Court Opinion

ID: 9425631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:15:18.459564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:56.645384
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stewart,
with whom The Chief Justice joins, concurring.
While joining the opinion of the Court, I add a word by way of emphasis.
*476Our decision today must not be understood as authorizing the invocation of federal declaratory judgment jurisdiction by a person who thinks a state criminal law is unconstitutional, even if he genuinely feels “chilled” in his freedom of action by the law’s existence, and even if he honestly entertains the subjective belief that he may now or in the future be prosecuted under it.
As the Court stated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 52:
“The power and duty of the judiciary to declare laws unconstitutional is in the final analysis derived from its responsibility for resolving concrete disputes brought before the courts for decision
See also Boyle v. Landry, 401 U. S. 77, 80-81.
The petitioner in this case has succeeded in objectively showing that the threat of imminent arrest, corroborated by the actual arrest of his companion, has created an actual concrete controversy between himself and the agents of the State. He has, therefore, demonstrated “a genuine threat of enforcement of a disputed state criminal statute . . ."* Cases where such a “genuine threat” can be demonstrated will, I think, be exceedingly rare.

See ante, at 475. Whether, in view of “recent developments,” the controversy is a continuing one, will be for the District Court to determine on remand. See ante, at 460.