Also known as:Pullman abstentions · Pullman abstention doctrine · Pullman doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A prudential doctrine directing federal courts to stay proceedings on federal constitutional claims pending state-court resolution of unsettled state-law questions whose determination might obviate or narrow the constitutional issue.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Hotel Ordinance Coverage Dispute
Penelope Price and other boutique hotel owners sued the city in federal court, claiming a short-term rental ordinance violated due process and equal protection. Parallel state litigation was already underway over whether boutique hotels qualified as residential rental units under the ordinance's ambiguous language. A state ruling excluding the hotels would eliminate the need for any federal constitutional decision. The district court stayed the federal action to let state courts interpret the ordinance first.
Medical Board Licensing Challenge
Preston Pratt and other out-of-state physicians sued the state medical board in federal court, alleging that licensing rules violated equal protection. The board moved for abstention because a pending state proceeding would decide whether the physicians qualified for an exemption under an un construed state statute. If the state tribunal granted the exemption, the federal claim would disappear. The district court stayed the action under the doctrine and preserved the plaintiffs' right to return after the state decision.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Study Supplements
Dictionaries
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners375 U.S. 411, 423, 84 S.Ct. 461, 468–69, 11 L.Ed.2d 440 (1964)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What conditions trigger Pullman abstention?+
The doctrine applies when a federal constitutional claim rests on an unsettled question of state law and a state-court ruling might avoid or substantially narrow the constitutional issue. Federal courts retain jurisdiction but stay proceedings rather than dismiss the case.
Does Pullman abstention require dismissal of the federal action?+
No. The federal court stays the case and retains jurisdiction so the plaintiff can return after the state courts resolve the state-law question. Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is improper.
How does the England procedure interact with Pullman abstention?+
After state courts decide the state-law issues, a plaintiff who expressly reserved federal claims may return to federal court for adjudication of those claims. The reservation protects the right to federal review.
Does the presence of parallel state litigation always require Pullman abstention?+
No. Abstention is appropriate only when the state-law issue is unsettled and its resolution could eliminate or narrow the federal constitutional question. Parallel litigation alone does not trigger the doctrine.
375 U.S. 411, 423, 84 S.Ct. 461, 468–69, 11 L.Ed.2d 440 (1964)Constitutional Law
…of Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, from which today's decision stems, is necessary. Although the propriety of the Pullman doctrine, either as originally decided or as it has evolved, has not been raised by the parties, I think it is time for the Court, sua sponte, to reevaluate it. I The Pullman case, decided a…
Constitutional LawThe nature of judicial review · Judicial review in operationUBEFoundational