209 U. 8. 8yU&bua. While the courts cannot oontrol the ?xerci? of the disoretion of an executive officer, an injunetion preventln? ?uoh officer ?rom enforcir? an Unconsti. tuUonsl s?,tute i? not an interference with Iris discretion. The Attorney General of the State of Minn/?ota, under his oommon l?w power snd the state statutes, has the general suthority imposed upon him of enforcin? constitutional statutee of the State and is a proper party defendant to s suit brought to prev?t the enforcement of & gate statute on the Eround of it? unconstitutionality. While a Federal court cannot interfere in a criminal c?e already pendin? in & state court, sad while, ss & ? role, ? court of equity cannot en- join criminal proeeedings, thoee rules do not apply when imoh proceedings aze brought to enforce sa alleged unoonetitutional state etarote, after the unco?titutionaltty thereof has become the subject of inquiry in ? auit pandin? in s Federal court whieh h? first obtained jurisdiction thereover; snd under such eircumstance? the Federal court has the right in both civil �d orlmtna] ? to hold and maintain suoh jurisdiction to the exclusion of all otl?er courts. While ?.la.E a state o/]/cer who h? no oonnection with the enforcement o? an act slle?l to be unconstitutional �p?ty defendsat is marely m.I.-in?. him a p?rty a? ? representative of the'State, and the?by amount? to ?.ki? the State a party within the prohibition of the Eleventh Amend- me?t, individuals, who, as officers of the 8tat?, s?e clothed with some duty in ? to.the enforc?ne?t of the laws of the State, and who threaten and ?re about to oommenoe an action, either civil or criminal, to enforce an unoon?titutional etai? statute my be enioined from so doin? by i Under such conditions a? ?re involved in this case the Federal court may ?jo/n an individual or ? ?tate officer from enforcing s state statute on acoount of its unconsi}tutionality, but it may not restrain the state court from a?ting in any case brought before it either of �civil or criminal n?ture, or prevent any investig?t/on or actio? by ? ?d jury. An injunot?m by & Federal court s?Jnst s state court would violate the whole ?heme of this Govemment,.snd it doee not follow that because an indiAdual may be enjoined from doin? certain thins ? eo?t may be No ?lsquaie rea?edy ?t h?w, suff?ient to prevent ? court of equity from act- i?, exis? in i c?e'where the enforcem?t of an unconstitutional stat? rate statute would require the oomp]?{n?tn% to' e/?rry ii.,?hi?di? a.? eoll- fisc?tory rate? if it oomplied with the statute and ?ubject it to exoessive pe?dti? in e?e it did not comply therewith and its validity was finally While ? common eartier sued at oommon law for penalties under, or on in- dictme?t for violation of, a state rate statute might interpo? s? a delete the unece?titutionality of the ?tatut? oa aooount of the oonf?catory eharaoter of the rs, res l:m?ecrlbed, e. jury cannot intelligently pa? upon �ueh a matter; the proper method is to determine the constitutionality of the statute in ? wur? of equity in whioh t? opinic? of experts may be
�
