Document: 420 U.S. 799 95 S.Ct. 1278. 43 L.Ed.2d 636 MTM, INC., et al., Appellants,v.William J. BAXLEY, etc., al. No. 73—1119. Argued Dec. 10, 1974. Decided March 25, 1975. Robert Eugene Smith, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants. Herbert Jenkins, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The State of Alabama brought suit against appellant MTM in state court under the nuisance law, Ala.Code, Tit. 7, §§ 1081—1108 (1958),1 seeking to enjoin continued operation a by MTM. It alleged that because convictions violations local obscenity laws Pussycat Adult Theater, an enterprise owned theater constituted this statute.2 After hearing on complaint, issued temporary injunction closing theater.3 2 issuance and while action request permanent was pending court, filed United States District Court Northern Civil Rights Act 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. asked federal enforcement state-court declare law unconstitutional. Appellant claimed challenged statutory provisions infringed its First, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendment rights. 3 A three-judge convened pursuant 28 2281 consider appellant's complaint. Without resolving constitutional merits dismissed complaint without prejudice.4 In view pendency proceedings, applied test enunciated Younger v. Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669 (1971),5 concluded intervention as requested would be improper. 4 has case directly Court, asserting jurisdiction exists 1253, arguing requirements supra, did not preclude relief these facts. We noted pobable over appeal set argument tandem with Huffman Pursue, Ltd., 592, 1200, 482. 415 974, 94 1559, 39 870 (1974). 5 Unless direct from decision below is conferred we are authority entertain it.6 Section 1253 provides: 6 'Except otherwise provided any party may Supreme order granting or denying, after notice hearing, interlocutory civil action, proceeding required Congress heard determined district three judges.' 7 argues presented 'suit . heard' court7 dismissal injunctive 'an denying injunction' within meaning 1253. 8 Gonzalez Employees Credit Union, 419 90, 289, 249 (1974), recently discussed some detail question what constitutes 'denying' purposes There held lie dismissing absence standing where reach claim presented. Although our rested at least partially ground 'required' standing, U.S., 100, S.Ct., 295, also explored whether 'denies' injunction, there no adverse resolution claims noting certain decisions literal reading might taken support notion denial basis purview stare decisis entitled less than usual weight area, 'the opaque terms prolix syntax' statute were capable reading. 96—97, 293—294. focusing review available resting stated: 9 'Mercantile should read limit three-judge-court orders injunctions those rest upon case. evident virtues rule. lend symmetry Court's since, reviewing injunctions, necessarily dealing merits. While issues short merits—such justiciability, subject-matter jurisdiction, equitable abstention—are often more trivial consequence, alone does argue them appeal. Discretionary remain available, informed mediating wisdom appeals. Furthermore, courts appeals many instances give detailed consideration which disposes most mandatory summary fashion.' 99, 295. 10 conflicting attaches fails do provide consistent answer question. Compare Lynch Household Finance Corp., 405 538, 92 1113, 31 424 (1972), Mengelkoch Industrial Welfare Comm'n, 393 83, 89 60, 21 215 (1968); Rosado Wyman, 395 826, 2134, 23 739 (1969); Mitchell Donovan, 398 427, 90 1763, 26 378 (1970). See Union n. 11, 293; Moore, Federal Practice 110.03(3), pp. 76—79 (2d ed. 1973). congressional policy behind direct-review apparatus—the saving statutes improvident doom hands single judge—will impaired narrow construction broad statute, other hand, odds historic minimizing docket interest sound judicial administration. Phillips States, 312 246, 250—251, 61 480, 483, 85 L.Ed. 800 (1941); 98, 294. 11 light factors, conclude will only such rests below. 12 instant case, attack instead based impropriety (1971). circumstances, correctness application facts Appeals determine. Accordingly, vacate before us remand so fresh entered timely prosecuted Appeals.8 13 ordered. 14 Order vacated remanded. 15 Mr. Justice WHITE, concurring result. 16 holds (1971), grounds therefore appealable even assuming could court. I agree result but mode achieving it. 17 If dismissal, have great difficulty excluding plain sole justification manhandling language section aboid nonconstitutional issue little if connection reasons requiring either their decisions. That procedure adopted protect judge grounds. straightforward approach hold requests challenging constitutionality need made judges rather deemed single-judge whose Proceeding manner require construing 2284(3) (4), original purpose, applying involved. 