Abstention Flashcards
ABSTENTION Generally
Abstention doctrines are supplemental to the Anti-Injunction Act, a Congressionally created federal restriction to a federal court’s ability to hear a case. Since abstention is prudential, it is waivable (if you forget to assert, then waived). Abstention can be broken into two categories:
- In federal court cases presenting issues of UNCLEAR or COMPLICATED state law.
a. PULLMAN: includes both state law claim and federal constitutional claim.
b. THIBODEAUX: unclear state law concerning a particularly sensitive and important area in a diversity action.
i. But see Mashuda (no abstention in eminent domain action to allow state court to decide unclear issue of state court, federal court issued a stay rather than a dismissal).
c. BURFORD: state has an administrative framework or network of regulations for handling the controversy and decisions result in spillover effect. - In federal court cases where DUPLICATIVE PROCEEDINGS are pending in state and federal courts.
a. YOUNGER: reluctance to enjoin ongoing state criminal proceedings.
b. COLORADO RIVER: relinquish federal court jurisdiction over cases pending simultaneously in state court.
ABSTENTION
Three Overarching Principles
- Equity: when should a federal court exercise its power to enforce equity?
- Separation of powers: when should a federal court say no to hearing a case even though Congress has given them the power to do so?
- Comity/federalism: when should federal courts leave space for state courts despite federal issues in the case?
- It is important to note that nearly all states have a statute that permits federal courts to request clarification of a particular state law issue by “certifying” questions to state courts. Certification can sometimes preclude the need for abstention altogether and can simplify or hasten the procedures followed when a federal court decides to abstain. *
PULLMAN Abstention: Avoiding Unnecessary Constitutional Issues
GENERALLY
Pullman abstention is based on the rationale that there must be scrupulous regard for the rightful independence of state governments and a smooth working federal judiciary. Thus, when there is a federal constitutional claim that is premised on an unsettled issue of state law, federal courts should abstain in order to provide state courts an opportunity to settle underlying state law questions and subsequently, avoid the possibility of unnecessarily deciding federal constitutional questions. Pullman abstention is predominantly based on comity and federalism.
Prerequisites for Pullman Abstention:
- Case presents both STATE grounds and FEDERAL constitutional grounds for relief.
- Proper resolution of the state ground for the decision is UNSETTLED.
a. Wisconsin v. Constantineau (factors to determine whether law is unsettled include newness of statute and absence of judicial interpretation).
i. But see Zwickler v. Kootz (just because the law has not been construed is not enough to make it unclear). - Decision on state law is ATTAINABLE to RESOLVE the controversy—potentially DISPOSITIVE, so federal courts can avoid addressing federal questions unnecessarily.
a. Baggett v. Bullitt (no abstention when the state law is so vague that one interpretation of it will not be dispositive of the federal issue).
Procedure for Pullman Abstention:
- Federal court retains jurisdiction while it certifies the state law question pursuant to state court procedure.
a. See Arizonans (district courts should go with certification when available rather than Pullman abstention).
i. BUT if state courts need full factual development, then Pullman abstention may be necessary to answer the state law question, rather than on paper as is case with certification. - Federal court retains jurisdiction while plaintiff takes the state law question to the state court.
a. Plaintiff can reserve the right to return to federal court for resolution of federal constitutional issues provided that state court does not rule in such a way as to give plaintiff full relief.
i. Plaintiff may choose to present both state and federal issues to state court, and then she is bound by state court’s disposition on both issues OR
ii. Plaintiff can tell state court that she wishes to reserve right to return to federal court to litigate federal constitutional question if state court disposition does not fully resolve the matter. See England v. La. State Bd. of Med. Examiners.
1. State court needs to know enough about the federal claim so they are not making a decision in a vacuum, but plaintiff cannot submit a full question because it may be res judicata (claim preclusion) back in federal court.
iii. Under §1331, federal court has jurisdiction over the WHOLE civil action.
1. Query: does Pullman abstention violate §1331?
When is Pullman Abstention NOT Justified?
- If state law is clear. See Constantineau.
- No one interpretation of state law would avoid the federal issue. See Bullitt.
- There is no important state policy/interest involved. See Hostetter.
- There has already been too much delay in the judicial process. See Harmon.
- The state constitution provision is at issue and it is generic and broad and mirrors a federal constitutional provision. See Board of Engineers.
a. But see Arizonans (if the state constitution provision is specific and unique to the state and is not similar to any federal constitutional provision, then abstain).
BURFORD ABSTENTION: AVOIDING INTRUSION ON COMPLEX STATE REGULATORY PROCESSES
Generally
Burford abstention stands for the principle that federal courts should abstain in deference to COMPLEX STATE REGULATORY PROCESSES. In order for Burford abstention to apply, the case needs to INVOLVE STATE LAW (like Pullman) and STATE COURTS (like Younger). In Burford, there were unique facts regarding Texas oil field operations, and each adjudication affected every operator in the field, which increased the need for coordination and coherence in the judicial decision making process. Burford abstention is predominantly based on equity, and equitable relief is always discretionary. It is distinguished from Pullman abstention because Pullman is contained to the case at issue’s specific set of facts and Burford has SPILLOVER EFFECTS that require UNIFORM CONTROL.
