200 U. 8. Oph?n oI tl? Court. The general discretion regarding the enforcement of the laws when and as he deems appropriate is not interfered with by an injunction which restrains the state officer from taking any steps towards the enforcement of an unconstitutional cnactment to the injury of complainant. In such case no affirmative action of any nature is directed, and the officer is simply prohibited from doing an act which he had no legal right to do. An injunction to prevent him from doing that which he has no legal right to do is not an intederence with the discretion of an officer. It is'also argued that the only proceeding which the Attorney General could take to enforce the statute, so far as his office is concerned, was one by rnandamus, which would be com- menced by the State in its sovereign and governmental char- acteL and that the right to bring such action is a necessary attribute of a sovereign government. It is contended that the comp!,?in?nts do not complain and they care nothing about any action which Mr. Young might take or bring as an ordinary individual, but that he was complained of as an officer, to whose discretion is confided the use of the name of the Stat? of Minnceota so far as litigation is concerned, and that when or how he shall use it is a matter resting in his discretion and cannot be controlled by any court. The answer to all this is the same as made in every case where an official claims to be acting under the authority of the State. The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconsti- tutional, and if it be so, the use of the name of the State to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of complainants is a proceeding without the authority of and one which does not affect the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity. It is simply an illegal act upon the part of a state official in attempting by the use of the name of the State to enforce a le?'Rlative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state Attorney General seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer in pro- ceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the
�
