Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/452/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:23:08+00:00

Document:
A federal court has the authority to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of a state criminal law, even if no prosecution is pending but merely threatened.
Steffel circulated handbills that protested the Vietnam War on the sidewalk of a shopping center. He was told twice that he could be arrested and charged if he continued to distribute them. Steffel ceased his activities and sued for a declaratory judgment in federal court on the grounds that the Georgia criminal trespass law infringed on his First Amendment rights. He argued that he should receive an injunction that would prevent Thompson and other state officials from enforcing the law in this situation. The lower court dismissed the case, ruling that he needed to show bad-faith harassment when seeking declaratory relief or an injunction.
Federal courts generally should not issue injunctions against ongoing criminal prosecutions in state courts, but they may consider whether a state criminal law is unconstitutional without violating principles of equity, comity, and federalism. This is true whether the challenge is facial or as applied, as long as the plaintiff can show that there is a real threat of prosecution. Declaratory relief may be sought even if the plaintiff cannot meet the irreparable injury standard required to receive an injunction. State prosecutors can continue to use a statute as the basis for a state prosecution even if a federal court issues a declaratory judgment that it is unconstitutional, since declaratory relief is a less drastic remedy that does not interfere with proceedings in state courts.
It will be rare for a plaintiff to be able to show that there is a genuine threat of prosecution under the challenged law, but the majority is correct in using this standard to determine whether declaratory relief may be available.
If a federal court issues a declaratory judgment that a state criminal law is unconstitutional, it should prevent a prosecution under that law in a state court because of its res judicata effect. The federal court that issued this judgment also should be able to issue an injunction against a state court where the plaintiff is being prosecuted for this conduct. Judicial economy also supports refusing to dismiss this type of case in federal court when a state prosecution is filed after the federal case is brought and has proceeded far enough.
A state should be allowed to bring charges against an individual who is simultaneously challenging the constitutionality of the criminal law in a federal court. Declaratory judgments are not meant to protect criminal defendants with immunity through the federal judicial system. They would be inappropriate if the plaintiff is arrested before the federal case has concluded. This means that a person who has violated a law after initiating a federal case seeking declaratory relief may be prosecuted at the state level and subsequently be subject to having the federal case dismissed.
In some situations, this rule may extend to civil proceedings that have an impact similar to a criminal case. Declaratory relief must be based on a showing that injunctive relief would be appropriate if a prosecution is already threatened.
Petitioner, who had twice been warned to stop handbilling on an exterior sidewalk of a shopping center against American involvement in Vietnam and threatened with arrest by police if he failed to do so, and whose companion continued handbilling and was charged with violating the Georgia criminal trespass law, brought an action for injunctive and declaratory relief in the District Court, claiming that application to him of that law would violate his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court dismissed the action, finding that "no meaningful contention can be made that the state has [acted] or will . . . act in bad faith," and therefore "the rudiments of an active controversy between the parties . . . [are] lacking." The Court of Appeals affirmed, being of the view that Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, made it clear that irreparable injury must be measured by bad faith harassment, and such a test must be applied to a request for injunctive relief against threatened, as well as pending, state court criminal prosecution; and that it followed from the reasoning of Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66, that the same test of bad faith harassment is a prerequisite for declaratory relief with respect to a threatened prosecution.
1. This case presents an "actual controversy" under Art. III of the Constitution and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, the alleged threats of prosecution in the circumstances alleged not being "imaginary or speculative" and it being unnecessary for petitioner to expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to make his constitutional challenge. Whether the controversy remains substantial and continuing in the light of the effect of the recent reduction of the Nation's involvement in Vietnam on petitioner's desire to engage in the handbilling at the shopping center must be resolved by the District Court on remand. Pp. 415 U. S. 458-460.
enforcement or other special circumstances has not been made. Pp. 415 U. S. 460-473.
(b) Even if the Court of Appeals correctly viewed injunctive relief as inappropriate (a question not reached here, petitioner having abandoned his request for that remedy), the court erred in treating the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief as a single issue and in holding that a failure to demonstrate irreparable injury precluded the granting of declaratory relief. Congress plainly intended that a declaratory judgment be available as a milder alternative than the injunction to test the constitutionality of state criminal statutes. Pp. 415 U. S. 462-473.
