Document: 422 U.S. 922 95 S.Ct. 2561. 45 L.Ed.2d 648 Frank DORAN, Appellant,v.SALEM INN, INC., et al. No. 74—337. Argued April 21, 22, 1975. Decided June 30, Syllabus Three corporations (M & L, Salem, and Tim-Rob), on August 9, 1973, filed a complaint in District Court, seeking temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, declaratory relief, against Doran, law enforcement official, claiming that North Hempstead, N.Y., ordinance proscribing topless dancing, which the had provided as entertainment their bars, violated First Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Court denied prayer for order instanter set motion injunction hearing 22. On 10, M alone of three corporations, theretofore complied with ordinance, resumed whereupon it was served criminal summonses. Thereafter, issued 'pending final determination this action.' Appeals affirmed, holding 'ordinance would have to fall' rejecting Doran's claim should dismissed authority Younger v. Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669, companion cases, concluded did not bar relief Salem Tim-Rob, because there been no prosecution them under ordinance. A different result L deemed warranted view interests avoiding contradictory outcomes, conserving judicial energy, having clearcut method determining when federal courts defer state prosecutions. Doran appealed 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2), gives appellate jurisdiction at behest party relying statute held unconstitutional by court appeals. Held: 1. issues, were neither briefed nor argued, whether 1254(2) applies review affirmance or is confined judgment, fact unconstitutional, need be resolved, since has certiorari 2103, matter can reviewed. P. 927. 2. question entitlement light supra, considered each corporation separately outcomes other factors relied upon lumped plaintiffs together. Pp. 927-929. 3. squarely bars injunctive Samuels Mackell, 66, 764, 688 summonses days immediately following filing complaint, litigation an embryonic stage contested decided. 929. 4. whom proceedings pending, subject Younger's restrictions relief. Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 94 1209, 39 505. Those two could also seek without regard restrictions, prior judgment remedy cannot afford comparable injunction. 930-931. 5. In circumstances case existing law, abuse its discretion granting Tim-Rob. 931-934. (a) entitled conclude Tim-Rob satisfied one traditional requirements securing viz., showing irreparable injury, they made uncontested allegations absent such suffer substantial business loss perhaps even bankruptcy. 931-932. (b) those requirement interim likelihood prevail merits, were, inter alia, challenging (and standing challenge, Grayned City Rockford, 408 104, 115, 92 2294, 2302, 33 222) 'topless' being unconstitutionally overbroad application protected activities places do serve liquor well do. See California LaRue, 409 109, 118, 93 390, 397, 34 342. 932-934. Appeal granted; 501 F.2d 18, (2nd Cir.) reversed affirmed Joseph H. Darago, New Hyde Park, appellant. Herbert S. Kassner, York City, appellees. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Appellant town attorney Nassau County, who, along local officials, preliminarily enjoined United States Eastern from enforcing Hempstead. Inn, Inc. Frank, 364 F.Supp. 478 (1973), aff'd, 18 (CA2 1974). addition defending he contends 669 (1971), cases. 2 Appellees are operate various locations within town. Prior enactment question, dancing customers. July 17, enacted Local Law 1—1973, making unlawful owners others permit waitresses, barmaids, entertainers appear establishments breasts uncovered so thinly draped uncovered. clothing dancers bikini tops, but brought action 42 1983. They alleged rights Amendments Constitution. Their pleadings sought instanter, 1973. 3 day after appellees' filed, denied, them, Restaurant, Inc., briefly suspended presentation dancing. day, succeeding days, based violation ordinance.1 These returnable before County September 13, appellees, Bar, resume until 4 5, appellant answer instituted least appellees; urged 'refuse exercise jurisdiction' dismiss complaint. App. 33. 5 6, basis oral argument memoranda entered '(found) (1) 1—1973 Town Hempstead face violative plaintiffs' prohibits across board nonobscene conduct form (2) daily penalty $500 decision validating similar over-breadth potential harm justify intervention relief.' F.Supp., 483. enjoining . prosecuting any way interfering may prohibited text said Law.' Ibid. address appellant's contention, pending affect availability As if granted 'it anomalous' extend well. Id., 482. 