Document: 411 U.S. 564 93 S.Ct. 1689 36 L.Ed.2d 488 Thomas S. GIBSON et al., Appellants,v.L. M. BERRYHILL al. No. 71—653. Argued Jan. 9 and 10, 1973. Decided May 7, Syllabus Appellees, licensed optometrists employed by Lee Optical Co., who were not members of the Alabama Optometric Association (Association), charged with unprofessional conduct within meaning state optometry statute because their employment company. The complaint was filed Board Optometry (Board), all which members. deferred proceedings while a suit it had brought against to enjoin company from practicing litigated in trial court. charges individual defendants dismissed but court enjoined engaging practice optometry. appealed. When revived Association's appellees, they sought an injunction Federal District Court under Civil Rights Act claiming that biased. concluded barred acting federal anti-injunction since only administrative involved exhaustion remedies mandated where process biased its litigation courts prejudged case appellees indirect pecuniary interest outcome. thereafter before this appeal taken, State's highest reversed judgment held law did prohibit optometrist working for corporation. Held: 1. bar issuing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pp. 572—575. 2. Nor rule Younger v. Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669 or principles comity require dismiss appellees' view pending proceeding alleged Board's bias rendered incompetent adjudicate issues. 575—577. 3. Since board composed solely private practitioners corporate employees constituted half State, warranted concluding members' disqualified them passing on 578—579. 4. Though abuse discretion abstaining until decision Supreme Court, equity, comity, federalism warrant reconsideration light decision. 579—581. 331 F.Supp. 122, vacated remanded. Richard A. Billups, Jr., Jackson, Miss., appellants. Harry Cole, Montgomery, Ala., appellees. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 Prior 1965, laws relating permitted any person, including business firm corporation, maintain department 'eyes are examined glasses fitted,' provided such charge duly optometrist. permission expressly conferred 210 Title 46 Code 940, also inferentially 211 regulates advertising practices optometrists, which, appeared contemplate existence commercial stores optical departments.1 In repealed entirety Legislature, amended so as eliminate direct reference departments maintained corporations other establishments direction employee optometrists.2 2 Soon after these statutory changes, Association, professional organization whose membership is limited independent others, various named whom salaried Co. Optometry, body authority issue, suspend, revoke licenses gravamen accepting Optical, engaged 'unprofessional conduct' 206 hence profession unlawfully.3 More particularly, individuals with, among things, aiding abetting corporation illegal optometry; false name, is, Co.; unlawfully soliciting sale glasses; lending splitting dividing fees Optical.4 It apparently position that, following repeal amendment 211, no longer permissible Alabama, violated ethics profession. prayed due notice proper hearing. 3 Two days October own seeking 'unlawful optometry.' 13 parties defendant, charging activities, well improper very similar Board. 4 Proceedings abeyance progressed. grounds doi adequately appear record us; and, eventually, March 17, 1971, Board, both without license employing optometrists.5 appealed judgment. 5 Meanwhile, victory court, reactivated 1965 Lee, noticing hearings be 26 27, 1971. Those countered 14, filing United States naming members, individuals. suit, 1871, 1983, scheduled scheme regulating Alabama6 unconstitutional insofar hear plaintiffs suit.7 thrust could provide fair impartial hearing conformity law. 6 A three-judge convened August shortly entered plaintiffs, enjoining State successors 'from conducting heretofore preferred Plaintiffs' revoking Alabama. 