Court Opinion

ID: 9633316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:42:45.496232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:32.995453
License: Public Domain

*1332GIBBONS, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
I am as disenchanted with the trend of decisions on federal court enforcement of civil rights since Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1970), as are some commentators. See, e. g., B. Wechsler, Federal Courts, State Criminal Law and the First Amendment, 49 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 740 (1974). But we are bound by those decisions. Here we are faced with a pending state criminal prosecution. Thus we cannot grant either injunctive relief, Younger v. Harris, supra, or declaratory relief, Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971), unless we can find that the prosecution was “brought in bad faith, with no genuine expectation of conviction.” Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802, 819, 94 S.Ct. 2191, 2202, 40 L.Ed.2d 566 (1974). Since on this record I cannot so find, I agree that we must dismiss the complaint without considering the constitutional challenge to the New Jersey statutes. This limitation on the availability of federal equitable or declaratory remedies does not, of course, suggest any limitation on the power of the Superior Court to grant corresponding remedies in the pending cause, under N.J. Rule 4:52-6, even in the presence of a pending criminal proceeding. See Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U.S. 223, 241, 25 S.Ct. 18, 49 L.Ed. 169 (1903); cf. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 89 S.Ct. 266, 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968). The distinction suggested in Judge’s Stern’s opinion between those plaintiffs who have not yet violated a statute and who seek federal declaratory relief rather than risk prosecution, and those who violate first and litigate later has much to commend it. See Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 44 S.Ct. 15, 68 L.Ed. 255 (1923); Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 36 S.Ct. 7, 60 L.Ed. 131 (1915). But I question whether, if Sole and his companions had sought declaratory relief in a federal court prior to making their sexually explicit film, a majority of the Supreme Court would find that they had standing to challenge the statutes here in issue in the absence of an actual threat of prosecution by the defendants. See, e. g., Allee v. Medrano, supra, 416 U.S. at 826-30, 94 S.Ct. 2191 (Burger, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).