Abstention doctrine
An abstention doctrine is any one of several doctrines that a United States federal court might (or in some cases must) apply to refuse to hear a case, when hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of the state courts.
The various abstention doctrines are named for the Supreme Court cases in which they were enunciated.
| Contents |
Pullman Abstention
Pullman abstention was the first "doctrine of abstention" to be announced by the Court, and is named for Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). This doctrine permits federal courts to allow state courts to decide substantial Constitutional issues that touch upon sensitive areas of state social policy. This form of abstention allows state courts to correct things like equal protection violations for themselves by interpreting offending statutes as void under existing state constitutional provisions, thus avoiding the embarassment of having state policy corrected by the federal courts.
For Pullman abstention to be invoked, three conditions must be apparent:
- There must be a state law issue that is potentially dispositive;
- That state law must be unclear; and
- That disposing of state law will avoid constitutional question
Under Pullman abstention, the federal court retains jurisdiction to hear the constitutional issues in case if the state court's resolution is still constitutionally suspect. In Government and Civil Employees Organizing Committee, CIO v. Windsor, 353 U.S. 364 (1957) the Supreme Court held that litigants must inform the state court that they are contending that the state law violates a federal constitutional provision, so that the state court may take that into consideration when interpreting the state statute. However, in England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners 375 U.S. 411 (1964), the Supreme Court noted that the litigants must not ask the state court to resolve the constitutional issue itself, or the federal court would be bound by res judicata to follow the decision of the state court.
Younger Abstention
Younger abstention, named for Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is less permissive to the federal courts, barring them from hearing civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim. For example, if an individual who was charged with drug possession believes that the search was illegal, and in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, that person may have a cause of action to sue the state for illegally searching him. However, a federal court will not hear the case until the person is acquitted of the crime. The doctrine has been extended to situations where the state is seeking to execute a civil fine against someone, or has jailed a person for contempt of court. The doctrine applies even where the state does not bring an action until after the person has filed a lawsuit in federal court, provided that the federal court has not yet taken any action on the suit.
There are three exceptions to Younger abstention:
- 1. Where the prosecution is in bad faith (i.e. the state knows the person to be innocent); or
- 2. Where the prosecution is part of some pattern of harassment against an individual; or
- 3. Where the law being enforced is utterly and irredeemably unconstitutional (i.e., if the state were to pass a law making it a crime to say anything negative about its governor under any circumstances).
Burford Abstention and Thibidaux Abstention
Burford abstention, derived from Burford v. Sun Oil, 319 U.S. 315 (1943), allows a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction to abstain where the state courts likely have greater expertise in a particularly complex area of law (the case itself dealt with the regulation of oil drilling operations in Texas). This is closely related to Thibidaux abstention, derived from Louisana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25 (1959), which occurs when a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction chooses to allow a state to decide issues of state law that are of great public importance to that state, to the extent that a federal determination would infringe on state sovereignty.
Unlike the abstention doctrines raised in federal question cases, there is a strong presumption that federal courts should not apply Burford or Thibidaux Abstention.
Colorado River Abstention
Finally, Colorado River abstention, from Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) comes into play where federal and state court proceedings are simultaneously being carried out to determine the rights of parties with respect to the same questions of law. Under such circumstances, it makes little sense for two courts to expend the time and effort to achieve a resolution of the question.
Note on the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine has some characteristics of an abstention doctrine, in that it prohibits federal court review of state court actions. However, it does not require federal courts to abstain from hearing cases pending action in the state court, but instead deems that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear cases already decided in state courts.