Burford Abstention Factors:
- DIVERSITY and FEDERAL QUESTION
- EQUITABLE relief
a. Quackenbush (federal court may dismiss case only when all relief sought is discretionary, not proper in damages cases although court could stay proceedings in such cases if state litigation is pending á la Pullman to avoid unnecessarily deciding a constitutional question).
i. Suggests that abstention doctrines are not constitutionally compelled but rather based on common law and equitable principles (prudential). - COMPLEX REGULATORY PROCESS requiring COORDINATION
a. McNeese (no abstention where no complex state law).
b. Zablocki (no abstention where no regulating process requiring coordination or coherence).
i. But see NOPSI (just because there is complex regulatory process involved does not mean Burford abstention automatically applies, but court decided Younger abstention did apply). - SPECIAL and CENTRALIZED state JUDICIAL REVIEW
a. APSC (abstention proper because regulatory decision required “local cost-benefit balancing” based on peculiarly local factors).
YOUNGER ABSTENTION: AVOIDING INTERFERENCE WITH ONGOING STATE PROCEEDINGS
Generally
Younger abstention does not rely on the Anti-Injunction Act (must still make sure the claim also fits into AIA exception in addition to Younger exception for court to not abstain), despite the fact that Harris asked for injunctive relief: it relies on principles of equity and federalism. Harris’ case was equitable because he had an adequate remedy at law in his state criminal proceeding (could raise his constitutional objections defending his position in the case). Even stronger rationale in the Younger opinion, was the federalism argument that the “National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways.” Younger abstention stands for the principle that FEDERAL COURTS CANNOT ENJOIN ONGOING STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABSENCE OF BAD FAITH, HARASSMENT, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Very General Rules for Younger Abstention:
- When state criminal proceedings are PENDING, federal court…
a. May NOT issue INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Younger)
b. May NOT issue DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (Samuels) - When state criminal proceedings are NOT PENDING, federal court
a. May issue DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (Steffel)
b. May enjoin PROSECUTION (Doran)
Development of Younger Abstention:
- ENJOIN: how far does Younger apply beyond requests for injunctive relief?
a. Courts can also abstain when there are requests for DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS because they would result in the same interference as injunctive relief. See Samuels v. Mackell. - ONGOING: when does Younger apply if the state proceeding is not yet ongoing?
a. Case law demonstrates that this is a VERY FACT SPECIFIC inquiry that depends on criminal activity, criminal prosecution, and filing of the federal case.
b. Steffel v. Thompson (federal court not need to abstain and could issue a declaratory judgment because no state prosecution was pending against defendant reasoning that federal intervention would not disrupt state criminal justice system).
i. Plaintiff and companion were distributing handbills to protest the war at a shopping center, were told to leave or police would be called. Plaintiff left, but friend stayed and got arrested. Plaintiff filed federal suit in federal court raising constitutional challenge to state trespass law. *Pretty unusual situation where plaintiff had friend who got arrested and then was able to challenge state law. If plaintiff were unable to seek declaratory relief, then he would have to risk criminal conviction believing their conduct was protected.
c. Hicks v. Miranda (where state criminal proceedings begin after federal complaint is filed, but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in federal court, then Younger abstention applies).
i. Police seized copies of an allegedly obscene film from a movie theater and arrested two of the theater’s employees. State officials had also begun criminal proceedings against the owner of the theater and state won in state court. Instead of appealing, the theater owners (not defendants in criminal proceedings against employees) filed a federal court suit seeking injunction against enforcement of the state criminal statute and declaratory judgment that the statute violated the Constitution. District court denied temporary restraining order and theater owners requested preliminary injunction. The next day, state authorities filed criminal charges against the theater owners in the case against the employees.
1. Appears that temporary restraining orders are not substance on the merits, but preliminary injunctions are [still unclear]. See Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (granting preliminary injunction is substance on the merits, but no answer whether granting TRO is proceeding of substance on the merits).
d. Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. (federal court does not need to abstain when parties would otherwise have no means of raising their constitutional challenge and the federal litigation would not disrupt any pending state proceeding).
i. Three bar owners brought federal action challenging the constitutionality of a new ordinance prohibiting them from featuring topless dancing and sought declaratory relief and preliminary injunction in federal court. The district court denied a temporary restraining order and one of the bars began featuring topless dancing again. Authorities began criminal proceedings against the noncompliant bar and district court eventually granted preliminary injunction for all three; but the Supreme Court said Hicks makes Younger abstention appropriate for the noncompliant bar because state criminal proceedings had begun before any proceedings on the merits.
