recognizing that a federal court could halt state criminal proceedings if threatened criminal proceedings were " 'not made with any expectation of securing valid convictions, but rather [as] part of a plan to employ arrests, seizures, and threats of prosecution under color of the statutes to harass appellants and discourage them and their supporters from asserting and attempting to vindicate [certain] constitutional rights’ ” (quoting Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 482, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965))
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that a federal court could halt state criminal proceedings if threatened criminal proceedings were " 'not made with any expectation of securing valid convictions, but rather [as] part of a plan to employ arrests, seizures, and threats of prosecution under color of the statutes to harass appellants and discourage them and their supporters from asserting and attempting to vindicate [certain] constitutional rights’ ” (quoting Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 482, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965))
- explaining that the “longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings,” derives, in part, from “the notion of ‘comity,’ that is, a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief 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.”
- stating that “Our Federalism” represents “a system in which there is sensitivity 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 States” (quotation marks omitted)
- stating that “[wjhere a statute does not directly abridge free speech, but — while regulating a subject within the state’s power — tends to have the incidental effect of inhibiting First Amendment rights, it is well-settled that the statute can be upheld if the effect on speech is minor in relation to the need for control of the conduct and the lack of alternative means for doing so.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported overruled on other grounds by Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972) — not on the Supreme Court's list
401 U.S. 37, 42, 91 S.Ct. 746, 749, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds, Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 32 L.Ed.2d 705 (1972).
Questioned by Tucker v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 635 (2015)
However, the recent Supreme Court case Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 584, 187 L.Ed.2d 505 (2013), casts doubt on the earlier circuit court analyses that led district courts to rely on Younger to abstain from considering cases such as this one.
Questioned by Strickland-Lucas v. Citibank, N.A., 256 F. Supp. 3d 616 (2017)
As noted by Judge Paul Grimm of this Court, the case of Sprint Communications, Inc. “casts doubt on the earlier circuit court analyses that led district courts to rely on Younger to abstain from considering eases such as this one”, when there is a pending foreclosure action in state court.
Declined to follow by Jones v. Takaki, 832 F. Supp. 1224 (1993)
However, we reject defendants' attempted application of Younger under these circumstances as inconsistent with Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 108 n. 9, 95 S.Ct. 854, 860 n. 9, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975).
Distinguished
Distinguished by Alexander v. Morgan, 353 F. Supp. 3d 622 (2018)
The Sixth Circuit has held that Younger is inapplicable when there are federal questions that do not "entangle us in the merits of the state child support proceedings, and accordingly we may answer them without treading on protected state interests.
Distinguished by Helms Realty Corp. v. City of N.Y., 320 F. Supp. 3d 526 (2018)
In the case at hand, Younger abstention is inapplicable to any of the three state court actions.
Distinguished by S.C. Elec. & Gas Co. v. Whitfield, 329 F. Supp. 3d 191 (2018)
However, the case law supporting abstention under the Younger , Burford , and Pullman doctrines is distinguishable because in the present case, an appeal is not currently available, and Act 287 and Resolution 285 prevent SCE & G from raising constitutional challenges in a state court proceeding at this time.
Distinguished by Odonnell v. Harris Cnty., 321 F. Supp. 3d 763 (2018)
Because the relief sought by the plaintiffs-"the adequacy of the state court review of bail-setting procedures"-"is not properly reviewed by criminal proceedings in state court," Younger is inapplicable.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Stewart,
with whom Mr. Justice Harlan joins, concurring *
The questions the Court decides today are important ones. Perhaps as important, however, is a recognition of the areas into which today’s holdings do not necessarily extend. In all of these cases, the Court deals only *55 with the proper policy to be followed by a federal court when asked to intervene by injunction or declaratory judgment in a criminal prosecution which is contemporaneously pending in a state court.
In basing its decisions on policy grounds, the Court does not reach any questions concerning the independent force of the federal anti-injunction statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2283 . Thus we do not decide whether the word “injunction” in § 2283 should be interpreted to include a declaratory judgment, or whether an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court is “expressly authorized” by § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, now 42 U. S. C. § 1983 . 1 And since all these cases involve state criminal prosecutions, we do not deal with the considerations that should govern a federal court when it is asked to intervene in state civil proceedings, where, for various reasons, the balance might be struck differently. 2 Finally, the Court today does not resolve the problems involved when a federal court is asked to give injunctive or declaratory relief from future state criminal prosecutions.
*56 The Court confines itself to deciding the policy considerations that in our federal system must prevail when federal courts are asked to interfere with pending state prosecutions. Within this area, we hold that a federal court must not, save in exceptional and extremely limited circumstances, intervene by way of either injunction or declaration in an existing state criminal prosecution. 3 Such circumstances exist only when there is a threat of irreparable injury “both great and immediate.” A threat of this nature might be shown if the state criminal statute in question were patently and flagrantly unconstitutional on its face, ante, at 53-54; cf. Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U. S. 202 , or if there has been bad faith and harassment — official lawlessness — in a statute’s enforcement, ante, at 47-49. In such circumstances the reasons of policy for deferring to state adjudication are outweighed by the injury flowing from the very bringing of the state proceedings, by the perversion of the very process that is supposed to provide vindication, and by the need for speedy and effective action to protect federal rights. Cf. Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U. S. 780 .
[This opinion applies also to No. 7, Samuels et al. v. Mackell et al., and No. 9, Fernandez v. Mackell et al., post, p. 66; No. 41, Dyson et al. v. Stein, post, p. 200; and No. 83, Byrne et al. v. Karalexis et al., post, p. 216.]
See also Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611, 613-614, n. 3 ; Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479 , 484 n. 2.
Courts of equity have traditionally shown greater reluctance to intervene in criminal prosecutions than in civil cases. See ante, at 43-44; Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, 163-164 . The offense to state interests is likely to be less in a civil proceeding. A State’s decision to classify conduct as criminal provides some indica-cation of the importance it has ascribed to prompt and unencumbered enforcement of its law. By contrast, the State might not even be a party in a proceeding under a civil statute.
Cf. Law Students Civil Rights Research Council v. Wadmond, post, p. 154; Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433 ; Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397 .
These considerations would not, to be sure, support any distinction between civil and criminal proceedings should the ban of 28 U. S. C. § 2283 , which makes no such distinction, be held unaffected by 42 U. S. C. § 1983 .
The negative pregnant in this sentence — that a federal court may, as a matter of policy, intervene when such “exceptional and extremely limited circumstances” are found — is subject to any further limitations that may be placed on such intervention by 28 U. S. C. § 2283 .