Opinion ID: 391265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ordinances Obviously Unconstitutional

Text: 36 While the congressional scheme made the federal courts the primary guardians of constitutional rights, Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 104, 91 S.Ct. 674, 686, 27 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), federal courts must be careful not to intervene unnecessarily with pending state proceedings because such intervention will be interpreted as reflecting negatively upon the state court's ability to enforce federal constitutional principles. But see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 575, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 1696, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973). 37 But abstention is not required when it amounts to a mere deferral to a state court to apply federal constitutional law to a state statutory scheme; Brown v. Liberty Loan Corp., 539 F.2d 1355 (5th Cir. 1976). See also Coleman v. Ginsberg, 428 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1970). And clearly, Younger notwithstanding, the district court may exercise its jurisdiction over the case when the plaintiff establishes that the challenged ordinances are patently and flagrantly unconstitutional. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973); Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 88 S.Ct. 391, 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967). 38 The plaintiff, however, carries a strong burden in establishing the overwhelming unconstitutionality of the state statute. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., supra, 420 U.S. at 602, 95 S.Ct. at 1207. If the state statute in question, although never interpreted by a state tribunal, is not fairly subject to an interpretation which will render unnecessary or substantially modify the federal constitutional question, it is the duty of the federal court to exercise its jurisdiction. Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 14 L.Ed.2d 50 (1965). Relevant state statutory provisions must, however, be relatively plain and unambiguous for there to be no necessity for the federal court to abstain pending determination of the issue in a state court. Trainor v. Hernandez, supra, 431 U.S. at 440-43, 97 S.Ct. at 1916-1917. 39 The Minot Ordinances Nos. 2336 and 2337 contain language that raises legitimate constitutional questions (see Appendix at A-2). We are convinced, however, that the troubling portions of the statute are insubstantial to establish that both ordinances sanction blatant and flagrant constitutional violations. Thus, appellant has also failed to come within the narrow scope of this exception to the Younger doctrine.