1. Appears that only exceptional circumstances will constitute granting permanent injunction rather than declaratory judgment. - CRIMINAL PROCEEDING: when does Younger apply outside the criminal context?
a. The ongoing state proceeding does not need to be a state criminal proceedings, but federal courts can abstain in civil actions brought by a state “in aid of and closely related to criminal statutes.”
b. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (state is a party and proceeding in ancillary to criminal law so Younger abstention applies based on principle of comity).
i. Does not violate Monroe v. Pape because that case was about seeking redress under 1983 for deprivation of federal rights and you do not need to exhaust state court remedies, but here there was already a state court proceeding that has started. Thus, plaintiffs in §1983 action (once in state court) must first exhaust state appellate procedures for review of adverse trial decision before bringing it to federal court.
c. Note: Huffman led to WIDE expansion of Younger abstention to civil matters and even matters where the state was not a party.
i. Trainor v. Hernandez (civil enforcement action to recover fraudulently obtained welfare payments by state in its sovereign capacity triggers Younger abstention).
ii. Juidice v. Vail & Pennzoil v. Texaco (state is not a party to civil action, but there are important state interests such as efficacy of contempt process and an appeal bond requirement respectively).
iii. Middlesex County v. Garden State Bar Ass’n (administrative proceeding that is judicial in nature and involved extremely important state interest in maintaining professional conduct of state attorneys).
d. The Supreme Court has made clear that a district court should evaluate the IMPORTANCE OF THE STATE INTEREST by considering its significance broadly, not by focusing on the resolution of a particular case.
i. NOPSI (halted the expansion of Younger abstention into different varieties of civil actions, explaining that even though it applied to “civil proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions” the abstention doctrine does not require a federal court to abstain for “a state judicial proceeding reviewing legislative or executive action”).
1. In other words, NO ABSTENTION if the PROCEEDING is NOT JUDICIAL in nature
Younger Abstention Today:
In Sprint Communications v. Jacobs, RBG relying on NOPSI, declared that Younger abstention applies when…
- There are parallel PENDING STATE and FEDERAL criminal proceedings.
a. Younger (federal court must abstain from enjoining ongoing state criminal proceedings). - There is a particular state CIVIL proceedings AKIN to CRIMINAL prosecutions.
a. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (state is a party and proceeding akin to criminal law so Younger abstention applies based on principle of comity).
i. Does not violate Monroe v. Pape because that case was about seeking redress under 1983 for deprivation of federal rights and you do not need to exhaust state court remedies, but here there was already a state court proceeding that has started. Thus, plaintiffs in §1983 action (once in state court) must first exhaust state appellate procedures for review of adverse trial decision before bringing it to federal court. - There is a state civil proceeding that implicates a STATE’S INTEREST in enforcing the orders and JUDGMENTS of its courts.
a. NOPSI (halted the expansion of Younger abstention into different varieties of civil actions, explaining that even though it applied to “civil proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions” the abstention doctrine does not require a federal court to abstain for “a state judicial proceeding reviewing legislative or executive action”).
i. In other words, NO ABSTENTION if the PROCEEDING is NOT JUDICIAL in nature.
Exceptions to Younger Abstention:
- Threat of IRREPARABLE HARM is GREAT and IMMEDIATE. See Ex parte Young.
a. Cost, anxiety, inconvenience of having to defend against a criminal prosecution is not considered irreparable and if the person can raise her federally protected interest as a defense, then the threat is not great or immediate. - Prosecutor is motivated by “BAD FAITH” or “HARASSMENT.” See Dombrowski (repeated bad faith of prosecutions did not allow defendant a chance to raise constitutional challenges in state court).
a. The purpose of this exception is to allow a federal court to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment if state court proceedings are not adequate or cannot be trusted (look at subjective intent). - EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES that would call for equitable relief.
a. State statute FLAGRANTLY AND PATENTLY VIOLATES the Constitution. See Trainor v. Hernandez.
b. There is NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT STATE LAW, so the only viable option is to raise pending federal court proceedings.
i. See Gerstein v. Pugh (state procedures provided no way to challenge the constitutionality of pre-trial detention and bringing a challenge at trial would be too late); see also Gibson v. Berryhill (administrative agency is too biased to adjudicate issues fairly).
Procedure for Younger Abstention:
- Once all the Younger abstention factors are present, district courts must abstain based on equitable and federalism underpinnings.
- Districts courts generally do not have the option to stay the proceeding and must dismiss the action entirely.
COLORADO RIVER ABSTENTION: AVOIDING PIECEMEAL LITIGATION
Generally
In Colorado River, the United States filed a federal court suit against more than one thousand defendants, seeking a declaration of water rights on federal lands. One defendant then moved to join the United States as a party in a previously filed state proceeding concerning the same water rights. A litigant may generally not sue the United States in state courts without its consent, but Congress provided consent in such water actions.
Colorado River abstention stands for the principle that in PARALLEL STATE AND FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS, neither the state court nor the federal court is required to stay its hand in favor of the other; but in EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WISE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION may REQUIRE DISMISSAL or STAY in favor of parallel state proceedings to AVOID LITIGATING THE SAME ISSUES TWICE.
