Fifth Amendment. The ruling creates a crucial distinction between suing the sovereign itself and suing its agents for acting beyond their lawful authority. This precedent ensures that the government cannot use its officers to unlawfully seize property and then hide behind sovereign immunity, reinforcing the principle that all government officials are accountable under the law.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Lee