Also known as: abstention doctrine · abstention
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle directing federal courts to refrain from deciding federal constitutional questions when an unsettled issue of state law could resolve or narrow the constitutional claim. The doctrine promotes comity by allowing state courts to interpret their own laws first.
Destiny Davis, owner of an out-of-state production company, sued in federal court claiming that a state tax credit program violated equal protection by favoring local content. The program turned on an unsettled interpretation of what counted as sufficient local involvement in coproductions. The federal court abstained so that state courts could first clarify the statutory requirement.
Derek Douglas sued his former employer in federal court after termination, raising both contract and constitutional claims. An unsettled question of state employment law could have resolved the dispute without reaching the federal issue. The court stayed the federal action to permit state courts to address the state-law question first.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Dwight Dorsey faced potential state enforcement proceedings and filed a federal action seeking a declaration that the underlying statute was unconstitutional. No state prosecution had yet begun. The federal court declined to abstain because the absence of pending state proceedings allowed the declaratory action to proceed.
Pullman abstention applies when a federal constitutional claim depends on an unsettled question of state law that a state court decision might avoid or narrow. Federal courts then stay the case to let state courts resolve the state issue first.
Supporting sources
Pullman abstention addresses unsettled state-law questions that could moot a federal constitutional issue. Younger abstention applies when federal relief would interfere with ongoing state criminal or certain civil proceedings involving important state interests.
Supporting sources
The federal court retains jurisdiction but stays proceedings. Once the state court resolves the state-law question, the federal case may proceed or become moot depending on the state ruling.
Supporting sources
No. Once state courts have finally resolved the state-law issue, the federal court should proceed to decide the remaining federal questions rather than continue to abstain.
Supporting sources
…in state criminal prosecutions." Perez v. Ledesma , 401 U. S. 82, 128 (1971) (separate opinion of BRENNAN, J.). [^maj-21]: Abstention, a question "entirely separate from the question of granting declaratory or injunctive relief." Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullan , 406 U. S. 498, 509 n. 13 (1972), might be more…