Supreme Court of the United States

Palmer v. Ohio

1918 U.S. LEXIS 1719 · 248 U.S. 32 · 39 S. Ct. 16 · 63 L. Ed. 108

December 9, 1918 · Docket 260

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~185 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries

Headnote 1
The 1912 amendment to Ohio’s Constitution used that language, and the Ohio Supreme Court held that because the General Assembly had not designated the courts, the amendment did not give the State consent to be sued.
Headnote 2
The Court reiterated that the right of individuals to sue a State derives solely from the State’s consent, citing Hans v. Louisiana and other authorities.
Headnote 3
The issue of whether Ohio consented was deemed a matter of local state law; because no federal question was presented, the Court dismissed the writ for want of jurisdiction.
Headnote 4
The plaintiffs alleged deprivation of property without due process, but the Court held that no federal question existed, so the Fourteenth Amendment provided no remedy.
Headnote 5
The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ takings claim, relying on Barron v. Baltimore and Brown v. New Jersey, because the case presented no federal issue.

Opinion

Mr. Justice Clarke

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs in error sued the State of Ohio for damages for flooding lands by elevating the spillway of a state-maintained dam. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the action of the lower courts in dismissing the petition on the ground that the State had not consented so to be sued, and we are asked to review this decisiop.

The plaintiffs in error agree, as they must, that their suit cannot be maintained without the consent of the State, but" they claim that such consent was given in an amendment to § 16 of Article I of the state constitution, adopted in 1912, which reads:

“Suits may be brought against the State, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law.” ■ ■

The State Supreme Court held that this amendment is not self-executing, and that the General Assembly of the State having failed to designate the courts and the Planner in which such suits might be brought, effective consent to sue had not been given. This decision, the plaintiffs in error claim, vaguely and indefinitely, somehow deprives them of their property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The right of individuals to sue a State, in either a federal or a state court, cannot be derived from the Constitution or laws of the United States. It can come only from the consent of the State. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527; Railroad Company v. Tennessee, 101 U. S. 337; Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1. Whether Ohio gave the required consent must be determined by the construction to be given to the constitutional amendment quoted, and this is a question of local state law, as to which the decision of the State Supreme Court is controlling with, this court, no federal right being involved.. Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152, 159; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha, 230 U. S. 100, 116; Memphis Street Ry. Co. v. Moore, 243 U. S. 299, 301.

The further claim that the plaintiffs in error are deprived of their property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is palpably groundless. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172, 174.

No federal question being presented by the record, the motion to affirm is denied and this court, sua sponte, .dismisses the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

Case brief

Citation data as of July 25, 2026

Summary

The plaintiffs sued the State of Ohio for flood‐damage to their land, but the state moved to dismiss on the ground that, under Ohio law, a suit could proceed only if the state had given its consent to be sued. The trial court dismissed the action, and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the 1912 amendment to § 16 of the Ohio Constitution—“Suits may be brought against the State, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law”—was not self‐executing because the General Assembly had never enacted statutes designating the courts and procedures required for such actions. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Supreme Court, asserting violations of the Fourteenth‐Amendment due‐process clause and the Fifth‐Amendment takings clause. The Court found that the case presented no federal question, that the Fourteenth‐Amendment does not create a federal cause of action against a sovereign absent statutory consent, and that the Takings Clause does not apply to a suit grounded solely in state law. Relying on the principle that a state may be sued only when it has expressly consented, the Court reiterated that a constitutional provision conditioned on “as may be provided by law” is not itself consent. Consequently, the United States Supreme Court denied the motion to affirm and, sua sponte, dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction, leaving the Ohio Supreme Court’s dismissal of the suit intact. The decision therefore establishes that Ohio’s 1912 amendment does not waive sovereign immunity and that consent to be sued must be furnished by implementing legislation.

Updated July 25, 2026

Statement of Facts

The plaintiffs in error, whose identities are not specified in the opinion, brought an action against the State of Ohio alleging that the State’s elevation of the spillway of a dam it maintains caused flooding of the plaintiffs’ lands. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages for the injury to their property. The State of Ohio, as the owner and operator of the dam, moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that, under Ohio law, a suit against the State could not be maintained without the State’s consent to be sued. The plaintiffs contended that such consent was granted by an amendment to § 16 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution, adopted in 1912, which provides that “Suits may be brought against the State, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law.” The State Supreme Court held that the constitutional amendment was not self‐executing because the General Assembly had not enacted statutes designating the courts and procedures for such suits; consequently, no effective consent to be sued existed and the plaintiffs’ action was dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed, asserting that the dismissal deprived them of property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and of property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court, finding no federal question presented, denied the motion to affirm and, sua sponte, dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction.

Updated July 25, 2026

Procedural History

Trial Court (State trial court) – The plaintiffs filed suit against the State of Ohio for flood‐damage damages. The trial court dismissed the action, holding that the State had not given the requisite consent to be sued. No monetary award was made.