3. In determining whether it is appropriate to grant declaratory relief when no state criminal proceeding is pending, it is immaterial whether the attack is made on the constitutionality of a state criminal statute on its face or as applied. Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611, distinguished. Pp. 415 U. S. 473-475.
459 F.2d 919, reversed and remanded.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. STEWART, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., joined, post, p. 415 U. S. 475. WHITE, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 415 U. S. 476. REHNQUIST, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., joined, post, p. 415 U. S. 478.
When a state criminal proceeding under a disputed state criminal statute is pending against a federal plaintiff at the time his federal complaint is filed, Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66 (1971), held, respectively, that, unless bad faith enforcement or other special circumstances are demonstrated, principles of equity, comity, and federalism preclude issuance of a federal injunction restraining enforcement of the criminal statute and, in all but unusual circumstances, a declaratory judgment upon the constitutionality of the statute. This case presents the important question reserved in Samuels v. Mackell, id. at 401 U. S. 73-74, whether declaratory relief is precluded when a state prosecution has been threatened, but is not pending, and a showing of bad faith enforcement or other special circumstances has not been made.
First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and an injunction restraining respondents -- the solicitor of the Civil and Criminal Court of DeKalb County, the chief of the DeKalb County Police, the owner of the North DeKalb Shopping Center, and the manager of that shopping center -- from enforcing the statute so as to interfere with petitioner's constitutionally protected activities.
We granted certiorari, 410 U.S. 953 (1973), and now reverse.
Unlike three of the appellees in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. at 401 U. S. 41, petitioner has alleged threats of prosecution that cannot be characterized as "imaginary or speculative," id. at 401 U. S. 42. He has been twice warned to stop handbilling that he claims is constitutionally protected, and has been told by the police that, if he again handbills at the shopping center and disobeys a warning to stop, he will likely be prosecuted. The prosecution of petitioner's handbilling companion is ample demonstration that petitioner's concern with arrest has not been "chimerical," Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 508 (1961). In these circumstances, it is not necessary that petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional right. See, e.g., Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97 (1968). Moreover, petitioner's challenge is to those specific provisions of state law which have provided the basis for threats of criminal prosecution against him. Cf. Boyle v. Landry, 401 U. S. 77, 401 U. S. 81 (1971); Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S. 387, 313 U. S. 399-400 (1941).
"a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment."
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 312 U. S. 273 (1941); see Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 389 U. S. 244 n. 3 (1967).
We now turn to the question of whether the District Court and the Court of Appeals correctly found petitioner's request for declaratory relief inappropriate.
"will result in precisely the same interference with and disruption of state proceedings that the longstanding policy limiting injunctions was designed to avoid."
"in cases where the state criminal prosecution was begun prior to the federal suit, the same equitable principles relevant to the propriety of an injunction must be taken into consideration by federal district courts in determining whether to issue a declaratory judgment. . . ."
Id. at 401 U. S. 73.
"We express no view about the circumstances under which federal courts may act when there is no prosecution pending in state courts at the time the federal proceeding is begun."
401 U.S. at 401 U. S. 41. See also id. at 401 U. S. 55 (STEWART and Harlan, JJ., concurring); id. at 401 U. S. 57 (BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., concurring). Similarly, in Samuels v. Mackell, the Court stated: .
of declaratory relief when no state proceeding is pending at the time the federal suit is begun."
401 U.S. at 401 U. S. 73-74. See also id. at 401 U. S. 55 (STEWART and Harlan, JJ., concurring); id. at 401 U. S. 75-76 (BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., concurring).
These reservations anticipated the Court's recognition that the relevant principles of equity, comity, and federalism "have little force in the absence of a pending state proceeding." Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U. S. 498, 406 U. S. 509 (1972). When no state criminal proceeding is pending at the time the federal complaint is filed, federal intervention does not result in duplicative legal proceedings or disruption of the state criminal justice system; nor can federal intervention, in that circumstance, be interpreted as reflecting negatively upon the state court's ability to enforce constitutional principles. In addition, while a pending state prosecution provides the federal plaintiff with a concrete opportunity to vindicate his constitutional rights, a refusal on the part of the federal courts to intervene when no state proceeding is pending may place the hapless plaintiff between the Scylla of intentionally flouting state law and the Charybdis of forgoing what he believes to be constitutionally protected activity in order to avoid becoming enmeshed in a criminal proceeding. Cf. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 380 U. S. 490 (1965).
injunctive relief, e.g., Dombrowski v. Pfister, supra -- it followed that declaratory relief was also inappropriate. Even if the Court of Appeals correctly viewed injunctive relief as inappropriate -- a question we need not reach today, since petitioner has abandoned his request for that remedy, see n 6 supra [Footnote 12] -- the court erred in treating the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief as a single issue.
