Court Opinion

ID: 9634177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:53:40.280671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:55.918200
License: Public Domain

WISDOM, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially):
I fully agree with Judge Christenberry’s thoughtful opinion for the court. Still, an abundance of caution moves me to emphasize the special circumstances in which we abstain today from deciding the plaintiffs’ constitutional contentions. The Louisiana statutory scheme under attack has recently been amended. There has been no authoritative state court interpretation of the new provisions. Moreover, at this time a civil action involving questions identical with those raised here is pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. This pending lawsuit provides “a reasonable hope of a prompt state court construction that might substantially recast the federal constitutional question.” Arla, Inc. v. Giarusso, No. 71-1364 (E.D.La., Nov. 22, 1971) (three-judge court). In short, our decision should not be read to require or even authorize the postponement of federal jurisdiction in constitutional litigation when no state court construction of the state law under attack is clearly shown to be forthcoming. Today’s decision is entirely com*691patible with the general rule that abstention is appropriate only in narrowly limited special circumstances. See Garvin v. Rosenau, 455 F.2d 233 (6th Cir. 1972).