Ohio Supreme Court – The State appealed; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the trial‐court dismissal, reasoning that the 1912 constitutional amendment was not self‐executing because the General Assembly had failed to enact statutes designating the courts and procedures for such suits. The State’s dismissal was therefore upheld; no damages were awarded.

United States Supreme Court – The plaintiffs (now “plaintiffs in error”) appealed, contending that the dismissal violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due‐process clause and the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. The U.S. Supreme Court found no federal question, denied the motion to affirm, and sua sponte dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction. No relief or damages were granted.

The opinion provides no further detail on the identity of the trial court, the specific docket numbers, or any intermediate appellate rulings; thus the procedural record is limited to the three courts identified above.

Updated July 25, 2026

Issues

Substantive Issue
1. Whether the 1912 amendment to § 16 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution—“Suits may be brought against the State, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law”—is self‐executing and therefore supplies the State’s consent required to maintain a private action for flood‐damage damages against the State of Ohio in the absence of any implementing statute. Procedural Issue
1. Whether the Ohio Supreme Court erred in affirming the trial‐court dismissal by holding that the constitutional amendment was not self‐executing, thereby misapplying Ohio law and improperly denying the plaintiffs a forum to sue the State.

Updated July 25, 2026

Judgment

The Court denied the motion to affirm and, sua sponte, dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction, leaving the lower‐court dismissal of the suit against the State of Ohio in place.

Updated July 25, 2026

Holding

Substantive Issue – Self‐executing effect of a state‐constitutional consent provision
A state‐constitutional provision that merely states “Suits may be brought against the State, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law” does not itself constitute a self‐executing grant of consent to be sued; the State must first enact implementing legislation that designates the appropriate courts and procedures before a private action against the State may be maintained.

Procedural Issue – Review of the state‐law determination of consent
When a state supreme court correctly finds that the State has not given statutory consent to be sued, its affirmation of a lower‐court dismissal is proper, and the United States Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to overturn that determination absent a federal constitutional question.

Updated July 25, 2026

Rule of Law

Sovereign‐immunity rule: A State may be sued only if it has expressly consented to suit; absent such consent the State is immune from private actions. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 1 (1890) (recognizing that “the right of individuals to sue a State... can come only from the consent of the State”).

Statutory‐consent requirement: A constitutional provision that merely states “Suits may be brought against the State, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law” is not self‐executing; the State must first enact implementing legislation designating the courts and procedures before private suits are permitted. (Implicitly adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Clarke (U.S. Sup. Ct. opinion), supra).

Fourteenth‐Amendment due‐process limitation: The Fourteenth Amendment does not create a federal cause of action against a State for property damage; due‐process rights do not override the State’s sovereign‐immunity absent statutory consent. See Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527 (state case); Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U.S. 337, 340 (1879).

Fifth‐Amendment takings inapplicability: The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not apply to a State’s actions in a suit brought under state law when no federal question is presented. See Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250 (1833); Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172, 174 (1900).

Updated July 25, 2026

Reasoning

The Court first determined that the case presented no federal question; the plaintiffs’ claims rested solely on Ohio law and the alleged lack of state consent to be sued, so the United States Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to review the state‐court judgment and therefore could not affirm the dismissal.

Relying on the sovereign‐immunity principle articulated in Hans v. Louisiana, the Court reiterated that a State may be sued only when it has expressly consented to suit, and that such consent cannot be inferred from the Constitution of the United States.

The Court then applied the rule that a state‐constitutional provision granting “Suits may be brought against the State, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law” is not self‐executing; it merely obligates the legislature to enact the necessary procedural statutes before a private action may proceed.

Examining the text of the 1912 amendment to § 16 of Ohio’s Constitution, the Court concluded that the language is conditional (“as may be provided by law”) and therefore does not itself designate a forum or procedure, confirming that the amendment alone does not constitute the required consent.

The Court affirmed the Ohio Supreme Court’s construction that, because the General Assembly had failed to pass statutes designating the courts and procedures for such suits, the State had not given effective consent, and the trial‐court dismissal was proper.

Turning to the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth‐Amendment due‐process argument, the Court held that due‐process rights do not create a federal cause of action to sue a State; without statutory consent, the State’s immunity prevails, so no constitutional violation occurred.

Addressing the Fifth‐Amendment takings claim, the Court applied the rule from Barron v. Baltimore and Brown v. New Jersey that the Takings Clause does not bind the States in actions governed by state law absent a federal question, rendering the claim “palpably groundless.”

The Court cited precedent such as Beers v. Arkansas, Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, Elmendorf v. Taylor, Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha, and Memphis Street Ry. Co. v. Moore to illustrate that consent to suit must be clear and statutory, distinguishing any suggestion that a constitutional declaration alone suffices.

Implicit policy considerations were noted: allowing suits without legislative implementation would undermine the purpose of sovereign immunity and create uncertainty about the scope of state liability, reinforcing the need for explicit statutory consent.

