*1 ENGLAND et v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD al.
OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS еt al. Argued No. 7. October January 1963. Decided 13, 1964. *2 appellants. for cause argued Brown Morton Bussell Simon. Minos J.was brief him on With appellees. cause argued Jr. LeCorgne, E. Robert Adams, Jr. and Clair St. brief were on the him With Phelps. Ashton opinion delivered Brennan Justice
Mr. Court. who chiropractic of schools graduates are
Appellants
complying
without
in Louisiana
practice
seek
Prac-
Medical
the Louisiana
requirements
educational
They
1261-1290.
§§
Stat.
La. Rev.
Act, Title
tice
State
Louisiana
respondent
against
action
this
brought
District
Federal
Examiners
of Medical
Board
for the Eastern
District
Louisiana, seeking
injunc-
tion
declaration that,
applied
them,
the Act
violated
Fourteenth Amendment.
statutory
A
three-
judge court1 invoked,
sponte,
sua
the doctrine of absten-
tion,
ground
on the
that “The
might
state court
effectively
end this controversy
aby
determination that chiroprac-
tors are not governed by the statute,” and entered an
order “staying further рroceedings in this Court until the
courts of the
State
Louisiana shall have been afforded
an opportunity to determine the issues here presented,
and retaining jurisdiction to take such steps as may be
necessary for the just disposition of
litigation
should
anything prevent a prompt state court determination.”
*3
Appellants thereupon brought proceedings in the Lou-
isiana courts. They did not restrict those proceedings to
the
whether the Medical Practice Act applied
to chiropractors. They unreservedly submitted for deci-
sion, and briefed and argued, their contention that
the
Act, if applicable to chiropractors, violated the Fourteenth
Amendment.3 The state proceedings terminated with a
1 The
brought
action was
in 1957. The
initially
District Court
dis
complaint
missed the
on
authority
the
of Louisiana State Board of
Medical
Fife,
Examiners v.
681,
La.
per curiam,
So.
aff’d
Appellants
to dismiss
by appellees
motion
met with
they were
granted, on
was
motion
This
action.
passed
have
of Louisiana
“since the
ground
deprivation
claims
including the
raised,
all issues
no
having
court,
this
Constitution,
Federal
under the
com-
dismiss
must
proceedings,
those
review
power to
Supreme
by appeal
remedy was
proper
The
plaint.
as
the case
court saw
The
States.”
of the United
invoked
litigant who
of a
“the dilemma
illustrating
con-
a claimed
assert
of a federal court
jurisdiction
remitted
himself
finds
right and
stitutional
“On
was that
court,
dilemma, said
The
tribunals.”
Employees
& Civic
Government
hand,
view
the one
he
364, ...
Windsor, 353
Committee
Organizing
law issues.
local
case to
his state court
restrict
dare not
Windsor, he raises
other, if,
required
theOn
principles
established
there, well
allegations were
injunctive
declaratory
rеlief.
sought
both
chiropractors and
inapplicable to
Act
Medical
was
Practice
*4
hold
should
alternative,
in
event the court
also “In
Act is
your plaintiffs . . . said
apply
does
Medical Practice Act
Amendment.
in
Fourteenth
violation
unconstitutional” because
Amend-
validity
under
challenged
petition
the statute’s
in the federal
substantially
to those
identical
ment
terms
documentary
same
basis of the
complaint.
court, on the
The trial
Court,
three-judge District
submitted to the
that had been
evidence
appellees’
cause of action.”
of “no
defense
sustained
4
attempt
appellate review
Appellants
to obtain
made no
Northampton
See Lassiter
v.
decision in this Court.
state court
Button,
Elections,
NAACP v.
45;
371
County
Board
360
S.
U.
415;
(2).
1257
28 U. S. C.
U. S.
§
bar a relitigation of those
issues
the United States Dis-
trict
. . .
Court.
Since,
case,
usual
no not already passed
the state courts will remain, he
is thereby effectively deprived forum for the
adjudication of his federal claims.”
