Younger v. Harris Abstention Flashcards
1
Q
Younger Abstention - General Concept
A
- absent prosecutorial bad faith or harassment, a federal court normally cannot enjoin a pending state criminal prosecution
2
Q
Douglas v. City of Jeanette - Facts
A
- SCOTUS 1943
- Jehovah’s witnesses distributed religious literature without a permit in violation of a Jeanette, PA criminal ordinance -> filed class action in fed district ct trying to enjoin the threatened prosecution
3
Q
Douglas v. City of Jeanette - Holding
A
- SCOTUS held injunction unavaible
- argued courts of equity don’t ordinarily enjoin crim. proceedings – would only be available if showing of danger of irreparable injury “both great and immediate”
- in this case, “does not appear…that petitioners have been threatened with any injury other than that incidental to every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good faith”
4
Q
Problem with Douglas According to Prof
A
- makes it almost impossible to get the constitutionality of a state criminal statute reviewed in fed court
- Prof also thinks this is a major problem with Younger
- says in Douglas, the same day this case was decided, they’d also decided the constitutional issue in another case, Murdoch - in this particular case, didn’t hurt for them not to address it b/c they’d already decided it
-> problem though in her view b/c they wind up saying fed cts don’t like to enjoin crim stats, + Douglas shouldn’t be much but grows into major Younger abstention problem
5
Q
Pre-Dombrowski
A
- could argue Douglas and the habeas exhaustion requirement seemed to leave little room for fed ct intervention in state crim proceedings prior to their final disposition in state court
- functional justification: avoid piecemeal review + inevitable disruption of ongoing state proceedings
6
Q
Dombrowski v, Pfister - Facts
A
- 1965
- civil rights workers needed injunction against Louisiana statutes that prosecution was being threatened under
- complaint alleged state authorities were threatening prosecution of the Ps under these laws, not w/ any expectations of securing valid convictions, but in order to harass the civil rights org and dissuade its members from civil rights activities
7
Q
Dombrowski - Significance
A
- seen as a liberal victory at the time
- BUT accidental cutback in Prof’s view - essentially unintentionally affirming the Douglas idea that you should only be able to enjoin state criminal proceedings in special circumstances (otherwise, should theoretically be able to bring a 1983 suit - 1983 is an exception to the AIA under Mitchum)
8
Q
Dombrowski - Rule
A
- appears to be that injunctions of state criminal prosecutions ARE generally disfavored -> you need more threatened injury “than that incidental to every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good faith”
- BUT you can establish irreparable injury if the statute is overbroad + has a chilling effect on 1st Am freedom of expression
- > also noted bad faith prosecution here
9
Q
Dombrowski - Reasoning
A
- Brennan
- EPY established fed cts def have power to enjoin state enforcement of an unconstitutional statute
- BUT fed interference w/ good faith State prosecution particularly inconsistent w/ federal framework (Douglas) - should generally assume state cts follow Con. + no need to enjoin unless irreparable injury
- BUT in this case, defense against state crim pros “will not assure adequate vindication of constitutional rights” - “substantial loss or impairment of freedoms of expression”-> IRREPARABLE INJURY
->”The chilling effect upon the exercise of First Amendment rights may derive from the fact of the prosecution, unaffected by the prospects of its success or failure.” - also noted district court could always modify injunction to allow prosecution if the state later adopts a clarifying construction of the statute
10
Q
Dombrowski - Ruling
A
- “We hold the abstention doctrine is inappropriate for cases such as the present one, where, unlike Douglas v. City of Jeannette, statutes are justifiably attacked on their face as abridging free expression, or as applied for the purpose of discouraging protected activities.”
- “We conclude that on the allegations of the complaint, if true, abstention and the denial of injunctive relief may well result in the denial of any effective safeguards against the loss of protected freedoms of expression, and cannot be justified.”
