Birdsong's Law Blog

Birdsong has a question for all you Constitutional Law students out there — how much do you know about the Abstention Doctrine? 

If the answer is you never heard of it.  You had better read some of the following Birdsong article before you take your Con Law final exam! 

Here is the article: 

COMITY AND OUR FEDERALISM IN THE  

TWENTY FIRST CENTURY: THE ABSTENTION 

 DOCTRINES WILL ALWAYS BE WITH US –

GET OVER IT!!

By: Leonard Birdsong^**

© 2002

                        I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………..1

                        II. THE CLASSIC ABSTENTION CASES…………………………………………………………………..3

                                        A. PULLMAN ABSTENTION………………………………………………………………………4

                                        B. BURFORD ABSTENTION……………………………………………………………………….7

                                        C. COLORADO RIVER ABSTENTION…………………………………………………………8

                                        D. YOUNGER ABSTENTION…………………………………………………………………….10

                        III. SOME CRITICISMS OF THE ABSTENTION DOCTRINES………………………………….13

                        IV. THE ABSTENTION DOCTRINE IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY……………….20

                                        A. OVERVIEW………………………………………………………………………………………….21

                                        B. PULLMAN IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY……………………………………21

                                        C. BURFORD IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY……………………………………37

                                        D. COLORADO RIVER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY……………………..47

                                        E. YOUNGER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY…………………………………..56

                        V. THE TALLY ON ABSTENTION IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY…………………68

                        VI.. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………76

      I. INTRODUCTION 

            In the United States we are blessed – or cursed – with a legal system that contemplates parallel judicial processes.  We have a federal court system and each state has a separate state court system.  Since 1941 there has been considerable recognition of circumstances under which a federal court may decline to proceed though it has jurisdiction under the Constitution and federal statutes.¹ The cases in which this has been recognized are usually referred to as the “abstention doctrine.”² The abstention doctrine prohibits a federal court from deciding a case within its jurisdiction so that a state court can resolve some or all of the dispute.³  The purpose of such doctrine is to  preserve the balance between state and federal sovereignty.⁴ This constitutional balance is often referred to as federalism or comity.⁵ Scholars have come to refer to not one, but a number of various types of cases which reflect various notions of comity for purposes of abstention.  In practice it is more precise to refer to the “abstention doctrines”.  These abstention doctrine cases reflect a complex of considerations designed to avoid friction between federal and state courts.⁶

               Earlier today (June 26, 2008) the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case styled District of Columbia v. Heller, overturned the ban on handgun ownership in Washington, D.C. that had existed since 1976.

  The Court found that the ban was violative of the 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.  Writing for the majority in the 5-4 decision Justice Scalia held that citizens had the right to have handguns in their homes for their own self defense.

Although not a great gun rights person, Birdsong actually believes the Court made the right call. 

THE LAW IS AN ASS

By Birdsong 3/30/08