There are fundamental objections
any
conclusion
that a litigant who has properly
jurisdiction
invoked the
of a Federal District Court to consider federal constitu
tional claims can be' compelled, without his consent and
through no fault of his own,
accept
instead
court’s determination of those claims.5 Such a result
would be at war with
unqualified
terms which Con
gress, pursuant
to constitutional authorization, has con
ferred specific categories of jurisdiction upon the federal
courts, and with
principle
“When Federal court
is properly appealed
in a
case over which it
law-
jurisdiction,
is its duty to take
jurisdiction
such
....
The right of a party plaintiff to choose a Federal court
where
is a
there
choice cannot be properly denied.” Will
cox v. Consolidated
Co.,
Gas
U. S.
Nor
does
anything in the abstention doctrine require
support
such a result. Abstention is a judge-fashioned vehicle for
according appropriate deference to
“respective
com
petence of the state and federal
systems.”
Lou
isiana P. & L. Co.
Thibodaux,
Accordingly, involve cоurse, of not, “does abstention nized that postpone- only but jurisdiction, of federal abdication 167, S. NAACP, 360 U. v. Harrison exercise.” of its ment Thibodaux, supra, Co. L. P. & accord, v. Louisiana 177; at 29.7 S., 360 U. determination post-abstention after that, true
It is by the his federal claims of rejection NAACP this Court. direct review seek could litigant County Northampton 415; v. Button, Lassiter S.U. v. review, even But such Elections, 45. 360 U. S. Board of only discre- rather than by appeal available when substitute inadequate is an certiorari, of tionary writ determination —often District Court initial for the litigant §C. 2281—to 28 U. S. judges, three to issues This is true as courts. is entitled Limiting fact. to issues true as especially it is law; him the benefit deny here would litigant to review record constructing a role in court’s trial a federal will often found facts are findings. How fact making typical, is the claims. “It of federal the decision dictate The Federalism: Co-operative Judicial Kurland, Toward See 481, D. 487. Doctrine, 24 F. R. Abstention Federal involving un only contemplates “that controversies doctrine state tribunals [may] decided in the be questions of state law settled underlying fed consideration preliminary to a federal court’s Tel. City Southern Bell Meridian questions,” v. constitutional eral 640; 639, Co., “that & Tel. controlling is authori state-law issue potentially until the be deferred Pipe Ideal Cement Line v. rest,” Co. tatively put United Gas 135-136; do decide 134, federal courts “that Co., S. 369 U. guesses re preliminary constitutionality basis of on the questions of McLaughlin, Inc., Service, law,” Spector Motor garding local exposed to should 105; these enactments “that U. S. interpretation federal courts are limiting before the construction NAACP, constitutionality,” upon their Harrison decide asked 360 U.
not the in rare, case which constitutional claims upon turn the resolution of contested factual issues.” Townsend Sain, 372 S.U. 293, 312. always “There is in litiga- tion a margin of error, representing error in factfind- ing ....” Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. Thus cases where, but for the application of the abstention doc- trine, the primary fact determination by would have been the District Court, litigant a may unwillingly de- prived of that determination.8 The possibility of appel- late by review this Court of a state court determination may not be substituted, against a party’s wishes, for his right to litigate his federal claims fully in the federal courts. We made this clear only last Term in NAACP v. Button, supra, 371 S.,U. at 427, when we said that “a party has right to return to the District Court, after obtaining the authoritative state court construction for which the court abstained, final determination of his claim.”
We also made in Button, clear however, that a party may elect to forgo right. holding Our in that case was that a judgment of the Supreme Virginia Appeals upon federal issues submitted to the state tri- by bunals parties remitted there under the abstention doc- trine was “final” fоr purposes of our review under 28 U. S. C. § 1257. In so determining, we held that petitioner had elected “to seek a complete and final ad- judication of rights in [its] the state courts” and thus not to return to the District Court, and had manifested this election “by seeking from the Richmond Circuit Court ‘a binding adjudication’ of all its claims and per-
8Even where fact findings on federal constitutional contentions are for state tribunals to make in the first instance, as in state criminal prosecutions, they are not immune, when brought into corpus, habeas from District Court consideration and, in proper cases, de from novo consideration. Townsend Sain, U. S. 312-319. mak- by relief, declaratory as well injunction manent case entire disposition ing no reservation certio- directly coming here and recog- rule fashioned We 427-428. at S., 371 U. rari.” inconsistency no sawwe because an election nizing such to de- litigant allowing doctrine abstention compelled abstained once cide, aban- event, to any proceed him to submit forum *7 a federal of choice original his don opportunity on the relying state to the case entire on his decision if directly here to come litigant by a choice a him. Such against go claims should expense to and delay much to avoid serves gives inevitably doctrine abstention application no see made, we voluntarily choice when rise; effect. given not be it should why reason if steps, what determine need to Button, no hadwe In would there petitioner by the taken those short any, where case, instant The election. manifest suffice to Court to this directly come to attempt not did appellants such requires Court, District to return to sought but bright and be drawn should line a determination. to from federal shunted litigants so clear, ex- not doctrine abstention of the by application but also delay, expense unusual only not posed, their them of deprive operating traps procedural determination Court ato District right what nothing short argued that might be It claims.9 litigant should suffice—that Button should done was he unless Court the District return right to retain tribunals the state claims his federal litigates only not But in this Court.10 decision review seeks but L. Reconsidered, Tex. Doctrine Wright, The Abstention Cf. (1959). 815, 825 Rev. District litigant to return permitted even One case Tribune See sought denied here. was although review Court we see no reason why a party, after unreservedly litigating his federal claims in the state courts although not re- quired to do so, should be ignore allowed to the adverse state decision and start all again over in the District Court. Such a rule would only countenance an un- necessary increase in the length and cost of the litigation; it would also be a potential source of friction be- tween the state and federal judiciаries. We implicitly rejected such rule in Button, when we stated party forgo elects to right his to return to the District a decision “to seek a complete and final adjudication of his rights in the state courts.” We now explicitly hold if a party freely and without reserva- tion submits his federal claims for decision state courts, litigates them there, and has them decided there, then —whether or not seeks he direct review of the state this Court —he has forgo elected to right to return to District Court.
This
requires
rule
clarification of our decision in Gov
ernment Employees Windsor,
Despite these uncertainties arising from application of Windsor —which decision, we repeat, does not require that federal claims be actually litigated in the state courts —a party may readily forestall any conclusion that he has elected not to return to the District Court. He may ac- complish this by making on the state record the “reserva- tion to the disposition of the entire case by the state courts” that we referred to in Button. That is, he may inform the state courts that he is exposing his federal claims there only for the purpose of complying with Windsor, and that he intends, should the state courts hold against him on the question of state law, return to the District Court for disposition of his federal contentions. Such an explicit reservation is not indispensable; the liti- gant is in no event to be denied his right to return to the District Court unless it clearly appears that he volun- tarily did more than Windsor required and fully litigated his federal claims in the state courts.12 When the reserva- 12It has suggested been that state may “take no pleas more ure than do federal courts in deciding piecemeal cases . . .” and “probably prefer to determine of law complete records of cases in they can enter judgments final before them.” Clay v. Sun Ins. Office,363 U. 207, S. 227 (dissenting opinion). We are confident that state courts, sharing the abstention doctrine’s purpose of “furthering the harmonious relation between state and federal authority,” Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. respect litigant’s reservation of his federal claims . for deci- sion the federal Spector courts. See Motor Service, Inc., v. Walsh,
422 inwill return however, right to his made, been has
tion preserved.13 all events announce we rule the case, instant record theOn Court’s District the of affirmance for call would today against rule the apply unwilling to arewe But judgment. reason primary their noted, have As we appellants. these was courts state the in claims federal litigating so.14 do to them required Windsor that view assertedly a litigants other avail not will mistaken, and was view That cannot we But decision. today’s it after rely upon who respect- by the view given support the of face the in say, appellants that below, court the including authorities, able We it. acting upon or holding it unreasonable were have not should Court District the hold therefore party a However, evidence 89, 92. 2d 40-41, A. 61 Conn. 135 claims federal his litigate to courts state the by compelled been has voluntarily done has he finding that a preclude of course will there question state the decide to declined has court state the ifAnd so. the reservation without to submit refusal litigant’s the because alternative no have will District well, the question as federal abstention. order its to vacate but litigation. the to any party 13 made may be reservation The litigate to original choice the made have will plaintiff Usually the removal by virtue also, defendant the court, but federal the federal litigate the right to a (b), has S. C. § jurisdiction, court, no federal the joined in been issue Once question there. binding upon objection, insist, another’s over to entitled party is while Thus, question. federal determination court state claims federal litigates his unreservedly who plaintiff to return right to own his 'forgo thereby elect may right of corresponding impair cannot Court, he District declining by either right may protect latter The defendant. opposing court claim plaintiff’s oppose course, be, of may well It reservation. appropriate deter party any reservation or a litigate refusal question. deciding from appellants instructing order, in abstention Court’s District The alone the state determination a state obtain misleading. also was presented,” here issues “the but dismissed their action. judgment is reversed, the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent opinion. with this
It is so ordered. Mr. Douglas, Justice concurring.
