U.S. v. Lee (1882)

Background:

In May 1861, during the American Civil War, the U.S. seized the Arlington Estate in Virginia, home of Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s family, due to property taxes which had not been paid in person. It was converted to be a refugee camp for runaway slaves, as well as a military cemetery, known today as the Arlington National Cemetery. Lee’s eldest son, George Washington Curtis Lee, argued the government's seizure was illegal as his mother had been prevented from paying the taxes. Tax commissioners had improperly refused payment from someone acting on behalf of his mother, Mary Anna Curtis Lee, insisting it must be paid in person. He then sued to recover the property. 

The Case:

The government had claimed property taxes had not been paid, and therefore after seizing the property, sold it. After its sale it was repurposed throughout the war. George Washington Curtis Lee filed a lawsuit against federal officials, actively occupying the property. Lee hoped to regain ownership of the family estate through this. The government argued the case was truly against the United States, which posed a great number of questions in regards to the legality of the case itself. The concept of sovereign immunity protects the government from being sued without its consent. In this situation however, Lee claimed it was constitutional to sue federal officials acting on behalf of the government, as they had violated the Constitution.

Debates From Each Side:

Lee debated, the way in which his mother had gone about paying taxes was completely legal, and that the tax collectors had unlawfully stopped her from paying property taxes, therefore there was no violation on her part. Furthermore, he stated, the U.S. government had no right to seize a property without just compensation. His argument maintained, due to the fact there was no legal reason to seize the property, and compensation for the property was not provided to the owners, the act was unlawful, and the property therefore must be returned.

Represented by Solicitor General Samuel F. Phillips, and provided co-counsel by W. Willoughby, the United States claimed the land had lawfully been acquired through the tax sale. Although Lee was suing the government officials, it was claimed the case was truly against the government itself. The U.S. through this, additionally relied on Sovereign Immunity, countering since the government had not agreed to being sued, the case could not stand. 

Verdict:

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of Lee. The majority opinion was written by Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller. It was found that federal officers are capable of being sued, when acting unconstitutionally, or beyond legal authority granted to them. Along with this, it was ruled sovereign immunity does not protect government officials from judicial review, maintaining that the law can always be questioned, and no entity or person is above the law. Finally, it was stated the Arlington Estate had been taken unconstitutionally, and was returned to the Lee family.

Legacy:

This landmark Supreme Court case debated the extent of sovereign immunity, further solidifying the foundational principle, no one is above the law. While reinforcing this it clarified any federal officer who violated the constitutional rights of a person, whether directed by the government to do so or not could be sued. After the ruling, Congress purchased the Arlington Estate from Lee’s family for $150,000, ensuring it would remain the Arlington National Cemetery. Although the government cannot generally be sued without its consent, due to sovereign immunity, it was found, government officials as individuals can be, when exceeding legal authority. This case not only settled the dispute of the Arlington Estate, but simultaneously the fundamental rule of law. The case remains relevant today, influencing many cases regarding government accountability.