Also known as:Pullman abstentions · Pullman abstention doctrine · Pullman doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A prudential doctrine directing federal courts to stay proceedings on federal constitutional claims pending state-court resolution of unsettled state-law questions whose determination might obviate or narrow the constitutional issue.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
2
Hotel Ordinance Coverage Dispute
Penelope Price and other boutique hotel owners sued the city in federal court, claiming a short-term rental ordinance violated due process and equal protection. Parallel state litigation was already underway over whether boutique hotels qualified as residential rental units under the ordinance's ambiguous language. A state ruling excluding the hotels would eliminate the need for any federal constitutional decision. The district court stayed the federal action to let state courts interpret the ordinance first.
Medical Board Licensing Challenge
Preston Pratt and other out-of-state physicians sued the state medical board in federal court, alleging that licensing rules violated equal protection. The board moved for abstention because a pending state proceeding would decide whether the physicians qualified for an exemption under an un construed state statute. If the state tribunal granted the exemption, the federal claim would disappear. The district court stayed the action under the doctrine and preserved the plaintiffs' right to return after the state decision.
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners375 U.S. 411, 423, 84 S.Ct. 461, 468–69, 11 L.Ed.2d 440 (1964)
In 1957 graduates of chiropractic schools brought an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners.
The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that the educational requirements of the Louisiana Medical Practice Act, Title 37, La. Rev. Stat. §§ 1261-1290, violated the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to them.
After an initial dismissal was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a statutory three-judge district court was convened.
The three-judge court invoked the abstention doctrine sua sponte and entered an order staying further proceedings until the Louisiana courts had an opportunity to determine the issues presented, while retaining jurisdiction.
The order noted that the state court might end the controversy by holding that chiropractors were not governed by the statute.
The plaintiffs did not appeal the abstention order.
The plaintiffs then filed suit in Louisiana state courts.
They submitted for decision both whether the Medical Practice Act applied to chiropractors and whether, if applicable, the Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
The state trial court dismissed the petition on the basis of the same documentary evidence that had been before the federal court.
An intermediate appellate court held that the Act applied to chiropractors and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Louisiana Supreme Court declined review.
The plaintiffs returned to the federal district court, where the defendants moved to dismiss.
The district court granted the motion on the ground that the state courts had passed on all issues, including the federal constitutional claims.
The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, and the Court noted probable jurisdiction in 1963.
The doctrine applies when a federal constitutional claim rests on an unsettled question of state law and a state-court ruling might avoid or substantially narrow the constitutional issue. Federal courts retain jurisdiction but stay proceedings rather than dismiss the case.
Does Pullman abstention require dismissal of the federal action?
No. The federal court stays the case and retains jurisdiction so the plaintiff can return after the state courts resolve the state-law question. Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is improper.
How does the England procedure interact with Pullman abstention?
After state courts decide the state-law issues, a plaintiff who expressly reserved federal claims may return to federal court for adjudication of those claims. The reservation protects the right to federal review.
Does the presence of parallel state litigation always require Pullman abstention?
No. Abstention is appropriate only when the state-law issue is unsettled and its resolution could eliminate or narrow the federal constitutional question. Parallel litigation alone does not trigger the doctrine.
…of Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, from which today's decision stems, is necessary. Although the propriety of the Pullman doctrine, either as originally decided or as it has evolved, has not been raised by the parties, I think it is time for the Court, sua sponte, to reevaluate it. I The Pullman case, decided a…
Constitutional LawThe nature of judicial review · Judicial review in operationUBEFoundational