The judge-made rule we today promises announce hаve such a serious impact litigants who are properly in the federal courts I think a reappraisal of Railroad Comm’n v. Co., Pullman U. S. from which today’s decision stems, necessary. is Although the propriety of the Pullman either as doctrine, originally decided or as it has not evolved, been raised I parties, think it is time for the Court, sua sponte, to reevaluate it.
I.
The Pullman case,
a
decided
little over 20 years ago,
launched
experiment
in the management of federal-
state relations that has inappropriately been called the
“abstention doctrine.” There are numerous occasions
when a federal court abstains, dismissing an action or
declining to entertain it
a
because
state tribunal is a more
appropriate one for resolving the controversy. A bank-
ruptcy court commonly sends its trustee into state courts
to have complex questions of local
law adjudicated.
Thompson Magnolia
v.
Co.,
interfering with administrative state Where 293. S.U. Huffman, not normally court federal challenged, is action review court adequate is an there where intervene claim. constitutional federal any protective Comm’n Alabama 315; Co., 319 U. Oil Sun v. Burford could examples S.U. Co., 341 R. Southern hands-off adopts where multiplied tribunal. ato litigants remits policy different ais supra, Co., Pullman Comm’n Railroad abstain; not does There case. kind jurisdiction retains it complaint; dismiss does pre- obtain tribunal a state togo parties while judgment declaratory ruling —on liminary —a repair *12 them requiring for reason The questions. question a ruling on preliminary tribunal state the fed- challenged is law state the because is law state of is construed law if the grounds; constitutional eral disappear; may issue constitutional way, the one of if one only survive will constitutional The adopted. is constructions state-law more two neither “belongs local of meaning toas word” “last court supreme to but court district to nor us to at 500. S., case, U. Pullman said we Texas,” of concluded: We asked is equity of a federal situation “In this answer a tentative making issue an decide
to adjudi- aby tomorrow displaced may be which 177; Co., Packing Field Glenn cation. is of law reign The S.U. Bickell, 292 Lee a federal of ruling unnecessary if an promoted hardly of decision controlling aby supplanted is thus equal are equity of resources The court. tenta- aof waste avoid adjustment premature of a friction as the well tive Ibid. adjudication.” constitutional “with directions the case remanded therefore We proceedings, of a determination pending retain the bill in the state court promptness, reasonable brought Id., at 501-502. opinion.” conformity with this II. Pullman launched a member of the Court
I was creature if I had realized way. But and sent it on its deeper far have been would become, my doubts it was to they than were. qualities some to have from the start seemed
Pullman Ins. Clay v. Sun As I said luxury. legal of a research opinion): (dissenting Office, Many, however, long purses. litigants have “Some alone, two. Shut- lawsuit, let afford one hаrdly can tri- and federal between state tling parties justice. ends of defeating way bunals is sure not an academic exercise. pursuit justice The resolution to finance the no foundations There are liti- in federal court involved nice state law unique and parties are entitled —absent gation. rights of their adjudication rare situations —to act.” empowered Congress tribunals E. Judge late Charles Clark recently stated As “As a Appeals, result Circuit Court of the Second back *13 have been shuffled doctrine, litigants individual this and have and federal cases and between state forth Fed- eight- ten-year periods.” over dragged out been 40 Tex. L. Rights, and States’ eral Procedural Reform (1961). 221 211, Rev. that Wright described the results
Professor A. Charles a suit to applied this doctrine was occurred when restricting the enforcement of state statute enjoin “. . . after employees join unions:1 rights 1 Windsor, Employees 353 U. S. Government Suрreme including trips to the two litigation, years five highest and two States of the United Court obtain had failed to still parties court, Doctrine The Abstention of the statute.” the merits (1959). 37 Tex. L. Rev. Reconsidered, it at simple so case raises This is The question on the insubstantial. verges least Stat., La. Act, Practice Rev. Medical Louisiana’s whether as seg. includes chiropractors practitioners et § 37:1261 Examiners, Board of Medical The State of medicine. they are included. State, says that representing the they are, if say they and, are not chiropractors in May started The case was unconstitutional. Act is without a years later nearly we are seven 1957, and here merits. decision on the pay for our unnecessary price
