Parker v. Judicial Inquiry Commission, 212 F. Supp. 3d 1171

Tom Parker, an Associate Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and reelection candidate, spoke on radio criticizing Obergefell and endorsing state resistance to some federal decisions.
Southern Poverty Law Center filed a complaint with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) alleging Parker violated Judicial Canons 1, 2(A), and 3(A)(6); JIC opened an investigation but has not filed formal charges with the Court of the Judiciary (COJ).
Parker sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the Canons violate the First Amendment and that Ala. Const. § 159 violates due process.
Defendants moved to dismiss, invoking Younger abstention; the motions were treated under Rule 12(b)(1) as raising abstention/subject-matter jurisdiction issues.
The district court found the JIC process implicated important state interests, afforded an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional claims, and amounted to an ongoing state judicial/administrative proceeding for Younger purposes.
The court dismissed the federal suit on Younger abstention grounds, declining to reach the First and Fourteenth Amendment merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court must abstain under Younger	Parker: JIC investigation is not an "ongoing" state judicial proceeding; federal court should decide constitutional claims	JIC: Proceedings are ongoing and implicate state judicial functions; Younger requires abstention	Court: Younger applies; abstains and dismisses under Rule 12(b)(1)
Whether state interest is important enough for Younger	Parker: JIC proceedings are not quasi-criminal and thus not subject to Younger	JIC: Regulation of judicial ethics is integral to state judicial function	Court: State has important interest; Younger prong satisfied
Whether Parker has adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in state forum	Parker: JIC/COJ may not provide the remedies he seeks	Parker did raise constitutional claims before JIC; defendants: state process allows constitutional defenses	Court: JIC/COJ provides an adequate forum to raise constitutional issues; prong satisfied
Whether investigatory stage (without COJ complaint) triggers Younger	Parker: Investigatory stage is akin to a mere threatened prosecution; Younger should not apply	JIC: Investigation is analogous to a grand jury and part of a unitary state process; Younger applies from the start	Court: Investigation is "ongoing" for Younger purposes (analogous to grand jury/administrative continuums); Younger applies

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (abstention doctrine; federal courts should not interfere with certain state proceedings)
Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (framework for abstention—ongoing proceeding, important state interest, adequate opportunity to raise federal claims)
New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350 (Younger extended to civil enforcement and proceedings protecting state judicial functions)
Sprint Commc'ns v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (clarified limits of Middlesex and Younger exceptions)
Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619 (state disciplinary/administrative proceedings reviewable by state supreme court warrant Younger abstention)
Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1 (states have important interests in administering aspects of their judicial systems)
Butler v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Comm’n, 245 F.3d 1257 (Eleventh Circuit certified questions to Alabama Supreme Court in similar context)
Butler v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Comm’n, 261 F.3d 1154 (Eleventh Circuit indicated an adequate state forum likely exists)