Judgment for plaintiffs, 281 F. Supp. 507 (C.D. Cal. 1968); probable jurisdiction noted, 393U.S. 1013 (1969).
Holding
The possible unconstitutionality of a state statute is not grounds for a federal court to enjoin state court criminal proceedings brought pursuant to that statute. District Court for the Central District of California reversed and remanded.
In 1966, several months after the Watts riots and in response to the killing of Leonard Deadwiler (a Black man shot by police while driving his pregnant wife to the hospital), John Harris, Jr., was arrested while handing out leaflets which said, among other things, "Wanted for the murder of Leonard Deadwiler, Bobo the cop."[2]
Harris, a member of the Progressive Labor Party, was indicted on two violations of the California Criminal Syndicalism Act, §§11400 and 11401. These statutes prohibited advocating "unlawful acts of force or violence [to] effect political change." Harris faced 14 years on each count.[2]
While prosecution was pending, Harris sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to get an injunction preventing District Attorney Evelle J. Younger from enforcing the law on the grounds that it violated the free speech guarantee. He was joined in this action by Jim Dan and Diane Hirsch, members of the PLP, and Farrel Broslawsky, a history instructor. In Harris v. Younger, 281 F. Supp. 507 (C.D. Cal. 1968), the district court found the Act unconstitutional, enjoining the state from further prosecution of Harris.[3] Younger appealed.
Decision and precedentedit
In an 8–1 decision, the Court held that federal courts may not hear the case until the person is convicted or found not guilty of the crime unless the defendant will suffer an irreparable injury that is "both great and immediate." Merely having to endure a criminal prosecution is no such irreparable harm.
There are three exceptions to Younger abstention:
Where the prosecution is in bad faith (i.e. the state knows the person to be innocent)—as applied in Dombrowski v. Pfister; or
Where the prosecution is part of some pattern of harassment against an individual; or
Where the law being enforced is utterly and irredeemably unconstitutional (e.g., if the state were to pass a law making it a crime to say anything negative about its governor under any circumstances).
If the ‘advocacy’ which Harris used was an attempt at persuasion through the use of bullets, bombs, and arson, we would have a different case. But Harris is charged only with distributing leaflets advocating political action toward his objective...
The eternal temptation, of course, has been to arrest the speaker rather than to correct the conditions about which he complains. I see no reason why these appellees should be made to walk the treacherous ground of these statutes. They, like other citizens, need the umbrella of the First Amendment as they study, analyze, discuss, and debate the troubles of these days. When criminal prosecutions can be leveled against them because they express unpopular views, the society of the dialogue is in danger.
Status as precedentedit
The doctrine was later extended to situations where the state is seeking to execute a civil fine against someone, or has jailed a person for contempt of court. The doctrine applies even where the state does not bring an action until after the person has filed a lawsuit in federal court, provided that the federal court has not yet taken any action on the suit. Moreover, the principle of abstention applies to some state administrative proceedings.
In regard to the exceptions which the Younger Court articulated, later decisions make it clear that these are highly difficult to meet.
Bad faith prosecution: in no case since Younger was decided has the Supreme Court found there to exist bad faith prosecution sufficient to justify a federal court injunction against state court proceedings. The Court has specifically declined to find bad faith prosecution even in circumstances where repeated prosecutions had occurred. As commentator Erwin Chemerinsky states, the bad-faith prosecution exception seems narrowly limited to facts like those in Dombrowski.[4] Other scholars have even asserted that the possible range of cases which would fit the Dombrowski model and allow an exception to the no-injunction rule is so limited as to be an "empty universe."[5]
Patently unconstitutional law: in no case since Younger was decided has the Supreme court found there to exist a patently unconstitutional law sufficient to justify a federal court injunction against state court proceedings. The Court has specifically declined to find such patent unconstitutionality in at least one case (Trainor v. Hernandez) [6]
Inadequate state forum: the Supreme Court has found the state forum in question to be inadequate on a small number of occasions.[7]
^e.g. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), oyez.org Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973), oyez.org.