That seems like declaratory rul courts for Referral to state federalism. encourage a smooth questions is said to ings on state may as avoid clashes be operation federalism, of our been systems. always two But there have tween the always be; and the influence of the clashes been de minimis. More Pullman doctrine think, I has, complexity judges of local law to federal is over, the system designed by in the federal court inherent implicit of local law Congress. Resolution Erie R. Co. diversity citizenship jurisdiction. Since Tompkins, the federal under that U. courts jurisdiction daily determining head of have the task of what the state law is. The fact those questions are complex and difficult is no excuse for a refusal the Dis to entertain the suit. Meredith v. Winter trict Haven, S. 228. there said: We diversity jurisdiction
“The was not conferred for the benefit the federal serve purpose Its convenience. generally was to afford to *14 option, in cases, at opportunity such suitors than in the in rather rights the federal to assert their Id,., Allegheny at 234. And see courts.” state Co., Mashuda County who and when one is hоw presented now rather than to in “the federal “option” sue asserts the state court who remitted to courts,” but return ruling, right loses his to preliminary for a on the constitutional adjudication for a final federal court issues. Clark, if, we said that 472, 491,
In Propper v. courts, to the state the latter on referral of a discrete issue controversy, “complete adjudication of the required stay pro- perhaps compelled would District Court jurisdiction.” its own ceedings protect in the state fragment say, “Otherwise, sending on to We went might find the federal court litigation court, to state judicata, result itself blocked res with the from the controversy federal would be ousted entire by Congress.” Id., at placed federal where was 491-492. As the
Today put jurisdiction jeopardy. we advantages federally in a con- says many there are appointed Moreover, judges structed record. likely rights enforce constitutiоnal life are more than Madison unpopular judges. minorities elected creation of lower federal problem stated the when the being courts was mooted: was to improper
“What be done after verdicts, obtained the biased tribunals, under directions judge, or the local of an dependent prejudices To jury? undirected remand the cause for a new no purpose. trial would answer To a new trial order supreme oblige parties bar would bring at witnesses, though ever distant up their so from the *15 establish- judiciary An effective the court. seat was authority, legislative to the ment, commensurate execu- proper without government A essential. a body, trunk the mere would be judiciary tive 5 Elliot’s or move.” legs act arms without p. 159. (Lipp. 1941), ed. Debates a share criticism come for judges have Federal racial issues being that at charge times regard, this be law to often “suffered too they have Federal and the Lusky, Racial Discrimination flouted.” at That times (1963). L. Rev. Law, Col. vantage point from this But the case. may be outstand- seems of law over-all rule to the devotion command courts lose their to let federal ing. We stand today. The Court we do litigation by what over critical goes to the though litigant that, holds fed- right to return to loses his involuntarily, he and the question local law if he submits the eral court without tribunal to the state constitutional federal forum to the right to return reserving his necessary to submit It will often adjudication. final ques- light of the constitutional the local law of Gov- light do so in prudent will be tions. Indeed Windsor, we'ruled, supra, where Employees ernment Supreme Court Alabama adjudication “The bare suffice, not Act does subject is to this the union statute interpret was asked to not since that objections presented constitutional light at 366. S., 353 U. District Court.” by the fed- if a who is sent party, we now hold Yet ruling, prеliminary for a state courts court to the eral is, courts —that to those problem whole submits the of the state as well the bare bones constitutional case try elected to is to have presumed question —he he ex- than in the unless there rather tribunal. right to return to the federal pressly reserved Perhaps consequences Court does that avoid the judicata. judicata res But res constitutional principle; higher dignity it has no we principle than the Clark, today. In we said that Propper supra, announce judicata avoid res stay the District Court should proceedings. Better that approve judge- we procedure overlay made than to the treacherous require- ment of judge-made the Pullman case this new requirement. *16 something
