375 U.S. 411, 423, 84 S.Ct. 461, 468–69, 11 L.Ed.2d 440 (1964)
In 1957 graduates of chiropractic schools brought an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners.1
The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that the educational requirements of the Louisiana Medical Practice Act, Title 37, La. Rev. Stat. §§ 1261-1290, violated the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to them.2
After an initial dismissal was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a statutory three-judge district court was convened.3
The three-judge court invoked the abstention doctrine sua sponte and entered an order staying further proceedings until the Louisiana courts had an opportunity to determine the issues presented, while retaining jurisdiction.4
The order noted that the state court might end the controversy by holding that chiropractors were not governed by the statute.5
The plaintiffs did not appeal the abstention order.6
The plaintiffs then filed suit in Louisiana state courts.7
They submitted for decision both whether the Medical Practice Act applied to chiropractors and whether, if applicable, the Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment.8
The state trial court dismissed the petition on the basis of the same documentary evidence that had been before the federal court.9
An intermediate appellate court held that the Act applied to chiropractors and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Louisiana Supreme Court declined review.10
The plaintiffs returned to the federal district court, where the defendants moved to dismiss.11
The district court granted the motion on the ground that the state courts had passed on all issues, including the federal constitutional claims.12
The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, and the Court noted probable jurisdiction in 1963.13
Whether a litigant who properly invokes federal district court jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims can be compelled without consent to accept a state court's determination of those claims after abstention?14
Fundamental objections exist to any conclusion that a litigant who has properly invoked the jurisdiction of a Federal District Court to consider federal constitutional claims can be compelled, without his consent and through no fault of his own, to accept instead a state court's determination of those claims.15 Such a result would be at war with the unqualified terms in which Congress has conferred specific categories of jurisdiction upon the federal courts.16 It would also conflict with the principle that when a Federal court is properly appealed to in a case over which it has by law jurisdiction, it is its duty to take such jurisdiction.17
No. Graduates of chiropractic schools properly invoked federal jurisdiction in 1957 by filing an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief on Fourteenth Amendment grounds against the educational requirements of the Louisiana Medical Practice Act.18 After an initial dismissal was reversed on appeal, a statutory three-judge district court convened.19 The court invoked the abstention doctrine sua sponte and stayed proceedings while retaining jurisdiction so that Louisiana courts could determine the issues.
The plaintiffs did not appeal that abstention order.20 They instead filed suit in state court, where they litigated both state-law applicability and federal constitutional claims, and ultimately received an adverse decision from the Louisiana Supreme Court. Upon returning to federal court the district court dismissed the action, but the Supreme Court reversed that dismissal.21 Abstention postpones rather than abdicates federal jurisdiction.22
It does not permit compelling an unwilling litigant to accept a state-court adjudication of federal claims.23 The rule requires that federal courts exercise their jurisdiction when properly invoked.24 Nothing in the abstention doctrine supports forcing a litigant to forgo a federal forum for federal questions.25 The facts show the plaintiffs chose the federal forum initially and sought to return there after the state proceedings.
A litigant who properly invokes federal district court jurisdiction cannot be compelled without consent to accept a state court's determination of federal constitutional claims after abstention.26 The district court's dismissal must therefore be reversed.27 The case is remanded for decision on the merits.28
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Douglas concurred in the judgment.29 He urged a reappraisal of the Pullman abstention doctrine itself.30 The judge-made rule announced today imposes too heavy a burden on litigants.31
It creates procedural traps.32 The doctrine has caused unnecessary delay and expense in civil rights cases.33 He emphasized that federal judges are better positioned to protect constitutional rights of unpopular minorities.34
The requirement of an explicit reservation turns abstention into a trap.35 Any presumption should run against finding an election to forgo the federal forum.36 This holds unless the litigant voluntarily does something beyond what Windsor requires.37
Whether a party who unreservedly submits federal claims for decision by state courts after abstention has elected to forgo the right to return to the federal district court?38
If a party freely and without reservation submits his federal claims for decision by the state courts, litigates them there, and has them decided there, then whether or not he seeks direct review of the state decision in this Court he has elected to forgo his right to return to the District Court.39 Such a choice avoids delay and expense.40 It serves the purposes of the abstention doctrine when voluntarily made.41
Yes. After the federal court abstained, the plaintiffs brought proceedings in Louisiana state courts. They unreservedly submitted for decision both whether the Medical Practice Act applied to chiropractors and whether, if applicable, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment.42 They briefed and argued the federal claims fully.43
The state courts decided those federal claims adversely.44 The plaintiffs did not seek direct review in the Supreme Court.45 They instead attempted to return to the district court.46 Under the rule this unreserved submission and litigation of the federal claims in state court constitutes an election to forgo the right to return.
The Court declined to apply the rule against these particular appellants because of their reasonable reliance on a mistaken reading of Windsor.47 The facts confirm that the plaintiffs did more than merely inform the state courts of their federal claims as required by Windsor.48 They fully litigated them without reservation.49 This triggered the election.50
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Black joined the judgment and opinion insofar as it held the district court erred in dismissing the action for the reasons given.53 He would have affirmed the dismissal on the alternative ground that the complaint failed to state a substantial federal question.54 He cited precedents such as Hitchcock v. Collenberg and Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Fife.55
These supported the view that the constitutional challenge to the medical practice act as applied to chiropractors lacked sufficient substance to warrant federal jurisdiction.56
Whether Government Employees v. Windsor requires a party to litigate federal constitutional claims in state court or only to inform the state court of those claims so the statute may be construed in light of them?57
Government Employees v. Windsor does not require that a party must litigate his federal claims in the state courts.58 It requires only that he must inform those courts what his federal claims are so that the state statute may be construed in light of those claims.59 The case turned on the need for the state court to have the constitutional objections presented in order to interpret the statute appropriately.60
No. The established facts show that the plaintiffs submitted their federal claims to the state courts primarily because they believed Windsor required full litigation of those claims.61 This view was shared by the district court and respectable authorities at the time.62 The Supreme Court clarified that Windsor requires only that the federal claims be presented so the state court may construe the statute in light of them.63 It does not require that the claims be fully litigated or argued on the merits.64
Mere compliance with Windsor therefore creates no presumption that a litigant has elected to forgo return to the federal court.65 An explicit reservation on the state record can preserve the right to return even when more is done.66 The facts confirm that the plaintiffs' unreserved litigation went beyond what Windsor actually demanded.67 Their reasonable misunderstanding of the case prevents application of the election rule against them.68
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Douglas stressed that the new rule compounds the problems of the Pullman doctrine by making it a trap for the unwary.71 Lawyers will not always appreciate the nuances of court opinions, especially those touching on exotic rules of federal procedure. Requiring an explicit reservation after involuntary submission to state court will often cause litigants to lose their federal forum unintentionally.72
This is particularly true in civil rights cases where delay harms constitutional claims by allowing the status quo to become entrenched. The value of federal judges' independence in protecting unpopular minorities is lost when litigants are trapped in state proceedings without a clear path back to federal court.