I forgot to turn the audio on--apologies. Pullman/Statutory is done; papers due next Monday--you can write about Pullman. We will have one final word about Pullman, going to Alex's question.
We then turn to the remaining Abstention doctrines--Younger, Colorado, International Comity, and Burford.
We will move to the next panel and the judge-made abstention doctrines (Colorado, Burford, and international comity). What are the elements of each of these? What are the similarities between Colorado River and international comity abstention? What factors and principles do courts balance as to each?
What should happen in the following case:
A, a US citizen, sues X, a Japanese citizen, in federal court on an antitrust claim; the court enters judgment for A and awards $ 10 million dollars.
X sues A in a Japanese court under Japan's "clawback" statute, which allows a Japanese citizen to recover under Japanese law the amount owed on a federal antitrust judgment.
A asks the federal court to enjoin X from proceeding with the Japanese action. Can it issue the injunction?
Read the pfander section on Younger (pp. 371-81). Consider the following cases:
1)
Andrew Warren, the Hillsborough County State Attorney, was suspended
from office by Gov. DeSantis, a first step under state law to removing
him from office under the governor's authority to remove certain
officials for "misfeasance, neglect of duty, or incompetence." Warren
brings a § 1983/EpY action against DeSantis, alleging the
suspension violates the First Amendment. He also believes that nothing
he did constitutes "misfeasance, neglect of duty, or incompetence." Suspension triggers a Senate trial, in which the Senate will review the Governor's decision and either reinstate Warren or remove him from office.
2) Harris is prosecuted in state court under an anti-Communist law for engaging in the constitutionally protected speech of advocating the overthrow of capitalism. Harris sues Younger (the district attorney) in federal court, alleging a First Amendment violation and seeking to enjoin Younger from enforcing the law.
3) After his victory in the Supreme Court, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop declines a request to bake a cake celebrating a customer's male-to-female transition. The customer complains to the state Civil Rights Commission, which commences a proceeding under the state public accommodations law. Phillips sues the the head of the Commission in federal court, alleging the new proceeding violates the First Amendment (as determined by SCOTUS in his prior case) and seeking to enjoin it.
4) 3 companies--Tim-Rob, M&L, and Salem--operate nude dancing establishments in a town. The town passes an ordinance prohibiting nude dancing. The companies sue, claiming the ordinance violates the First Amendment; they seek a TRO (which is denied), DJ, and Preliminary injunction. The day after filing, M&L resumes nude dancing and is ticketed; Salem and Tim-Rob comply with the ordinance. The city moves for Younger abstention.
What is the connection between Younger and § 2283? How does the requirement that the state proceeding be "pending" affect abstention?
