Also known as:Pullman abstention · Pullman abstention doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A prudential abstention doctrine directing federal courts to stay proceedings on a federal constitutional claim when the claim depends on an unsettled question of state law that a state court might resolve in a way that avoids or narrows the constitutional issue. The doctrine rests on principles of federalism and constitutional avoidance. It requires the federal court to retain jurisdiction while allowing state courts to interpret the state law first.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
2
Construction Firm Seeks Permit Ruling
Crest Construct files a federal suit alleging that a state subcontractor preference statute violates the dormant Commerce Clause. A parallel state action seeks a declaratory judgment on whether Crest Construct's joint venture satisfies the statute's unsettled corporate-residency definition. If the state court rules that the joint venture qualifies as in-state, the federal claim becomes moot. The federal court therefore stays the constitutional action to permit the state court to resolve the definitional question first.
Medical Board Challenges Licensing Rule
A group of physicians sues in federal court claiming that a state medical licensing statute violates equal protection. A pending state proceeding asks whether the statute even applies to their practice model under an ambiguous provision never construed by the state supreme court. A favorable state ruling would eliminate the asserted injury and the constitutional claim. The federal court therefore abstains temporarily while the state court interprets the statute.
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.
When does the Pullman doctrine require a federal court to abstain?
The doctrine applies when a federal constitutional claim turns on an unsettled question of state law and a state court ruling might avoid or narrow the constitutional issue. The federal court stays the action but retains jurisdiction so that the state court can resolve the state-law question first.
Supporting sources
Does Pullman abstention dismiss the federal case for lack of jurisdiction?
No. The doctrine is prudential rather than jurisdictional. The federal court retains jurisdiction and typically issues a stay while the state court resolves the unsettled state-law issue.
Supporting sources
What happens if the state court ruling does not eliminate the federal claim?
The federal court may lift the stay and proceed to decide the constitutional question after the state court has clarified the state law. The abstention merely postpones adjudication until the state-law issue is resolved.
Supporting sources
Why does the Pullman doctrine promote federalism?
It respects state courts' primary role in interpreting their own laws and avoids unnecessary federal constitutional rulings. Temporary abstention therefore conserves federal judicial resources and prevents premature interference with state regulatory schemes.
…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