Court Opinion

ID: 9653383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:45:43.416254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:58.660492
License: Public Domain

SYMES, District Judge
(dissenting in part). This ease as it now stands presents two questions for consideration: First, whether the-act in-question violates the Constitutioh of the United States for any of the reasons set up in the bill; and, secondly, if the act is unconstitutional, should this court grant an injunction restraining the defendant from prosecuting the suit already instituted in the state court?
After reviewing all the authorities cited, and such others as I have thought pertinent to the issues involved, I prepared a somewhat lengthy. memorandum as a basis for discussion in' conference. But as I am in accord with the- majority opinion in most of the .conclusions announced, I do not believe it necessary to do more at this time than to state very briefly the reasons why I .regret I cannot agree with the court on the second point.
First, I am of the opinion that the statute in question is unconstitutional and void, for the reasons stated in the majority opinion.
Second, In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, 8 S. Ct. 482, 31 L. Ed. 402, Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 19 S. Ct. 269, 43 L. Ed. 535, Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 28 S. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 932, 14 Ann. Cas. 764, and the numerous cases citing and affirming these three, down to and including Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S. 497, 45 S. Ct. 141, 69 L. Ed. 402, lay down the general rule that the Federal courts have the right to proceed without interference, when they first assume jurisdiction in a suit involving the unconstitutionality of a state act, such as in the ease at bar, and to that end ,may restrain all proceedings, civil or criminal, in the state courts thereafter brought, and may restrain a state officer from acting under an unconstitutional act; the state law affords him no protection, as the suit in the federal court is not one against the state.
But I find no clear ease in the Supreme Court holding that the federal courts can restrain criminal proceedings already pending in the state court, brought under an alleged unconstitutional state law, where the defendants can raise the federal questions, with the right to an appeal to the highest court of the state, and then to the Supreme Court of the United States in turn. I am of the opinion that the clear language of the three cases referred to above specifically prohibit such action.
Davis & Farnum v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 23 S. Ct. 498, 47 L. Ed. 778, is cited in the cases heretofore discussed, and approves In re Sawyer and Fitts v. McGhee. The language On page 218 might be said to authorize, an injunction against criminal proceedings already pending; but, granting this, I do not think it overcomes the great weight of authority, both before and after, that states the rule otherwise. For instance, In re Young, a later case, says specifically (page 162 [28 S. Ct. 455]) : “But the federal court cannot, of course, interfere in a ease where the proceedings were already pending in a state court.”
In- conclusion, I am of the opinion that proceedings of any nature threatened to be brought under this act against thesq defendants- should be restrained, but that the in*183junction asked for to prevent the defendant from proceeding further in the suit now pending in the state court should be denied.