Federal Courts Lecture Outline - Spring 2010
Professor Lee

Federal Courts

Spring 2010

Professor Lee

Class Outline

March 23, 2010

PULLMAN ABSTENTION

a.  "Abstention" = judge-made rules requiring federal district courts to withhold judgment out of deference to state courts or other forms of state process

 

b.  "Pullman abstention":  Where adjudication of a sensitive constitutional question might be avoided by allowing a state court to interpret an ambiguous state statute, a federal district court sitting in equity must stay the action

 

c.  The origins of Pullman abstention:  Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co.

1.  If commission's order unauthorized by state law, then no occasion to reach sensitive equal protection issue

 

2.  Unclear whether state statute authorizes order

 

3.  Only state courts can authoritatively interpret state statute

 

4.  Therefore, both judicial restraint and federalism call for federal court to abstain in favor of state court interpretation of state statute

d.  The mystery of Pullman:  why abstain?

1.  If Court had dismissed appeal, constitutional question certainly never would have been reached

THE PROCEDURE OF ABSTENTION

a.  The original procedure:

1.  District court stays proceedings

 

2.  Plf files action in state trial court seeking judicial declaration that state statute does not cover plf's situation

 

3.  In requesting interpretation of state statute, plf must apprise state court of federal constitutional claims, see Gov't and Civil Employees Organizing Comm., CIO v. Windsor 

 

4.  Plf may elect to litigate constitutional claim in state court, but may not then return to federal court, see England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Medical Examiners  

 

5.  Better practice is to explicitly reserve right to return to federal court, but right to return is waived only when plf clearly attempted to litigate all claims in state court

 

6.  Case is appealed to state supreme court

 

7.  If state courts rule that statute applies to plf, federal district court dissolves stay and proceeds to constitutional question

b.  Certification

1.  45 statutes have statutes authorizing federal courts to certify questions of state law to state courts

A.  Only 26 states permit federal district courts to certify

2.  Bellotti v. Baird:  Availability of certification may make abstention more appropriate

 

3.  Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona:  Where certification is available, resort to original Pullman procedure may constitute abuse of discretion