18 This appear Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. Epstein, 370 713, 82 1294, 794 (1962). ordered abstention presentation ruled long substantial, satisfied, must convened. But holding, it appears face relief, necessity convening able dismiss therefore, pleadings show litigation challenge nothing excuse intervention.1 19 Even rule motion Harris Much water gone dam since decided. For one thing, swift & Co. Wickham, 382 111, 86 258, 194 (1965), very requirement suits depending entirely substantive provision Constitution; granted denied invalidity conflict statute. Swift, 'statutory' joined issue, latter frivolous, leaving required. Hagans Lavine, 528, 543—545, 1372, 1382—1383, 577 substantial claim, former be, decided first judge. 20 import cases merely states cause All non-three-judge-court sorted out tried Cases like derelicts expressly cleared scene.2 shown way follow lead. especially desirable case; holding pass appeals, they normally again judges. exorbitant expenditure manpower, reason cases. 22 DOUGLAS, dissenting. Like my Brother understanding how possible, avoid decide disposition Rather, concludes lies 'rests below.' Ante, 804. 24 concur believed had power grounds, doubts about proposition well. Recently hostility led restrict courts. (1974); decisions, come conclusion going too far. register dissent. 25 Many argued recent years longer needed, outlived eliminated needless waste resources.1 Whether needed creation know. note observers believe important institution litigants rights welfare plaintiffs. Three well display sensitivity national policies perspectives judge, when favor minority unpopular group likely inspire respect judge.2 know various factors weighed. Perhaps system, along here, altered major way; perhaps not. Under Constitution courts.3 Moreover, practical usurpation jurisdiction. currently interpreted difficulties can arise initial Court.4 split into pieces, making difficult resolve takes account all relevant aspects lawsuit. Parks Harden, 504 F.2d 861, 865—867 (CA5 1974). encourage kind fragmentation name economy, ultimately lead much delay duplication effort. To extent confusion surrounding fault scheme, think blame placed Court. What status (1962), today's decision? distinguished overruled, WHITE urges, unconvinced. better leave settled principles reasonably troubled certainly help matters twisting majority done here. reverse given 613, 1212 (dissenting opinion), claims. Nuisance defined 1091 'any place lewdness, assignation, prostitution conducted, permitted, continued, exists, personal property contents used conducting maintaining purpose.' remainder consists procedural governing maintenance action. addition Mobile Bookstore plaintiff immediate material differences Mobile's participation MTM's participation. simplicity, hereinafter referred collectively appellant. expedited 757, 1057 (1958), initiated prior court's At appellant, deferred outcome suit. reported 365 F.Supp. 1182. We, course, express lower holding. raised Jurisdictional Statement, Motion Dismiss, briefs oral intervening handed down filing day orally argued, suggested bench supplemental addressed Gonzalez, submitted. submitted brief attempting distinguish considered jurisdictional Brown Shoe 294, 305—306, 1502, 1512—1513, 510 normal practice Rule 16(6) been postpone notation probable problems presented, squarely encountered here occasion circumstances solely intervention. Steffel Thompson, 452, 457 1209, 1214, 505 Stamler Willis, 407, 677, 627 431, 1765, own terms, strong reluctance say concerned Railroad Comm'n Pullman Co., 496, 643, 971 (1941). abstention, retains state-law adjudicated finally contrast deferral mandates straining ordinary words situation. suggests contrary dictum, followed. See, e.g., Statement Charles Alan Wright, Hearings S. 1876 Subcommittee Improvements Judicial Machinery Senate Committee Judiciary, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 763, 773 (1972). Hearing 271 H.R. 8285 Courts, Liberties, Administration House 93d 141—151 (1973); Note, Three-Judge Reassessed: Changing Roles Federal-State Relationships, 72 Yale L.J. 1646, 1652—1653 (1963). U.S.Const., Art. III, 2. aware illustrated actions area. Antitrust Procedures Penalties Act, Pub.L. 93—528, 88 Stat. 1706 Jan. 2, 1975, 93—584, Stat 1917. H. M. Hart Wechsler, Courts System 967—974 1973); 110.03(3) Currie, Constitutional Litigation, 32 U.Chi.L.Rev. (1964).

Category: 8