You represent Jane Smith. She is being prosecuted in state court for a serious criminal offense. You are convinced that the state court has violated Smith’s federal constitutional rights. Smith herself has lost faith in the ability of the state court to enforce her constitutional rights. She has asked you to file suit on her behalf in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for an injunction to prohibit the state court from continuing to violate her constitutional rights.
Your attempt to seek relief in federal district court against a pending state criminal proceeding is likely to meet with a number of jurisdictional and procedural defenses, most prominently Younger v. Harris1 abstention, which generally bars the federal courts from interfering with state judicial proceedings. The doctrine, which is fully applicable in §1983 actions,2 is based on the federalism consideration that state courts should be allowed to function free of intrusion by the federal courts, and the assumption that state courts are as obligated and capable of enforcing the federal constitution as the state courts. It is also supported by the equitable principle that forbids restraint of a criminal proceeding.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
