Osborn v. President of the Bank of the United States

9 U.S. 738 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1824

Facts

The State of Ohio enacted a law to tax the Bank of the United States. When the Bank refused to pay, state officials, including Auditor Ralph Osborn and John L. Harper, forcibly seized funds from the Bank's branch in Chilicothe. The Bank sought an injunction and restitution of the seized funds from these state officials.

Issue

1. Does the act incorporating the Bank of the United States grant federal courts jurisdiction over suits brought by the Bank? 2. Does the Eleventh Amendment prevent federal courts from enjoining state officers from enforcing an unconstitutional state law or from ordering restitution of funds seized under such a law? 3. Is a state tax on the Bank of the United States constitutional?

Holding

1. Yes, the Bank's charter expressly grants federal courts jurisdiction over its suits, as they necessarily arise under federal law. 2. No, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against state officers acting under an unconstitutional state law, as such a suit is not against the state itself. 3. No, a state tax on the Bank of the United States is unconstitutional. The Court affirmed restitution of the seized funds but reversed the award of interest on funds held under injunction.

Rule

Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases where a federal question forms an essential 'ingredient' of the original cause. The Eleventh Amendment's sovereign immunity applies only when a state is a party on the record, not to suits against state officers enforcing unconstitutional laws. States cannot tax federal instrumentalities like the Bank of the United States.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-03-04. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.