Court Opinion

ID: 9466456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:16:19.260874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:44.619361
License: Public Domain

*462JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur, but add these observations. The result we find to be required in this case may well bring to an end cooperative undertakings between potential adversaries in situations like the one reviewed here.
If a prosecuting attorney prefers that he not be forced to try his cases in federal court, often sitting many miles away from the state court having jurisdiction, he would be well advised to refrain from conciliatory measures which might warn his adversary of intention to bring criminal proceedings. Septum, in this case, professes to have wanted an opportunity to consider substituting a film for the allegedly offensive one and, on that profession, negotiated a “notice” arrangement with the district attorney. We now announce that by making this agreement Septum brought itself within the Younger “window”: A point lying between the time when a real and substantial threat of prosecution arises and the time when state criminal proceedings are commenced.
Justice Stewart observed in Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 476, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 1224, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974) (Stewart, J., concurring): “Cases where such a ‘genuine threat’ can be demonstrated will, I think, be exceedingly rare.” Perhaps their rarity will be governed by the willingness of the state’s attorney to work constructively with potential violators. Such cases will be rare, indeed, where the state refuses to be helpful; to secure state court jurisdiction, it must institute criminal proceedings by surprise.
Perhaps parties yet bent upon constructive cooperation can devise a way to implement that good impulse without transferring potential cases from state courts to federal courts. I do not believe that what we say today is intended to discourage their trying.