What we do today makes the Pullman case Any of a Frankenstein. the presumption should work way go other who is required he to to the state —that require gets courts аnd what we him do when does he there, voluntarily is not there and does not forsake something unless does in suit, he the state courts required is not to do and that an election he evinces litigate finally preliminarily the matter and not state courts. and when he
As, if, procedure exhausts the state Button, here, decides to come as was done in NAACP v. he has elected to abandon federal for Id., But state forum. at 428. short of he sel- that, made,such dom can be said to have an election. For when he pursues through the matter hierarchy of the state doing only required he he is to do. The what only goes he beyond time when requirement is when he takes in leading the fork the road here rather than the one to the District Court.
III. If the Pullman doctrine is to be preserved, we should lighten rather than ponderous make more procedures which imposing. we have been We have made Pullman discretionary, not mandatory, with the District Courts. As stated Louisiana P. L. Thibodaux, & Co. v. . 25, 28, required U. S. “. . we have District Courts, their discre- an exercise merely sanctioned sub- pending stay proceedings tionary power, determination.” to state law of the state mission controversy whole with ease matter the no So, expen- weary and sent their are resolved, parties can be not we Whether tribunals. the state way into sive in- case present Black Mr. Justice agree certainly borders question, no substantial volves if it has that Court, District and a insubstantial; on the to decide discretion its be allowed should case, view of com- litigation avoiding the state once, at whole case or in the Court here of interference pletely —free Appeals. doctrine, Pullman moreover, extended have,
We Clark, Propper prior our contrary to no shadow cases that involve 491-492, at supra, only local issue but constitutional a substаntial Louisiana domain.2 of eminent field my Brother Thibodaux, As supra. L. Co. v. P. & case: in that in dissent said Brennan area out a new to carve attempts . the Court “. . *17 by the federal though adjudication an which, even con- of federal the decision require not would with the create friction nor questions, stitutional abnegate encouraged to are courts State, the federal S., 360 diversity cases.” U. responsibilities their 36-37. at to antipathy reflects doctrine Pullman
Thus questions. on state passing courts federal 2 shuttle over have used doctrine federal courts Some involving yet con properly in the federal cases courts (see meaning Mot of state law on dependent issues stitutional McGohey, 187 301; & v. Kaufman, 2d Co. F. tolese 176 v. Beiersdorf remedy baldly deny granted a suitor the 14) 2dF. —decisions judge district is not convenient Congress because the case. decide
431 IV. federal between clashes been historic have
There See War needless. of them States, some аnd the courts L. 43 Harv. Interference, State and Federal ren, Thus numerous. are examples (1930). 345 Rev. interfered injunctions, with easy courts, free federal of efforts orders,3 with rate utility public with wholesale in state and with suits revenue,4 to collect the States supra, Tompkins, Co. v. to Erie R. Prior courts.5 rule earlier 74) of the S., at (304 U. results” “mischievous apparent, were Tyson, 1, 16 Pet. of Swift defeating law” often “general of formulation by their Federal at 73-78. S., 304 U. policies. legitimate of the Fourteenth Process Clause Due inflating the reviewing super-legislature, sort became Amendment, g., e. See, of state law. variety a wide the wisdom Baking v. Co. 45; Burns York, 198 U. New S. Lochner 504. Bryan, 264 S. U. as a result sometimes ended, have chapters