7 supporting opinion, first considered whether should stay hand defer then-pending proceedings—that situation presented one would permit immediate intervention restrain actions body. That question answered affirmative, holding 28 2283, antiinjunction statute, applicable even those adjudicatory character. Moreover, neither (1971), nor doctrine normally requiring forbade where, found true here, defective inadequate deprive 8 This conclusion respect deficiencies although amalgam several elements, amounted basically sustaining plaintiffs' allegation bias. For inquiry 'actually whether, natural course events, there indication possible temptation average man sitting judge try issue him.' F.Supp., at 125. Such possibility arise present number factors. , first, fact acts prosecutor delicensing proceedings, previously virtually identical courts. took indicate might have 'preconceived opinions' regard cases them. Second, large if forced suspend operations along optometry, fall heir business. Thus, serious personal financial stake matter controversy raised. Finally, suspect adjudicative then it, excluded persons entities. result 92 192 denied participation governance court's ultimate 'that Plaintiffs resort protection offered effectively property, right professions, irreparable injury follow normal events.'8 126. 10 Appeal taken probable jurisdiction noted June 26, 1972. 408 920, 2487, 33 331. 30, 1972, case,9 nothing statutes pertaining evidenced 'a legislative policy qualified state, may another examine eyes purpose prescribing eyeglasses.'10 288 Ala. 338, 346, 261 So.2d 24. 11 procedural background we turn consideration issues appeal. 12 * We agree precluded adjudicating merits correct. prohibits excepts prohibition injunctions 'expressly authorized' Congress.11 Last Term, Court's determined exception ban injunctions.12 Mitchum Foster, 407 225, 2151, 32 (1972). 14 Our Mitchum, however, district absolutely when called upon do 1983 suit. As stated purported call into established must, appropriate circumstances, injunctions. Id., 243, 2162, 2163. These been emphasized many times past, albeit variety different rubrics. First all, doctrine, usually sought, party must exhaust his available invoking equitable See, e.g., Prentis Atlantic Coast Line 210, 29 67, 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908); Illinois Commerce Comm'n Thomson, 318 675, 63 834, 87 1075 (1943). Secondly, basic principle federalism, restated recently 1971 669, criminal absence special circumstances suggesting bad faith, harassment immediate. And finally, developed our least Railroad Pullman 312 496, 61 643, 85 971 (1941), confronted constitutional dimension implicate depend unsettled questions law, ought abstain definitively resolved. 15 instant need detain us long. Normally has instituted seeks delay action phase terminated, coverage liability contested expertise, discretion, factfinding involved.13 But recent years exhausted plaintiff states otherwise good cause McNeese Education, 373 668, 83 1433, 622 (1963); Damico California, 389 416, 88 526, 19 647 (1967). Whether invariably revocation agencies deprived completion proceeding, now decide; clear purport unconstitutionally adequate remedy exhaustion. adequacy remedy, required decide, practical purposes lawsuit.14 II 16 brings 746 (1971); Samuels Mackell, 66, 764, 741 stand, acting, Optometry. would, ordinary forbid either declaratory validity enforcement commenced. like obtains civil left open companion cases. 17 Appellants insist, posed here pendency board, actually decided summary affirmance Geiger Jenkins, 985, 1236, 525 (1971). case, Medical Georgia noticed medical practitioner immediately ground underlying enforce unconstitutional. reaching merits, 'in nature proceedings,' sufficiently event trigger 2283 intervention. 316 370, 372 (ND Ga.1970). summarily affirmed citation Mackell. 18 frequently occurs affirmance, somewhat opaque. doubt, controlling here. apears jurisdictional statement motion affirm time challenged dismissal case. appears subsequent completed revoked Geiger's license, judicial review order already way finding quasi-criminal nature; cited proposition persuasive. See Keel, Ala.App. 609, 35 625 (1948). apparent looking toward medicine command remains claim Geiger, itself constituted, entitled Unlike situations merely abstains resolution related issues15—a subject shall consider context case—Younger Harris contemplates outright presentation claims, federal, naturally presupposes opportunity raise timely competent tribunal involved. Here predicate lacking, alleged, concluded, reason it. If correct regard, Nor, simply review, de novo otherwise, forthcoming proceedings.16 Cf. Ward Village Monroeville, 409 57, 80, 34 267 III 20 appropriate, therefore, conclusions prejudgment constitutionally respect. 21 thought impermissibly two reasons. First, alleging aided abetted unlawful forms proved, justify licenses. substantially concerning successful prosecution 22 aim accounted nearly Because account, success efforts possibly redound benefit 23 source bias—prejudgment facts sufficient disqualify Arguably, scores, reach, affirm, latter interest.17 24 substantial legal disputes. Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 47 437, 71 749 (1927). (1972), indicates positive Tumey. come prevailing '(m)ost disqualification applies equal force . adjudicators.' K. Davis, Administrative Law Text 12.04, p. 250 cited. proceeded basis applying standards cases, substance them, given arose. remote local realities being likely firmer grasp significance presented, overturn IV 25 think abstention, Lake Carriers' Assn. MacMullan, 406 498, 1749, 257 went reach effect concerned heart others. central order. earlier, dismissal, relief awaited outcome appeal, obviated case.18 pressing awaiting event, some survived reversal Under proceed did. Nevertheless, decision, House $8.50 Eyeglasses 349, n. supra. Individual behalf, prohibited devitalizes makes unnecessary removes 'equity' unable determine. considerations vacating remanding judgments intimate reinstated ordered. Vacated 30 Chief BURGER, concurring. 31 I concur, my better advised, sound refrained dissenting Wisconsin Constantineau, 400 433, 443, 507, 513, 515 MARSHALL, BRENNAN joins, join except suggests suits remedies. ante, 574—575. inapplicability requirement firmly settled prior decisions, 671—672, 1435, (1963). Houghton Shafer, 392 639, 2119, 1319 (1968); King Smith, 309, 4, 2128, 2131, 1118 Sections c. 11, Tit. 46, 1940, provided, follows: 210. Store sold; how conducted.—Nothing chapter construed prevent firm, owning operating store establishment wherein fitted; store, establishment, optometric optometrist, name whatsoever done said corporation.' 211. False misleading statements advertisements having department.—It print printed, circulate circulated, publish, means whatsoever, advertisement circular untruthful, impossible, improbable statements, anything calculated intended mislead deceive public. individual, goods, wares merchandise maintains operates, allows operated connection mercantile department; rents subleases person therein, portion space premises business, circulate, maintained, operated, conducted place improbable, public.' 190—213, originally adopted 1919. Section amended, reads circulars.—It published, 206, relevant provides 206. License suspended revoked.—A issued definite period time, reasons; to-wit: conduct. 'Unprofessional defined mean character defraud public, 'cappers,' 'steerers' fee persons, obtaining compensation fraud misrepresentation, directly indirectly unlicensed optometrical work, use advertising, carrying articles connected profession, drugs medicines unless authorized covering doing performing declared unethical contrary practice.' section accused holder. At represented counsel, cross-examine witnesses him, testimony down stenographer. Some leveled covered sections than 'practicing name' (§ 191), 'unlawfully glasses' 203), etc. five one-half passed between Much attributable certain wranglings power bring injunctive believed unlawfully. During litigation, Legislature conferring power, prospectively retroactively, licensing boards, expeditiously thereafter. §§ 190—213 1940. specifically, attacked provide, respectively, entertain Association. dismissed, prejudice, counterclaim barring rehearing Apr. lower through employees. Both dissolved provides: 'A grant Congress, necessary aid jurisdiction, protect effectuate judgments.' inapplicable distinction tenable circumstances—even quasi-judicial character—we decide does apply generally 'judicial,' opposed 'administrative,' Bacon Rutland R. 232 134, 283, 58 538 (1914); City Bank Farmers Trust Schnader, 291 24, 54 259, 78 628 (1934). should, kept distinct doctrines exemplified proceedings. deemed requirement, grounds. Most often bene agency, Smith Bell Tel. 270 587, 408, 70 747 (1926), doubt agency empowered effective relief, Union Pac. Comm'rs Weld County, 247 282, 38 62 1110 (1918); inadequate, predetermined Kelly 159 272 (MD Tenn.1958). supra; England Louisiana Bd. Exam'rs, 375 411, 84 461, 440 (1964); assured oral argument counsel orders Tr. Oral Arg. 5, 19. Nonetheless, 'together attendant publicity inevitably associated therewith, damage' afforded extent investigate act material then, consistent process, sit determine finally occasioned divergence views Compare Amos Treat & SEC, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 306 F.2d 260 (1962), Trans World Airlines CAB, 102 391, 254 90 (1958), Pangburn 311 349 (CA1 1962). Mack Florida Dentistry, 296 1259 (SD Fla.1969). occasion pass disposition Askew Hargrave, 476, 856, 196

Category: 8