6 Second Circuit divided vote. It fall,' F.2d, deprivation constitutional diminution issuance rejected ought present time thought posed 'a slightly problem,' begun only recognized situation covered either 505 (1974), conservation prosecutions, all militated favor 7 We deal first jurisdictional matter. This appeal taken provides Appeals.2 There authority, questioned never put rest, available judgment. Slaker O'Connor, 278 188, 49 158, 73 L.Ed. 258 (1929); South Carolina Electric Gas Co. Flemming, 351 901, 76 692, 100 1439 (1956). But see Chicago Atchison, T. S.F.R. Co., 357 77, 82—83, 78 1063, 1066 1067, 1174 (1958). appeal, however, seeks less than completely certain hold merits purpose ruling propriety resolve these we event 2103. previously done identical situation, El Paso Simmons, 379 497, 502—503, 85 577, 580—581, 13 446 (1965), and, treating papers petition certiorari, grant writ certiorari. 8 Turning issues raised petitioner, faced necessity holdings Younger, Steffel, must give efficient administration Appeals. think interest conflicting while deference unitary system, subordinated claims federalism particular area law. classic example petitioner his companion. Both warned failure cease pamphleteering arrest, ceased court, prosecuted charge trespass court. U.S., 455—456, S.Ct., 1213—1214. same manpower. worthy value very existence system 50 systems courts, charged responsibility interpreting Constitution, suggests occasion will duplicating overlapping adjudication cases sufficiently content, time, location heard single judge arisen system. 9 agree Appeals, therefore, automatically thrown into hopper purposes, thereby accept view, more petitioner's equally Procrustean barred sole plaintiff, likewise While plainly some legally distinct parties closely related considerations govern case;—while respondents represented common counsel, problems, apparently unrelated terms ownership, control, management. thus placed position required our respondent stood alone. 10 Respondent pursued course denial request order. Had so, subjected itself When posture, L's governed Younger. 11 believe reasons Mackell obtaining special circumstances, though commenced Having rather awaiting normal development lawsuit, now complain contentions resolved Thus prayers both restrictions.3 12 rule co-plaintiffs, clear, insofar Under obtained ordinary instead Whether injunctions future prosecutions standards reserved 463, 1217, 41, 749. facts principle underlying fully competent adjudicate claims, therefore should, most exceptional refuse interfere ongoing proceeding. absence proceeding, plaintiff challenge constitutionality assuming satisfy jurisdiction. Lake Carriers' Assn. MacMullan, 406 498, 509, 1749, 1756, 32 257 (1972). No Nor already stated, assuredly '(o)rdinarily practical effect (injunctive declaratory) virtually identical,' Samuels, 73, 768, restrictions. At conclusion successful district generally protect entering stronger medicine unnecessary. established injunction; unless proper showing, situations unnecessary harm. Moreover, directly statutes ordinances except respect plaintiffs, State free prosecute who violate statute. 14 standard requires show injury likely merits. recognized, weigh carefully sides. Although temporary, does prohibit resolution Such seriously impairs State's laws, implicates concerns lie heart 15 applied deciding stringent, simply applicable standard, constituted discretion. Brown Chote, 411 457, 1732, 1735, 36 420 (1973). close one, behalf Court's support deny) Certainly latter type meets otherwise favorable might useless. 16 inquiry relevant sufficient ultimate success found likelihood. spoke actually context intended refer ultimately prevail. properly clarified point. 20—21. 17 customary 'barroom' nude involve barest minimum expression, 342 (1972), protection circumstances. broad powers regulate sale liquor, conferred Twenty-first Amendment, outweighed ban part license program. case, challenged merely many observed, correctly: 19 'The here attacked female appearing 'any public place' breasts. limit interpretation term place.' include theater, hall, opera house, market place, street place assembly, indoors outdoors. Thus, performance 'Ballet Africains' number works unquestionable artistic socially redeeming significance.' 20 constitutionally defendant, defendant overbreadth drawn sweep ambit speech expression persons 114, 222 (1972): 21 'Because like vague ones, deter privileged activity, firmly establish raise challenge.' 22 Even assume delegated towns valid limited dispending alcoholic beverages, limited. legitimate counterbalance presumptively afforded reach 1—1973. O'Brien, 391 367, 377, 88 1673, 1679, 672 (1968). 23 abused extent inquiry, 'intimate (respondents') contentions.' 1735. 24 ordered. 25 Judgment part. 26 DOUGLAS, concurring dissenting adhering my 58, 756, 699 (1971) (dissenting opinion), I join holds Inn disposition condone violating find compelling reason distinguish appropriate. affirm below respects. day's constitutes separate offense. For purposes treated statutes. See, e.g., urges defense controlled principles obtain presence requisite 53—54, 754—755. particular, 'repetitive harassing aimed suppressing expressive activity carried on,' bar. Brief 35. consider issue, decline spare record us.

Category: 8