Steffel v. Thompson
- Decided
- March 19, 1974
- Docket
- 72-5581
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,574 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “federal declaratory relief is not precluded when no state prosecution is pending and a federal plaintiff demonstrates a genuine threat of enforcement” — Manuel Vasquez v. Tony Rackauckas (2013)
- holding that on its face or as applied challenge will lie although there is no pending state court proceeding — Spargo v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (2003)
- holding that Younger principles did not apply where no state criminal proceeding is pending when federal complaint is filed — Federal Express Corp. v. Tennessee Public Service Commission (1990)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*454] Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
When a state criminal proceeding under a disputed state criminal statute is pending against a federal plaintiff at the time his federal complaint is filed, Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66 (1971), held, respectively, that, unless bad-faith enforcement or other special circumstances are demonstrated, principles of equity, comity, and federalism preclude issuance of a federal injunction restraining enforcement of the criminal statute and, in all but unusual circumstances, a declaratory judgment upon the constitutionality of the statute. This case presents the important question reserved in Samuels v. Mackell, id., at 73-74, whether declaratory relief is precluded when a state prosecution has been threatened, but is not pending, and a showing of bad-faith enforcement or other special circumstances has not been made.
Petitioner, and others, filed a complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, invoking the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and its jurisdictional implementation, 28 U. S. C. § 1343. The complaint requested a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§2201-2202, that Ga. Code Ann. §26-1503 (1972) [1] was being applied in violation of petitioner's [*455] First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and an injunction restraining respondents — the solicitor of the Civil and Criminal Court of DeKalb County, the chief of the DeKalb County Police, the owner of the North DeKalb Shopping Center, and the manager of that shopping center — from enforcing the statute so as to interfere with petitioner’s constitutionally protected activities.
Statutes cited
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 28 U.S.C. § 1343
- 28 U.S.C. § 2201
- 28 U.S.C. § 1331
- 28 U.S.C. § 1342
- 28 U.S.C. § 1341
- 28 U.S.C. § 2281
- 28 U.S.C. § 2202
- 15 U.S.C. § 28
- 49 U.S.C. § 44
And 1 more section cited in the full opinion.
Cite this
Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.