"[W]hen no state prosecution is pending and the only question is whether declaratory relief is appropriate[,] . . . the congressional scheme that makes the federal courts the primary guardians of constitutional rights, and the express congressional authorization of declaratory relief, afforded because it is a less harsh and abrasive remedy than the injunction, become the factors of primary significance."
Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 401 U. S. 104 (1971) (separate opinion of BRENNAN, J.).
"ceased to be restricted tribunals of fair dealing between citizens of different states and became the primary and powerful reliances for vindicating every right given by the Constitution, the laws, and treaties of the United States."
future state criminal prosecutions under the unconstitutional Act -- have "established the modern framework for federal protection of constitutional rights from state interference." Perez v. Ledesma, supra, at 401 U. S. 107 (separate opinion of BRENNAN, J.).
U.S.C. §§ 2281, 1253. From a State's viewpoint the granting of injunctive relief -- even by these courts of special dignity -- "rather clumsily" crippled state enforcement of its statutes pending further review, see H.R.Rep. No. 288, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1928); H.R.Rep. No. 94, 71st Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1929); H.R.Rep. No. 627, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1932). Furthermore, plaintiffs were dissatisfied with this method of testing the constitutionality of state statutes, since it placed upon them the burden of demonstrating the traditional prerequisites to equitable relief -- most importantly, irreparable injury. See, e.g., Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240, 271 U. S. 243 (1926).
"[I]n 1934, without expanding or reducing the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts or in any way diminishing the continuing vitality of Ex parte Young with respect to federal injunctions, Congress empowered the federal courts to grant a new remedy, the declaratory judgment. . . . "
"The express purpose of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act was to provide a milder alternative to the injunction remedy. . . . Of particular significance on the question before us, the Senate report [S.Rep. No. 1005, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934)] makes it even clearer that the declaratory judgment was designed to be available to test state criminal statutes in circumstances where an injunction would not be appropriate. . . ."
"a federal district court has the duty to decide the appropriateness and the merits of the declaratory request irrespective of its conclusion as to the propriety of the issuance of the injunction."
"The Court has recognized that different considerations enter into a federal court's decision as to declaratory relief, on the one hand, and injunctive relief, on the other. Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 389 U. S. 252-255 (1967); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479 (1965)."
Roe v. Wade, supra, at 410 U. S. 166 (emphasis added). See Doe v. Bolton, supra, at 410 U. S. 201.
a view to the proper workings of a federal system. What is clear, however, is that, even though a declaratory judgment has 'the force and effect of a final judgment,' 28 U.S.C. § 2201, it is a much milder form of relief than an injunction. Though it may be persuasive, it is not ultimately coercive; noncompliance with it may be inappropriate, but is not contempt. [Footnote 19]"
Second, engrafting upon the Declaratory Judgment Act a requirement that all of the traditional equitable prerequisites to the issuance of an injunction be satisfied before the issuance of a declaratory judgment is considered would defy Congress' intent to make declaratory relief available in cases where an injunction would be inappropriate.
"Were the law to be that a plaintiff could not obtain a declaratory judgment that a local ordinance was unconstitutional when no state prosecution is pending unless he could allege and prove circumstances justifying a federal injunction of an existing state prosecution, the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act would have been pro tanto repealed."
having no equivalent in the law of declaratory judgments, see Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 300 U. S. 241 (1937); Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U. S. 249, 288 U. S. 264 (1933) -- precluded the granting of declaratory relief.
recognizing.the paramount role Congress has assigned to the federal courts to protect constitutional rights. See, e.g., McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668 (1963); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961). But exhaustion of state remedies is precisely what would be required if both federal injunctive and declaratory relief were unavailable in a case where no state prosecution had been commenced.
Respondents, however, relying principally upon our decision in Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611 (1968), argue that, although it may be appropriate to issue a declaratory judgment when no state criminal proceeding is pending and the attack is upon the facial validity of a state criminal statute, such a step would be improper where, as here, the attack is merely upon the constitutionality of the statute as applied, since the State's interest in unencumbered enforcement of its laws outweighs the minimal federal interest in protecting the constitutional rights of only a single individual. We reject the argument.
escape the finding that the State had no expectation of securing valid convictions."
Id. at 390 U. S. 621. Our holding in Cameron was thus that the state courts in which prosecutions were already pending would have to be given the first opportunity to correct any misapplication of the state criminal laws; Cameron is plainly not authority for the proposition that, in the absence of a pending state proceeding, a federal plaintiff may not seek a declaratory judgment that the state statute is being applied in violation of his constitutional rights.
We therefore hold that, regardless of whether injunctive relief may be appropriate, federal declaratory relief is not precluded when no state prosecution is pending and a federal plaintiff demonstrates a genuine threat of enforcement of a disputed state criminal statute, whether an attack is made on the constitutionality of the statute on its face or as applied. [Footnote 22] The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
"(a) A person commits criminal trespass when he intentionally damages any property of another without his consent and the damage thereto is $100 or less, or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without his consent."
"(b) A person commits criminal trespass when he knowingly and without authority:"
"(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person, or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person, for an unlawful purpose; or (2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person, or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person, after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or"
"(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person, or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person, after receiving notice from the owner or rightful occupant to depart."
"(c) A person convicted of criminal trespass shall be punished as for a misdemeanor."
At a hearing in the District Court, petitioner testified that, on another occasion, prior to June, 1970, he had also been threatened with arrest for handbilling at the shopping center. At that time, the police had shown him the statute they intended to enforce, presumably § 26-1503. R. 140-141.
We were advised at oral argument that the trial of petitioner's companion, Sandra Lee Becker, has been stayed pending decision of this case. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 31.
At the District Court hearing, counsel for the police officers indicated that arrests, in fact, would be made if warrants sworn out by shopping center personnel were facially proper. R. 134.
The complaint was initially styled as a class action. Named as plaintiffs were petitioner, a minor suing through his father; Sandra Lee Becker, petitioner's handbilling companion against whom a prosecution was pending under the Georgia statute, see n 3, supra, also a minor suing through her father; and the Atlanta Mobilization Committee. The complaint had also sought to enjoin plaintiff Becker's pending prosecution. Only petitioner appealed from the District Court's decision denying all relief.
Petitioner's notice of appeal challenged the denial of both injunctive and declaratory relief. However, in his appellate brief, he abandoned his appeal from denial of injunctive relief. Becker v. Thompson, 459 F.2d 919, 921 (CA5 1972).
Since the complaint had originally sought to enjoin enforcement of the state statute on grounds of unconstitutionality, a three-judge district court should have been convened. See 28 U.S.C. § 2281; Goosby v. Osser, 409 U. S. 512 (1973); Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713, 370 U. S. 715 (1962). A three-judge court is required even if the constitutional attack -- as here -- is upon the statute as applied, see Department of Employment v. United States, 385 U. S. 355 (1966); Query v. United States, 316 U. S. 486 (1942); Ex parte Bransford, 310 U. S. 354, 310 U. S. 361 (1940); see generally Currie, The Three-Judge District Court in Constitutional Litigation, 32 U.Chi.L.Rev. 1, 37-50 (1964); and is normally required even if the decision is to dismiss under Younger-Samuels principles, since an exercise of discretion will usually be necessary, see Jones v. Wade, 479 F.2d 1176, 1180 (CA5 1973); Abele v. Markle, 452 F.2d 1121, 1125 (CA2 1971); see generally Note, The Three-Judge District Court: Scope and Procedure Under Section 2281, 77 Harv.L.Rev. 299, 309 (1963). But since petitioner's request for injunctive relief was abandoned on appeal, see n 6, supra, and only a request for declaratory relief remained, the Court of Appeals did not err in exercising jurisdiction over the appeal. Cf. Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 410 U. S. 123 (1973); Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U. S. 427 (1970); Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 372 U. S. 152-155 (1963); Stratton v. St. Louis S.W. R. Co., 282 U. S. 10, 282 U. S. 16 (1930).
Other federal courts have entertained applications for injunctive and declaratory relief in the absence of a pending state prosecution. See, e.g., Thoms v. Heffernan, 473 F.2d 478 (CA2 1973), aff'g 334 F.Supp. 1203 (Conn.1971) (three-judge court); Wulp v. Corcoran, 454 F.2d 826 (CA1 1972); Crossen v. Breckenridge, 446 F.2d 833 (CA6 1971); Lewis v. Kugler, 446 F.2d 1343 (CA3 1971); Anderson v. Vaughn, 327 F.Supp. 101 (Conn.1971) (three-judge court). Even the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has limited the scope of the instant decision by entertaining an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in the absence of a state prosecution when the federal suit attacked the facial validity of a state statute, rather than the validity of the statute as applied. See Jones v. Wade, supra, (Wisdom, J.).
The rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 410 U. S. 125; SEC v. Medical Comm. for Human Rights, 404 U. S. 403 (1972); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).
The Court noted that, under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 a declaratory judgment might serve as the basis for issuance of a later injunction to give effect to the declaratory judgment, see n 9, supra, and that a declaratory judgment might have a res judicata effect on the pending state proceeding. 401 U.S. at 401 U. S. 72.
We note that, in those cases where injunctive relief has been sought to restrain an imminent, but not yet pending, prosecution for past conduct, sufficient injury has not been found to warrant injunctive relief, see Beal v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 312 U. S. 45 (1941); Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89 (1935); Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240 (1926). There is some question, however, whether a showing of irreparable injury might be made in a case where, although no prosecution is pending or impending, an individual demonstrates that he will be required to forgo constitutionally protected activity in order to avoid arrest. Compare Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479 (1965); Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S. 497 (1925); and Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 263 U. S. 214, 263 U. S. 216 (1923), with Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157 (1943); see generally Note, Implications of the Younger Cases for the Availability of Federal Equitable Relief When No State Prosecution is Pending, 72 Col.L.Rev. 874 (1972).
"Sensitiveness to 'states' rights,' fear of rivalry with state courts, and respect for state sentiment were swept aside by the great impulse of national feeling born of the Civil War. Nationalism was triumphant; in national administration was sought its vindication. The new exertions of federal power were no longer trusted to the enforcement of state agencies."
F. Frankfurter & J. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court 64 (1928).
In the last days of the John Adams administration, general federal question jurisdiction had been granted to the federal courts by § 11 of the Midnight Judges Act, 2 Stat. 92 (1801). The Act was repealed only one year later by § 1 of the Act of Mar. 8, 1802, 2 Stat. 132.
The histories of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Judiciary Act of 1875 are detailed in Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 389 U. S. 245-247 (1967).
The three-judge court procedure, with expedited review, was modeled after the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, now 15 U.S.C. §§ 28-29; 49 U.S.C. §§ 44-45, requiring that, for certain antitrust cases certified by the Attorney General to be of particular public importance, a three-judge court be convened with direct appeal to the Supreme Court, as well as a 1906 Act, 34 Stat. 584, 592, applying the same procedure to suits brought to restrain, annul, or set aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission. See Hutcheson, A Case for Three Judges, 47 Harv.L.Rev. 795, 810 (1934).
The three-judge court provision was amended in 1913 to apply also to interlocutory injunctions restraining enforcement of state administrative or commission orders. C. 160, 37 Stat. 1013. It was further amended in 1925 to extend the three-judge requirement and the direct appeal provisions to the final hearing on a permanent injunction, thereby ending the anomalous situation in which a single judge, at the final hearing, could overrule the decision of three judges granting an interlocutory injunction. 43 Stat. 936, 938. When the statute was codified in 1948, it was made applicable to all actions seeking either a preliminary or permanent injunction, Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U. S. 471, 396 U. S. 478 n. 3 (1970). See generally H. Hart & H. Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 967-968 (2d ed.1973); C. Wright, Federal Courts § 50, pp. 188-189 (2d ed.1970).
"It often happens that courts are unwilling to grant injunctions to restrain the enforcement of penal statutes or ordinances and relegate the plaintiff to his option either to violate the statute and take his chances in testing constitutionality on a criminal prosecution, or else to [forgo], in the fear of prosecution, the exercise of his claimed rights. Into this dilemma no civilized legal system operating under a constitution should force any person. The court, in effect, by refusing an injunction, informs the prospective victim that the only way to determine whether the suspect is a mushroom or a toadstool is to eat it. Assuming that the plaintiff has a vital interest in the enforcement of the challenged statute or ordinance, there is no reason why a declaratory judgment should not be issued instead of compelling a violation of the statute as a condition precedent to challenging its constitutionality."
Hearings on H.R. 5623 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 75-76 (192). See E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments x-xi (2d ed.1941).
The pending prosecution of petitioner's handbilling companion does not affect petitioner's action for declaratory relief. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), while the pending prosecution of Dr. Hallford under the Texas Abortion law was found to render his action for declaratory and injunctive relief impermissible, this did not prevent our granting plaintiff Roe, against whom no action was pending, a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional. Id. at 410 U. S. 125-127, 410 U. S. 166-167; see Lewis v. Kugler, 446 F.2d 1343, 1349 (CA3 1971).
"enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State,"
the Court, recognizing the unique effects of anticipatory adjudication on tax administration, held that declaratory relief should be withheld when the taxpayer was provided an opportunity to maintain a refund suit after payment of the disputed tax. "In contrast, there is no statutory counterpart of 28 U.S.C. § 1341 applicable to intervention in state criminal prosecutions." Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 401 U. S. 128 (1971) (separate opinion of BRENNAN, J).
Abstention, a question "entirely separate from the question of granting declaratory or injunctive relief," Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U. S. 498, 406 U. S. 509 n. 13 (1972), might be more appropriate when a challenge is made to the state statute as applied, rather than upon its face, since the reach of an uncertain state statute might, in that circumstance, be more susceptible of a limiting or clarifying construction that would avoid the federal constitutional question. Cf. Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. at 389 U. S. 249-52, 254; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 377 U. S. 375-378 (1964).
Some two years after petitioner attempted to handbill at the shopping center, respondent Hudgens, the owner of the center, commenced an action in the Superior Court of Fulton County seeking a declaration of his rights concerning the center's rules against handbilling and related activities. We were advised at oral argument that the state action had been dismissed by the trial court but that an appeal is pending before the Georgia Supreme Court. Since we do not require petitioner first to seek vindication of his federal rights in a state declaratory judgment action, see Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullan, supra, at 406 U. S. 510; Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433 (1971), consideration of abstention by the District Court would be inappropriate unless the action commenced by respondent Hudgens could be shown to present a substantial and immediate possibility of obviating petitioner's federal claim by a decision on state law grounds. Cf. Askew v. Hargrave, 401 U. S. 476, 401 U. S. 478 (1971); Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. 82 (1970).
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring.
While joining the opinion of the Court, I add a word by way of emphasis.
Our decision today must not be understood as authorizing the invocation of federal declaratory judgment jurisdiction by a person who thinks a state criminal law is unconstitutional, even if he genuinely feels "chilled" in his freedom of action by the law's existence, and even if he honestly entertains the subjective belief that he may now or in the future be prosecuted under it.
"The power and duty of the judiciary to declare laws unconstitutional is in the final analysis derived from its responsibility for resolving concrete disputes brought before the courts for decision. . . ."
See also Boyle v. Landry, 401 U. S. 77, 401 U. S. 80-81.
The petitioner in this case has succeeded in objectively showing that the threat of imminent arrest, corroborated by the actual arrest of his companion, has created an actual concrete controversy between himself and the agents of the State. He has, therefore, demonstrated "a genuine threat of enforcement of a disputed state criminal statute. . . ." * Cases where such a "genuine threat" can be demonstrated will, I think, be exceedingly rare.
* See ante at 415 U. S. 475. Whether, in view of "recent developments," the controversy is a continuing one, will be for the District Court to determine on remand. See ante at 415 U. S. 460.
at the suit of the defendant now being prosecuted, and the question whether that declaratory judgment is res judicata in such a later filed state criminal action.
It should be noted, first, that his views on these issues are neither expressly nor impliedly embraced by the Court's opinion filed today. Second, my own tentative views on these questions are somewhat contrary to my Brother's.
At this writing at least, I would anticipate that a final declaratory judgment entered by a federal court holding particular conduct of the federal plaintiff to be immune on federal constitutional grounds from prosecution under state law should be accorded res judicata effect in any later prosecution of that very conduct. There would also, I think, be additional circumstances in which the federal judgment should be considered as more than a mere precedent bearing on the issue before the state court.
is gone, and that, to protect or effectuate its judgment, a federal court may enjoin relitigation in the state court."
C. Wright, Federal Courts 180 (2d ed.1970). I see no more reason here to hold that the federal plaintiff must always rely solely on his plea of res judicata in the state courts. The statute provides for "[f]urther necessary or proper relief . . . against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment," 28 U.S.C. § 2202, and it would not seem improper to enjoin local prosecutors who refuse to observe adverse federal judgments.
Finally, I would think that a federal suit challenging a state criminal statute on federal constitutional grounds could be sufficiently far along so that ordinary consideration of economy would warrant refusal to dismiss the federal case solely because a state prosecution has subsequently been filed and the federal question may be litigated there.
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the Court. Although my reading of the legislative history of the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 suggests that its primary purpose was to enable persons to obtain a definition of their rights before an actual injury had occurred, rather than to palliate any controversy arising from Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908). Congress apparently was aware at the time it passed the Act that persons threatened with state criminal prosecutions might choose to forgo the offending conduct and, instead, seek a federal declaration of their rights. Use of the declaratory judgment procedure in the circumstances presented by this case seems consistent with that congressional expectation.
matter rest there. But, as our cases abundantly illustrate, this area of law is in constant litigation, and it is an area through which our decisions have traced a path that may accurately be described as sinuous. Attempting to accommodate the principles of the new declaratory judgment procedure with other more established principles -- in particular a proper regard for the relationship between the independent state and federal judiciary systems -- this Court has acted both to advance and to limit the Act. Compare Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227 (1937), and Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241 (1967), with Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293 (1943), and Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66 (1971). Because the opinion today may possibly be read by resourceful counsel as commencing a new and less restrictive curve in this path of adjudication, I feel it is important to emphasize what the opinion does and does not say.
To begin with, it seems appropriate to restate the obvious: the Court's decision today deals only with declaratory relief and with threatened prosecutions. The case provides no authority for the granting of any injunctive relief nor does it provide authority for the granting of any relief at all when prosecutions are pending. The Court quite properly leaves for another day whether the granting of a declaratory judgment by a federal court will have any subsequent res judicata effect or will perhaps support the issuance of a later federal injunction. But since possible resolutions of those issues would substantially undercut the principles of federalism reaffirmed in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and preserved by the decision today, I feel it appropriate to add a few remarks.
recognize that the declaratory judgment procedure is an alternative to pursuit of the arguably illegal activity. [Footnote 2/1] There is nothing in the Act's history to suggest that Congress intended to provide persons wishing to violate state laws with a federal shield behind which they could carry on their contemplated conduct. Thus, I do not believe that a federal plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action can avoid, by the mere filing of a complaint, the principles so firmly expressed in Samuels, supra. The plaintiff who continues to violate a state statute after the filing of his federal complaint does so both at the risk of state prosecution and at the risk of dismissal of his federal lawsuit. For any arrest prior to resolution of the federal action would constitute a pending prosecution and bar declaratory relief under the principles of Samuels.
The Court's.description of declaratory relief as "a milder alternative to the injunction remedy,'" ante at 415 U. S. 467, having a "less intrusive effect on the administration of state criminal laws" than an injunction, ante at 415 U. S. 469, indicates to me critical distinctions which make declaratory relief appropriate where injunctive relief would not be. It would all but totally obscure these important distinctions if a successful application for declaratory relief came to be regarded not as the conclusion of a lawsuit, but as a giant step toward obtaining an injunction against a subsequent criminal prosecution. The availability of injunctive relief must be considered with an eye toward the important policies of federalism which this Court has often recognized.
point. Those decisions instead depend upon considerations relevant to the harmonious operation of separate federal and state court systems, with a special regard for the State's interest in enforcing its own criminal laws, considerations which are as relevant in guiding the action of a federal court which has previously issued a declaratory judgment as they are in guiding the action of one which has not. While the result may be that injunctive relief is not available as "further relief" under the Declaratory Judgment Act in this particular class of cases, whereas it would be in similar cases not involving considerations of federalism, this would be no more a pro tanto repeal of that provision of the Declaratory Judgment Act than was Younger a pro tanto repeal of the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
"The persuasive force of the [federal] court's opinion and judgment may lead state prosecutors, courts, and legislators to reconsider their respective responsibilities toward the statute. Enforcement policies or judicial construction may be changed, or the legislature may repeal the statute and start anew."
court's departure from the general principles of restraint discussed in Younger.
