Also known as: abstention doctrine · abstention
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A principle directing federal courts to refrain from deciding federal constitutional questions when an unsettled issue of state law could resolve or narrow the constitutional claim. The doctrine promotes comity by allowing state courts to interpret their own laws first.
Destiny Davis, owner of an out-of-state production company, sued in federal court claiming that a state tax credit program violated equal protection by favoring local content. The program turned on an unsettled interpretation of what counted as sufficient local involvement in coproductions. The federal court abstained so that state courts could first clarify the statutory requirement.
Derek Douglas sued his former employer in federal court after termination, raising both contract and constitutional claims. An unsettled question of state employment law could have resolved the dispute without reaching the federal issue. The court stayed the federal action to permit state courts to address the state-law question first.
Dwight Dorsey faced potential state enforcement proceedings and filed a federal action seeking a declaration that the underlying statute was unconstitutional. No state prosecution had yet begun. The federal court declined to abstain because the absence of pending state proceedings allowed the declaratory action to proceed.
In October 1970 petitioner Steffel and other individuals distributed handbills protesting American involvement in Vietnam on an exterior sidewalk of the North DeKalb Shopping Center. Shopping center employees asked the group to stop and leave. Police officers were summoned and told the handbillers they would be arrested if they did not stop. The group left to avoid arrest. Two days later Steffel and a companion returned to the shopping center and again began handbilling. The manager called the police. Officers warned that failure to stop would result in arrests. Steffel left, but his companion stayed, continued handbilling, and was arrested and charged with criminal trespass under Georgia Code Annotated section 26-1503. Steffel alleged that he wished to return to distribute handbills but had not done so because of concern that he too would be arrested under the same statute. The parties stipulated that if Steffel returned and refused upon request to stop handbilling, a warrant would be sworn out and he might be arrested and charged with a violation of the Georgia statute. Steffel and others filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 United States Code section 1983, and its jurisdictional implementation, 28 United States Code section 1343. The complaint requested a declaratory judgment that the Georgia statute was being applied in violation of petitioner's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and an injunction restraining the solicitor of the Civil and Criminal Court of DeKalb County, the chief of the DeKalb County Police, the owner of the shopping center, and the manager from enforcing the statute. The District Court denied all relief and dismissed the action. Steffel appealed only from the denial of declaratory relief. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment refusing declaratory relief. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View casePullman abstention applies when a federal constitutional claim depends on an unsettled question of state law that a state court decision might avoid or narrow. Federal courts then stay the case to let state courts resolve the state issue first.
Supporting sources
Pullman abstention addresses unsettled state-law questions that could moot a federal constitutional issue. Younger abstention applies when federal relief would interfere with ongoing state criminal or certain civil proceedings involving important state interests.
Supporting sources
The federal court retains jurisdiction but stays proceedings. Once the state court resolves the state-law question, the federal case may proceed or become moot depending on the state ruling.
Supporting sources
No. Once state courts have finally resolved the state-law issue, the federal court should proceed to decide the remaining federal questions rather than continue to abstain.
Supporting sources
…in state criminal prosecutions." Perez v. Ledesma , 401 U. S. 82, 128 (1971) (separate opinion of BRENNAN, J.). : Abstention, a question "entirely separate from the question of granting declaratory or injunctive relief." Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullan , 406 U. S. 498, 509 n. 13 (1972), might be more…