Those consequence as a at other housekeeping,6 times judicial are clashes mostly remain What legislation.7 of federal in the Nation inherent State between and conflicts sys- a referee thе functions performance of the effort consequence the unavoidable was Such tem. Gibbons at least beginning Court, Marshall 3 Rep. 2-4; Sess., pp. H. R. Cong., 1st 701, Rep. 72d S. No. See Cong., Rep. 73d 2-3; Sess., pp. S. No. Cong., 2d 1194, 73d No. 1342. 1934, 28 S. C. § Act of Johnson pp. on the Sess., 3-9 1st the Tax Sess., p. Cong., 1st 1035, 75th Rep. S. No. See C. 1341. 1937. Injunction § Act of 118; 28 U. C. Co., S. Ins. 314 U. Toucey York v. New See Life ' § 421; Missouri, U. S. Inc., *18 Lighting, v. Day-Brite g., See, e. Skrupa, 490; Ferguson v. S. Storage Co., 336 U. Empire Giboney v. S. 726. 372 U. 7 supra. 5, 3, 4, and
433 If we are to retain the doctrine, Pullman we should weight by today’s it down like decision, procedures, which, make it a for trap unwary. evolved,
The Pullman as it has is the least doctrine, better, think, desirable alternative. It is I for the fed- eral courts to decide local as questions, they law cus- tomarily diversity do adding the foot of cases, at Mr. writing decree as Justice for a Cardozo, unan- Bickell, Court, imous did Lee 292 415, v. U. S. 426: parties . . that any the suit or of them may apply any time below, by at to the court bill or as otherwise, they may advised, for a further order or decree, case it shall appear that the statute has been then by highest construed Florida applicable to the in controversy transactions here.” Another alternative is for the District Court to follow the certificate route, when one is available. The Florida 9 10 Supreme Court is provide authorized by Rule
9 Ann., 1955, §25.031, provides: Stat. Fla. supreme “The may, provide court of this court, rule that, appear supreme when it shall to the court of States, the United any appeals circuit court of of the States, United or to the court appeals Columbia, District of there are involved in any proceeding questions propositions before it or of the laws of this state, which are determinative of the cause, said and there are no controlling precedents clear supreme the decisions of the court of statе, appellate may certify this such federal questions such or propositions supreme of the laws of this state to the court of this concerning state for questions instructions propositions such or law, supreme which certificate the state, by court of this written opinion, may answer.” Kurland, Co-operative
See Toward A Judicial Federalism, 24 F. R. 481, (1959); Note, D. 489-490 (1960). Harv. L. Rev. Appellate Rule 4.61 of the provides: Florida Rules appear “When it Supreme shall States, of the United any Appeal or to of the Courts of of the United States that there are any proceeding questions involved in before it propositions of law of this state which are determinative of said cause and that there law concerning state answering certificates procedure11 useWe courts. the federal tendered Tallahassee, (Dresner perplexities on Florida 249). Aldrich, 375 U. 136; Aldrich procedure; such provide the States require cannot We *20 courts the federal of independence asserting the but encourage will we adjudications prompt on insisting and use. its
Y. doc- of the Pullman application today’s decision, After contro- particularly rights, of civil the field trine to I have, Negroes, will rights involving the versies NAACP, 360 U. S. Harrison v. effects. think, serious things to harbingers of Button, are supra, v. and NAACP filed November cases was in those complaint The come. announced was not on the merits and our 28,1956, seven nearly words, In other January 14, 1963. until litigation and of the the institution elapsed between years product could The end merits. on the adjudication and between Nation collision sizable described still be State. and convicted prosecuted are Negroes where
