?09 U.S. Oldion of t? Court. think ?uch rule is, a?d will be, followed by all the judge? of the Federal courts. And, again, it must be remembered that jurisdiction of this general character has, in fact, been exercised by Federal courts from the time 6f Osborn v. United $tate? Bank up to the present; the only difference in regard to the case of Osborn and th8 case in hand being that in this case the injury com- plained of is the threatened commencement of suits, civil or criminal, to enforce the act, instead of, as in the Osborn case, an actual and direct trespass upon or interference with tangible 'property. A bill filed to prevent the commencement of suits to enforce an unconstitutional act, under the circumstances already mentioned, is no new !nvention, as we have already seen. The difference between an actual and direct interfer- ence with tangible property and the enjoinlng of state officers from enforcing an unconstitutional act, is not of a radical nature, and does not extend, in truth, the jurisdiction of the courts over the subject matter. In the case of the interference with property the person enjoined is assuming to act in his capacity as an official of the State, and justification for his in- terference is claimed by reason of his position as a state official. Such official cannot so justify when acting under an unconstitu- tio'nal enactment of the legisI?ture. So, where the state offi- cial, instead of directly interfering with tangible property, is abe? to commence suits, which have for their object the en- forcement of an act which ?iolates the Federal Constitution, to the great and irreparable injury of the complainants, he is seeking the same justification from the authority of the State as in other cases. The sovereignty of the State is, in reality, no more involved in one case than in the other. The State cannot in either case impart to the official immunity from re- sponsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 507. This supreme authority, which arises from the specific pro- visions of the. Constitution itself, is nowhere more fully illus- trated than in the series of decisions under the Federal
�
