422 U.S. 922 (1975)
In July 1973, the town of North Hempstead, New York, enacted Local Law No. 1-1973, which prohibited bar owners and others from permitting waitresses, barmaids, and entertainers to appear with breasts uncovered or thinly draped.1 Salem Inn, Inc., M & L Restaurant, Inc., and Tim-Rob Bar, Inc., three corporations operating bars in the town, had previously provided topless dancing as entertainment.2 Following enactment, the corporations clothed their dancers in bikini tops to comply with the ordinance.3
On August 9, 1973, the three corporations filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the town attorney and other officials.4 They alleged that the ordinance violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and sought a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and declaratory relief.5 The district court denied the temporary restraining order but scheduled a hearing on the preliminary injunction for August 22, 1973.6
The day after filing, M & L Restaurant, Inc., resumed topless dancing and received criminal summonses on August 10 and the three succeeding days for violating the ordinance.7 Salem Inn, Inc., and Tim-Rob Bar, Inc., did not resume such entertainment until after the district court issued its preliminary injunction.8 On September 5, 1973, the town attorney filed an answer urging the district court to dismiss the complaint due to the pending state prosecution against M & L.9
On September 6, 1973, the district court granted a preliminary injunction to all three plaintiffs.10 The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.11 The town attorney then sought review in the Supreme Court of the United States.12
Whether a federal plaintiff against whom a state criminal prosecution is pending is barred by Younger v. Harris from obtaining injunctive or declaratory relief in federal court?13
Under Younger v. Harris and Samuels v. Mackell, federal courts must refrain from granting injunctive or declaratory relief that would interfere with ongoing state criminal prosecutions absent special circumstances such as bad faith or harassment.14
Yes. M & L Restaurant, Inc. resumed its presentation of topless dancing the day after the federal complaint was filed and was served with criminal summonses on that day and the three succeeding days.15 The state prosecution was thus pending when the district court granted the preliminary injunction on September 6, 1973, and the federal litigation was in an embryonic stage with no contested matter decided.16 M & L's prayers for both injunctive and declaratory relief are therefore subject to Younger's restrictions.17
A federal plaintiff against whom a state criminal prosecution is pending is barred by Younger v. Harris from obtaining injunctive or declaratory relief in federal court.18
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Douglas adheres to his dissenting position in Younger v. Harris.19 He joins the judgment of the Court insofar as it holds that Salem Inn and Tim-Rob were entitled to a preliminary injunction pending disposition of their request for declaratory relief.20 He does not condone the conduct of M & L in violating the challenged ordinance without awaiting judicial action on its federal complaint.21
Like the Court of Appeals, he finds no compelling reason to distinguish M & L from the other respondents in terms of the relief which is appropriate.22 He would therefore affirm the judgment below in all respects.23
Whether coplaintiffs not subject to any pending state prosecution may obtain preliminary injunctive relief in federal court without regard to the restrictions of Younger v. Harris?24
When no state criminal prosecution is pending against a federal plaintiff at the time injunctive relief is sought, Younger does not bar the federal court from considering a request for preliminary injunctive relief, provided the traditional standards for such relief are satisfied.25
Yes. Salem Inn, Inc. and Tim-Rob Bar, Inc. were not subject to state criminal prosecution at any time prior to the issuance of the preliminary injunction by the district court.26 They were entitled to declaratory relief under Steffel v. Thompson, and because the practical effect of injunctive and declaratory relief is virtually identical, they were entitled to have their claims for preliminary injunctive relief considered without regard to Younger's restrictions.27
Coplaintiffs not subject to any pending state prosecution may obtain preliminary injunctive relief in federal court without regard to the restrictions of Younger v. Harris.28
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Douglas adheres to his dissenting position in Younger v. Harris. He joins the judgment of the Court insofar as it holds that Salem Inn and Tim-Rob were entitled to a preliminary injunction pending disposition of their request for declaratory relief. He does not condone the conduct of M & L in violating the challenged ordinance without awaiting judicial action on its federal complaint.
Like the Court of Appeals, he finds no compelling reason to distinguish M & L from the other respondents in terms of the relief which is appropriate. He would therefore affirm the judgment below in all respects.
Whether multiple plaintiffs in a single federal action must be treated identically for Younger purposes when only one faces a pending state prosecution?29
Legally distinct parties should each be treated separately for Younger purposes unless they are so closely related in ownership, control, and management that they should all be subject to the same considerations.30
No. Although the three corporations are represented by common counsel and have similar business activities and problems, they are apparently unrelated in terms of ownership, control, and management.31 Each respondent should therefore be placed in the position required by the cases as if that respondent stood alone.32
Multiple plaintiffs in a single federal action need not be treated identically for Younger purposes when only one faces a pending state prosecution.33