11
Q
Dombrowski and Douglas
A
- theoretically, under Douglas, bad faith alone could have decided Dombrowski -> to this extent, Brennan offered much broader basis for fed ct intervention
12
Q
Prof’s Point Re Irreparable Harm
A
- has always been true generally that you need irreparable injury to get an injunction , BUT Prof said this has always been measured with regard to whether there’s an adequate remedy in the FEDERAL courts, not if there’s also one in the state courts -> she’s displeased w/ Dombrowski for including the state courts as adequate
13
Q
Dombrowski - Harlan Dissent
A
- arguing problem b/c now state can’t carry on prosecutions under statutes challengeable on 1st Am vagueness grounds w/o prior approval of fed cts
- emphasizing comity - says such fed supervision of state cts = unwarranted
14
Q
Younger v. Harris - Facts
A
- 1971
- California Criminal Syndicalism Act - prohibited advocating, teaching, or aiding the commission of a crime or unlawful acts of violence or terrorism
- John Harris = a socialist -> gets indicted under the statute
- Harris claimed the law had a “chilling effect” on his freedom of speech -> filed complaint in fed district court -> 3-judge panel, relying on Dombrowski, struck down the Act because of vagueness and overbreadth + restrained the District Attorney from further prosecuting the pending action against Harris
- note that there are other pls involved whose cases get dismissed for lack of standing (since they’re not being actively prosecuted)
15
Q
Younger - Rule
A
- absent prosecutorial bad faith or harassment, a fed court normally can’t enjoin a pending state criminal prosecution
- only if the def will face irreparable harm should a fed ct intervene in proceedings that are already underway in state court
- at the time of Younger, this only applies where prosecution underway
16
Q
Younger - Core Holding
A
- district court’s judgment “must be reversed as a violation of the national policy forbidding federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances.”
- “We express no view about the circumstances under which federal courts may act when there is no prosecution pending in state courts at the time the federal proceeding is begun”
17
Q
Younger - Reasoning
A
- Black opinion
Reasons for abstaining:
- Anti-Injunction Act, from 1793, shows longstanding policy against interference by federal courts in state trials of state cases (court declines to decide if applicable in Younger - later says doesn’t bar 1983 actions in Mitchum)
- courts of equity shouldn’t act when there’s an adequate remedy at law and there’s no irreparable injury (Prof’s point re should be ad rem in FED ct)
-> irreparable injury must be “both great and immediate” (cost, anxiety, + inconvenience of defense in crim pro not enough, must be an injury that can’t be eliminated by defense in a single prosecution) - respect for state functions - comity - “Our Federalism” (“a system in which there is sensistivity to the legitimate interests of both state and national governments, and in which the national government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the state”)
- also emphasized “federal injunctions against state criminal statutes, either in their entirety or with respect to their separate and distinct prohibitions, are not to be granted as a matter of course, even if such statutes are unconstitutional”
18
Q
Fenner v. Boykin
A
- 1926
- suit had been brought in fed dist ct seeking enjoin state pros. under recently enacted state law that allegedly interfered w/ free flow of interstate commerce
- held that such a suit, even with respect to state criminal proceedings not yet formally instituted, could be proper only under very special circumstances
19
Q
Fenner - Reasoning
A
- gets quoted in Younger
- “Ex parte Young, and following cases have established the doctrine that, when absolutely necessary for protection of constitutional rights, courts of the United States have power to enjoin state officers from instituting criminal actions.”
- BUT “may not be done except under extraordinary circumstances where the danger of irreparable loss is both great and immediate.”
- ordinarily, shouldn’t be any interference - state officers are charged w/ duty of prosecuting those who violate state laws, + accused should try to defend in state ct, even though involves a challenge of the validity of some statute, unless “plainly appears that this course would not afford adequate protection.”
20
Q
Younger - Dombrowski
A
- reframes Dombrowski
- basically argues anything in Dombrowski that suggested you could get an injunction where a statute was overbroad + had a chilling effect on expression, without bad faith + without meeting “long-established standards” for equitable relief, are just dicta
- “‘chilling effect’…should not by itself justify federal intervention”
- argues to be able to test stats otherwise in fed cts (challenging stat on its face + getting inj until state adopts limiting construction) = “fundamentally at odds with the function of the federal courts in our constitutional plan” (seems to argue otherwise wouldn’t really have case or controversy concrete enough to decide the con issues)
- “we hold that the Dombrowski decision should not be regarded as having upset the settled doctrines that have always confined very narrowly the availability of injunctive relief against state criminal prosecutions”
21
Q
Younger - Brennan
A
- in book, his concurrence basically just says no bad faith so Harris can bring his claim fairly in state court
- BUT Prof was of the opinion that Brennan is the reason Younger was technically limited at first to pending prosecutions
- she thinks Brennan intended to create a pending vs. non-pending line that would allow Dombrowski to survive
- also said this case was argued three times - thinks Brennan ultimately gave up disagreeing + concurred, but wanted to do so in a way that could influence verdict
22
Q
Fenner v. Boykin - Former System
A
- used to be some sort of system in which the state prosecution could continue but you could concurrently bring a suit challenging its constitutionality in fed court
- state would have total control over own prosecution, but if statute was declared unconstitutional in fed court that would prevail
- think Prof may have preferred this system (she’s concerned about Younger b/c it removes ability to review constitutional challenges in fed cts, vs Boykin method allows both to be decided)
