Malcolm Rivera
The abstention doctrine is a legal principle that prevents federal courts from hearing cases within their jurisdiction and instead gives state courts the authority to rule on them. The doctrine is rooted in federalism and aims to allow state courts to handle matters of particular significance to the state or its laws. It is often applied when there are constitutional challenges to state laws, and it can be divided into various sub-doctrines based on Supreme Court cases that have expanded on when abstention is appropriate. The doctrine also extends to state civil proceedings closely related to state criminal statutes, administrative proceedings, and situations where the state has jailed an individual for contempt of court. The Pullman, Younger, Burford, Thibodaux, and Colorado River abstentions are some of the notable sub-doctrines that have been derived from Supreme Court rulings.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Type of doctrine | Abstention doctrine |
| Basis | Federalism |
| Application | Federal courts |
| Action | Refrain from hearing cases within their jurisdiction |
| Authority | Give state courts authority over the case |
| Purpose | Avoid confusion, wasted resources, and conflict between courts |
| Sub-doctrines | Pullman, Younger, Burford, Rooker-Feldman, Thibodaux, Colorado River |
| Pullman conditions | State and federal grounds for relief, unclear resolution, potential to obviate federal adjudication |
| Younger application | Civil rights tort claims |
| Burford application | State agency action |
| Rooker-Feldman application | Review of state-promulgated statutes and rules |
| Thibodaux application | Issues of state law of great public importance |
| Colorado River application | Parallel litigation, particularly federal and state court proceedings |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Pullman abstention
The abstention doctrine is an authority that precludes federal courts from hearing cases within their jurisdiction, instead giving state courts authority over the case. The policy behind this doctrine is rooted in federalism and the interest of allowing state courts to adjudicate matters of particular significance to the state or its laws.
For Pullman abstention to be invoked, three conditions must be apparent:
- The case presents both state grounds and federal constitutional grounds for relief.
- The proper resolution of the state ground for the decision is unclear.
- The disposition of the state ground could obviate adjudication of the federal constitutional ground.
Under Pullman abstention, the federal court retains jurisdiction to hear the constitutional issues in the case if the state court's resolution is still constitutionally suspect. In Government and Civil Employees Organizing Committee, CIO v. Windsor (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.
The discretionary aspect of Pullman abstention was significantly curtailed by the Supreme Court in Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman (1984). In that case, the Court ruled that the Eleventh Amendment barred federal courts from issuing injunctions against state officials based on state law.
The Constitution's Judiciary: What Courts are Included?
You may want to see also
Burford abstention
The abstention doctrine is an authority that prevents federal courts from hearing cases within their jurisdiction, instead giving state courts authority over the case. The doctrine is rooted in federalism and the interest of allowing state courts to adjudicate matters of particular significance to the state or its laws.
One of the abstention doctrine's various sub-doctrines is Burford abstention, which directs federal courts to refuse cases where state agency action is involved. Instead, federal courts should defer to state courts to review the state's agencies. The Burford abstention doctrine is derived from the case of Burford v. Sun Oil Co. in 1943. The court held that "review of the [state agency's] decisions in state courts is expeditious and adequate", and that respect should be given to the independence of state affairs.
The University of Chicago Law Review has described the confusion surrounding the Burford abstention doctrine, and how it is unclear when it applies and what goals it is meant to achieve. The Review proposes a "Judicial Discretion Test" to determine whether Burford abstention is appropriate. The Test uses judicial discretion as a proxy for policymaking authority. If a state court judge hearing the case would have significantly more discretion under the state law at issue than a federal court judge would have in a comparable case under federal law, the federal court should abstain in favour of the state court.
Trademark Fair Use: What's Allowed and What's Not
You may want to see also
Thibodaux abstention
The doctrine instructs federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction if the applicable state law is unclear, and a state court's interpretation of the law might make resolving a federal constitutional issue unnecessary. This is to avoid needless conflict with a state's administration of its own affairs.
Revolutionary War's Impact: Constitution's Birth
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Colorado River abstention
The Colorado River abstention doctrine, from Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), comes into play when parallel litigation is being carried out, particularly when federal and state court proceedings are simultaneously being carried out to determine the rights of parties with respect to the same questions of law.
The Colorado River doctrine allows a federal court to relinquish jurisdiction in deference to a state action. The doctrine has varied application across the circuits. Some courts apply the doctrine liberally in an effort to relieve crowded dockets. Others take a narrow approach, searching for the truly “exceptional circumstances” in which a federal court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit is more willing than its sister circuits to allow Colorado River abstention, specifically when difficult or dispositive questions of state law are involved. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has applied the doctrine rigidly, demanding that district courts retain jurisdiction in all but the most exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, the Seventh Circuit has taken a highly permissive view of Colorado River abstention, watering down the otherwise restrictive doctrine.
Before embarking on this winding procedural battle down the Colorado River, both parties should know how the relevant forum applies the doctrine. In all circuits, abstention pursuant to Colorado River is warranted only if the federal and state proceedings are truly parallel, meaning that the resolution of one action will also resolve the other. If so, the federal court will determine whether the following factors weigh in favor of abstention.
Verbal Abuse: When Parents Cross the Line with Teachers
You may want to see also
Younger abstention
The abstention doctrine is an authority that prevents federal courts from hearing cases within their jurisdiction and instead gives state courts the authority to hear the case. The doctrine is rooted in federalism and the interest of allowing state courts to adjudicate matters of particular significance to the state or its laws. The doctrine is often invoked when lawsuits involving the same issues are brought in two different court systems simultaneously, such as federal and state courts.
There are exceptions to the Younger doctrine. Federal courts may exercise authority over a state proceeding where:
- The state brought the criminal proceeding in bad faith, such as to harass the defendant.
- The statute challenged is patently unconstitutional.
- The state forum is incompetent to adjudicate due to bias or other factors.
Deviations as New Art: Original Work Derivatives
You may want to see also
