NCJ Number
14102
Journal
Baylor Law Review Volume: 26 Issue: 1 Dated: (WINTER 1974) Pages: 1-67
Date Published
1974
Length
67 pages
Annotation
ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF THE SIX 1971 SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, KNOWN BY THE LEAD CASE OF YOUNGER V. HARRIS, ON THE POWERS OF FEDERAL COURTS TO GRANT INJUNCTIONS AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AGAINST UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE LAWS.
Abstract
THE BASIC ISSUE IN THIS STUDY IS THE NATURE OF 'OUR FEDERALISM' DESCRIBED BY THE YOUNGER DECISION. IT IS NEITHER NEW NOR A SPECIFIC RULE OF LAW IN ITSELF BUT RATHER IS A PRINCIPLE OF RECOGNITION OF AND RESPECT FOR THE RESPECTIVE AREAS OF CONTROL ASSIGNED TO THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS. IN APPLICATION, IT CALLS FOR ABSTENTION BY THE FEDERAL COURTS FROM INTERFERENCE WITH THE WAY THE STATES ADMINISTER THEIR LAWS, UNLESS INTERFERENCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF FEDERALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS. IT REQUIRES THAT A COMPLAINANT BEING PROSECUTED IN THE STATE COURTS BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT HE WOULD SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM BOTH GREAT AND IMMEDIATE IN ORDER TO CHALLENGE THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH HE IS BEING PROSECUTED BY INJUNCTIVE OR DECLARATORY PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. THAT HARM MUST BE SUCH THAT HIS FEDERALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS CANNOT BE PROTECTED BY THE DEFENSE OF A SINGLE PROSECUTION IN THE STATE COURTS. THIS GENERALLY REQUIRES THAT THE COMPLAINANT SUFFER A KIND OF HARM NOT ORDINARILY SUFFERED BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. YOUNGER AND THE SEXTET HAVE ALSO CLARIFIED THE EFFECT OF SOME LANGUAGE FROM DOMBROWSKI WHICH, IF NOT MISLEADING, WAS CERTAINLY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MANY. FOR EXAMPLE, WE NOW KNOW THAT FACIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE WILL NOT, OF ITSELF, JUSTIFY AN INJUCTION EXCEPT IN A RARE CASE IN WHICH THE STATUTE CAN BE SAID TO BE 'FLAGRANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.' FURTHERMORE, MUCH OF THE MAGIC HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CHERISHED 'CHILLING EFFECT,' NOT ONLY BY THE DECISION THAT IT IS ONLY A FACTOR IN THE DECISION TO GRANT RELIEF, NOT AN INDEPENDENT GROUND, BUT ALSO BY THE PRONOUNCEMENTS IN YOUNGER AND SOME LATER CASES TO EFFECT THAT AN ABSTRACT 'CHILLING EFFECT' MAY NOT EVEN FURNISH STANDING TO SUE. IN SUMMARY, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT YOUNGER AND THE SEXTET, IN THE LIGHT OF LATER DECISIONS, HAVE SEVERELY LIMITED THE POWERS OF FEDERAL COURTS TO PROTECT LITIGANTS FROM STATE INFRINGEMENT OF FEDERALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS IN CASES WHERE FEDERAL INTERVENTION IS REALLY NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THOSE RIGHTS, BUT ONLY WHERE THE FEDERAL PROCESSES ARE USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO BYPASS THE NORMAL JUDICIAL PROCESSES. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)