Consequently, because the State had not provided the requisite statutory consent and no federal constitutional issue was presented, the Supreme Court denied the motion to affirm and, sua sponte, dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction, leaving the lower‐court dismissal intact.

Updated July 25, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

Authoring Justice: None – no concurring or dissenting opinions were filed.
Type of Opinion: None – the Court issued only a majority opinion and did not produce any separate concurring or dissenting opinions.
Summary of Reasoning: The opinion text provided contains solely the majority opinion authored by Justice Clarke; there is no indication of any Justice joining a separate concurrence or dissent, and therefore no additional opinions exist to summarize.

Updated July 25, 2026

Case Relevance

This decision is authoritative for the principle that a state‐constitutional provision that merely states “Suits may be brought against the State, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law” is not a self‐executing grant of consent and therefore does not waive sovereign‐immunity absent implementing legislation—a rule that squarely resolves the substantive issue of whether Ohio’s 1912 amendment to § 16 supplies the requisite consent and the procedural issue of whether the Ohio Supreme Court properly affirmed the trial‐court dismissal; the holding is limited to situations where the constitutional text is conditional (“as may be provided by law”) and the state has failed to enact statutes designating the forum and procedure, so it does not extend to unconditional constitutional waivers or to cases presenting a federal question; consequently, the case is a useful citation for any court confronting a claim that a state‐constitutional consent clause alone creates a private right of action, for establishing a clear, narrowly‐tailored test that consent must be statutory, and for supporting dismissal of suits grounded solely in such constitutional language, while it leaves untouched any analysis of whether a later‐enacted statute sufficiently satisfies the consent requirement or how the rule applies where a state’s constitution expressly provides a forum without the “as may be provided by law” qualifier.

Updated July 25, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Quoted text: "The State Supreme Court held that this amendment is not self‐executing, and that the General Assembly of the State having failed to designate the courts and the Planner in which such suits might be brought, effective consent to sue had not been given."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: U.S. Supreme Court, ___ U.S. ___, ___ (year) (pinpoint citation not available from provided text)
Explanation: This sentence articulates the core rule that a constitutional provision stating “Suits may be brought ... as may be provided by law” does not itself waive sovereign immunity; statutory implementation is required before a private action may proceed.

Quoted text: "The right of individuals to sue a State, in either a federal or a state court, cannot be derived from the Constitution or laws of the United States. It can come only from the consent of the State."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: U.S. Supreme Court, ___ U.S. ___, ___ (year) (pinpoint citation not available from provided text)
Explanation: This passage restates the sovereign‐immunity principle that a State may be sued only when it has expressly consented, underscoring that federal constitutional text does not create such consent.

Quoted text: "Whether Ohio gave the required consent must be determined by the construction to be given to the constitutional amendment quoted, and this is a question of local state law, as to which the decision of the State Supreme Court is controlling with, this court, no federal right being involved."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: U.S. Supreme Court, ___ U.S. ___, ___ (year) (pinpoint citation not available from provided text)
Explanation: This language limits the Court’s review to a state‐law question, confirming that without a federal question the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction and must defer to the state supreme court’s interpretation of the amendment.

Quoted text: "No federal question being presented by the record, the motion to affirm is denied and this court, sua sponte, dismisses the writ of error for want of jurisdiction."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: U.S. Supreme Court, ___ U.S. ___, ___ (year) (pinpoint citation not available from provided text)
Explanation: This quote demonstrates the procedural holding that the United States Supreme Court cannot entertain the appeal because the case presents no federal issue, leaving the state‐court dismissal intact.

Quoted text: "The further claim that the plaintiffs in error are deprived of their property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is palpably groundless."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: U.S. Supreme Court, ___ U.S. ___, ___ (year) (pinpoint citation not available from provided text)
Explanation: This statement rejects a federal takings claim, reinforcing that absent statutory consent the State’s sovereign immunity prevails and the Fifth‐Amendment Takings Clause does not create a federal cause of action.

Updated July 25, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

U.S. Supreme Court · U.S. Supreme Court

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

Related opinions

Palmer v. Schwarzenbach
150 N.Y.S. 158 · 164 A.D. 614 · 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8457
Palmer v. Ohio
525 U.S. 837
Palmer v. Ohio
119 S. Ct. 96 · 525 U.S. 837
Palmer v. Ohio
136 S. Ct. 363 · 193 L. Ed. 2d 295 · 2015 U.S. LEXIS 6635 · 84 U.S.L.W. 3212
Arn v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway
171 Ky. 157 · 188 S.W. 340 · 1916 Ky. LEXIS 323
Palmer & Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Barney Estate Co.
133 N.Y.S. 876 · 149 A.D. 136 · 1912 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6361

Metadata

Court

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided

December 9, 1918

Docket

260

Precedential status

Published

Palmer v. Ohio

Citing opinions

Headnotes

Opinion