Cases Court, to this way expeditiously find their can state courts Yet in- questions. constitutional they present provided rights pro- in judicial Negroes assert stanсes where will Those suits be numerous. ceedings will continue in the Federal always instituted and almost be civil ones Supreme controlling precedents in the decisions clear are no may certify appellate such state, such this Supreme Court of of this propositions state propositions concerning questions or such instructions Florida for law.” coming here, on cases respects from state courts certificates As 77; King Pitcairn, 325 U. S. Order Herb see Wechsler, Hart and The Federal Courts Travelers, 153, 160; (1953), pp. System 444r-446. the Federal and Courts, District since those courts a special have com- petence the field and a independence record of protec- rights tive of the of unpopular litigation minorities. That more often than not entails construction of statutes, city ordinances, state court rulings of decisions, administrative and commissions, the like. Under Pullman doctrine a Negrо who starts in the federal court soon finds himself the state court and journey there may be not only weary expensive and long but also and drawn out. There will no be inclination to expedite his case. The whole weight of the quo status be delay side of procrastination. today What we do adds to the toll that the Pullman doctrine will take of rights. civil Bar is now told if one repairs to the state submits the state law along with the
federal constitutional questions, he will presumed *21 have to pursue elected the state remedy, unless makes he purpose clear a to return to the federal court when the state court ruling. has made its I gather without that, reservation, the record will be taken to mean that “he voluntarily litigated his federal claims the courts.” ifOr, forgets he or fails to make such reserva- tion, preserve he can still right to return to the federal by doing court what the says Court now required is of him by Windsor. For today he is told instead of submitting his federal claims to be “litigated,” may he submit his state only for consideration “in light of” the federal questions. Those who read this opinion may adequate have warning. But this opinion, like most, will an become obscure one—little known to Lawyers the Bar. do not keep up with all the nuances of opinions, court especially those touching on as exotic a rule of federal procedure as the one which we evolve today. I fear therefore that the rule we announce today will be a veritable trap. being of litigants the value recognizes
The a federal of “the benefit says, As it court. in the federal making and record constructing a role court’s trial litigant A Ante, at 416. considerable. findings” fact himself find may proceedings in state trapped appellate no fact findings of by veritably encased independence value disturb. may local from escape value judges, considerable made аre are findings fact when prejudices values those today, announce we the rule under Yet ones. rights. of civil areas important be lost promise to by spun of the evils one as element time mention I noxious particularly Time doctrine. Pullman prob- where questions, rights civil explosive on effect law takes and the high pile grievances only festers lem be what should years to decide pace expensive slow, its promptly. decided perti- apt and made an E. Clark Charles Judge
The late doctrine. the Pullman impact nent observation seems be inevitably upshot “the said, he times, At judg- a defendant’s language, plain inor, negative sponsors, doctrine Pullman Delay which ment.” defend- “a renders entrenched quo status keeps the re- of constitutional face even judgment” ant’s what we compounded all are These evils quirements. pro- seeking litigants likely that making it today, do civil of their for аssertion of the federal tection passage slowly down ground rights13 will *22 L. Objectivity, Am. II. Rev. 12 of Judicial Clark, The Limits (1963). 1, 5 13 the Judi the Revision of Jurisdiction'and Wechsler, Federal See discussing (1948) Problems, 216, 229-230 Cont. Code, L. & 13 cial whereby Pullman doctrine proposed codification only in limited situations: jurisdiction retain would in one instance: qualification for call “These observations Rights by Congress in the Civil specially conferred rights of action
437 in expenditure money proceedings, time and the in remedy many cases, at least leaving here, the ultimate illusory one. Black, concurring part dissenting Mr. Justice in and in part.
I
join
judgment
opinion
insofar as the
holds
the District Court erred
the reasons
gave
dismissing appellants’
action.
I am of the
opinion, however, that
the dismissal should be affirmed
on the grounds
upon by Judge
Skelly Wright
relied
J.
sitting alone
the District Court when the action first
brought:
was
complaint
that the
failed to
substan
tial
question warranting
exercise of jurisdiсtion.
Collenberg,
See Hitchcock v.
Supp.
(D.
140
894
C. D.
F.
Md.), aff’d, 353 U. S.
cf. Ex
919;
parte Poresky, 290 U. S.
Compare
Louisiana State Board Medical Exam
Fife,
iners v.
162 La.
So. 58, aff’d,
720;
S.U.
Virginia,
Dent v. West