External linksedit
Works related to Younger v. Harris at Wikisource
Text of Younger v. Harris, 401U.S. 37 (1971) is available from:CourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
January 01, 1970
younger, harris, 1971, case, which, united, states, supreme, court, held, that, united, states, federal, courts, were, required, abstain, from, hearing, civil, rights, tort, claims, brought, person, currently, being, prosecuted, matter, arising, from, that, cl. Younger v Harris 401 U S 37 1971 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim 1 Younger v HarrisSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued April 1 1969Reargued April 29 1970Reargued November 16 1970Decided February 23 1971Full case nameEvelle J Younger District Attorney of Los Angeles County v John Harris Jr Jim Dan Diane Hirsch and Farrel BroslawskyCitations401 U S 37 more 91 S Ct 746 27 L Ed 2d 669 1971 U S LEXIS 136Case historyPriorJudgment for plaintiffs 281 F Supp 507 C D Cal 1968 probable jurisdiction noted 393 U S 1013 1969 HoldingThe possible unconstitutionality of a state statute is not grounds for a federal court to enjoin state court criminal proceedings brought pursuant to that statute District Court for the Central District of California reversed and remanded Court membershipChief Justice Warren E Burger Associate Justices Hugo Black William O DouglasJohn M Harlan II William J Brennan Jr Potter Stewart Byron WhiteThurgood Marshall Harry BlackmunCase opinionsMajorityBlack joined by Burger Harlan Stewart BlackmunConcurrenceStewart joined by HarlanConcurrenceBrennan joined by White MarshallDissentDouglasLaws applied28 U S C 2283 Contents 1 Facts 2 Decision and precedent 3 Dissent 4 Status as precedent 5 See also 6 References 7 External linksFacts editIn 1966 several months after the Watts riots and in response to the killing of Leonard Deadwiler a Black man shot by police while driving his pregnant wife to the hospital John Harris Jr was arrested while handing out leaflets which said among other things Wanted for the murder of Leonard Deadwiler Bobo the cop 2 Harris a member of the Progressive Labor Party was indicted on two violations of the California Criminal Syndicalism Act 11400 and 11401 These statutes prohibited advocating unlawful acts of force or violence to effect political change Harris faced 14 years on each count 2 While prosecution was pending Harris sued under 42 U S C 1983 to get an injunction preventing District Attorney Evelle J Younger from enforcing the law on the grounds that it violated the free speech guarantee He was joined in this action by Jim Dan and Diane Hirsch members of the PLP and Farrel Broslawsky a history instructor In Harris v Younger 281 F Supp 507 C D Cal 1968 the district court found the Act unconstitutional enjoining the state from further prosecution of Harris 3 Younger appealed Decision and precedent editIn an 8 1 decision the Court held that federal courts may not hear the case until the person is convicted or found not guilty of the crime unless the defendant will suffer an irreparable injury that is both great and immediate Merely having to endure a criminal prosecution is no such irreparable harm There are three exceptions to Younger abstention Where the prosecution is in bad faith i e the state knows the person to be innocent as applied in Dombrowski v Pfister or Where the prosecution is part of some pattern of harassment against an individual or Where the law being enforced is utterly and irredeemably unconstitutional e g if the state were to pass a law making it a crime to say anything negative about its governor under any circumstances Dissent editIn dissent Justice Douglas noted If the advocacy which Harris used was an attempt at persuasion through the use of bullets bombs and arson we would have a different case But Harris is charged only with distributing leaflets advocating political action toward his objective The eternal temptation of course has been to arrest the speaker rather than to correct the conditions about which he complains I see no reason why these appellees should be made to walk the treacherous ground of these statutes They like other citizens need the umbrella of the First Amendment as they study analyze discuss and debate the troubles of these days When criminal prosecutions can be leveled against them because they express unpopular views the society of the dialogue is in danger Status as precedent editThe doctrine was later extended to situations where the state is seeking to execute a civil fine against someone or has jailed a person for contempt of court The doctrine applies even where the state does not bring an action until after the person has filed a lawsuit in federal court provided that the federal court has not yet taken any action on the suit Moreover the principle of abstention applies to some state administrative proceedings In regard to the exceptions which the Younger Court articulated later decisions make it clear that these are highly difficult to meet Bad faith prosecution in no case since Younger was decided has the Supreme Court found there to exist bad faith prosecution sufficient to justify a federal court injunction against state court proceedings The Court has specifically declined to find bad faith prosecution even in circumstances where repeated prosecutions had occurred As commentator Erwin Chemerinsky states the bad faith prosecution exception seems narrowly limited to facts like those in Dombrowski 4 Other scholars have even asserted that the possible range of cases which would fit the Dombrowski model and allow an exception to the no injunction rule is so limited as to be an empty universe 5 Patently unconstitutional law in no case since Younger was decided has the Supreme court found there to exist a patently unconstitutional law sufficient to justify a federal court injunction against state court proceedings The Court has specifically declined to find such patent unconstitutionality in at least one case Trainor v Hernandez 6 Inadequate state forum the Supreme Court has found the state forum in question to be inadequate on a small number of occasions 7 See also editAbstention doctrine Anti Injunction Act 1793 References edit Younger v Harris 401 U S 37 1971 a b Oral Argument PDF April 1 1969 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a Cite journal requires journal help Harris v Younger Erwin Chemerinsky Federal Jurisdiction 5th ed 2007 Aspen Publishers p 860 Chemerinsky p 859 60 431 US 434 1977 oyez org e g Gerstein v Pugh 420 U S 103 1975 oyez org Gibson v Berryhill 411 U S 564 1973 oyez org External links edit nbsp Works related to Younger v Harris at Wikisource Text of Younger v Harris 401 U S 37 1971 is available from CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Younger v Harris amp oldid 1175154407, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