If the declaratory judgment remains, as I think the Declaratory Judgment Act intended, a simple declaration of rights without more, it will not be used merely as a dramatic tactical maneuver on the part of any state defendant seeking extended delays. Nor will it force state officials to try cases time after time, first in the federal courts and then in the state courts. I do not believe Congress desired such unnecessary results, and I do not think that today's decision should be read to sanction them. Rather, the Act, and the decision, stand for the sensible proposition that both a potential state defendant, threatened with prosecution but not charged, and the State itself, confronted by a possible violation of its criminal laws, may benefit from a procedure which provides for a declaration of rights without activation of the criminal process. If the federal court finds that the threatened prosecution would depend upon a statute it judges unconstitutional, the State may decide to forgo prosecution of similar conduct in the future, believing the judgment persuasive. Should the state prosecutors not find the decision persuasive enough to justify forbearance, the successful federal plaintiff will at least be able to bolster his allegations of unconstitutionality in the state trial with a decision of the federal district court in the immediate locality. The state courts may find the reasoning convincing even though the prosecutors did not. Finally, of course, the state legislature may decide, on the basis of the federal decision, that the statute would be better amended or repealed. All these possible avenues of relief would be reached voluntarily by the States, and would be completely consistent with the concepts of federalism discussed above. Other more intrusive forms of relief should not be routinely available.
These considerations should prove highly significant in reaching future decisions based upon the decision rendered today. For the present it is enough to say, as the Court does, that petitioner, if he successfully establishes the existence of a continuing controversy on remand, may maintain an action for a declaratory judgment in the District Court.
"The procedure has been especially useful in avoiding the necessity, now so often present., of having to act at one's peril or to act on one's own interpretation of his rights, or abandon one's rights because of a fear of incurring damages. So now it is often necessary, in the absence of the declaratory judgment procedure, to violate or purport to violate a statute in order to obtain a judicial determination of its meaning or validity. . . . Persons now often have to act at their peril, a danger which could be frequently avoided by the ability to sue for a declaratory judgment as to their rights or duties."
S.Rep. No. 1005, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 2-3 (1934). Petitioner in this case, of course, did cease his handbilling activities after the warning of arrest.
In Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66, 401 U. S. 72 (1971), the Court expressed concern that a declaratory judgment issued while a state prosecution was pending "might serve as the basis for a subsequent injunction against those proceedings. . . ." The Court recognized that this chain of litigation would "result in a clearly improper interference with the state proceedings." Ibid. As discussed infra, I believe that such improper interference would be present even though the declaratory judgment itself were issued prior to the time of the federal plaintiff's arrest.
The Court's opinion notes that the possible res judicata effect of a federal declaratory judgment in a subsequent state court prosecution is a question "not free from difficulty.'" Ante at 415 U. S. 470. I express no opinion on that issue here. However, I do note that the federal decision would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.
"Sensitive to principles of equity, comity, and federalism, we recognized in Younger v. Harris, [401 U.S. 37 (1971),] that federal courts should ordinarily refrain from enjoining ongoing state criminal prosecutions. We were cognizant that a pending state proceeding, in all but unusual cases, would provide the federal plaintiff with the necessary vehicle for vindicating his constitutional rights, and, in that circumstance, the restraining of an ongoing prosecution would entail an unseemly failure to give effect to the principle that state courts have the solemn responsibility, equally with the federal courts 'to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States. . . .' Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624, 111 U. S. 637 (1884)."
Ante at 415 U. S. 460-461.
John R. Thompson, et al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2201
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 26
 v. 
 § 2281
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2202
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 11
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 § 50
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1341
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2202
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1651
 v. 
 v. 
 v.