Warning
Info
Warning
Info
Simple English definitions for legal terms
abstention doctrine
Read a random definition: ex causa mandati
A quick definition of abstention doctrine:
The abstention doctrine is a rule that says federal courts should let state courts handle certain cases instead of getting involved. This is because states have their own laws and it's important to let them handle things that are important to them. There are different types of abstention, like the Pullman Doctrine, which says federal courts should wait for state courts to decide on a law before getting involved, and the Younger Doctrine, which says federal courts should stay out of cases that are already being handled by state courts. There are exceptions to these rules, like if the state is being unfair or if a law is clearly unconstitutional. The Burford Doctrine says federal courts should let state agencies handle their own issues, and the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine says federal courts can't review decisions made by state supreme courts.A more thorough explanation:
The abstention doctrine is a legal principle that prevents federal courts from hearing cases within their jurisdiction and instead gives state courts authority over the case. This principle is based on federalism, which means that the federal government and state governments have separate powers and responsibilities. The abstention doctrine allows state courts to handle cases that are particularly significant to the state or its laws.
There are different sub-doctrines of the abstention doctrine, which have been established by various Supreme Court cases. These include:
- The Pullman Doctrine
- The Younger Doctrine
- The Burford Doctrine
- The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
The Pullman Doctrine states that federal courts should stay away from a case when constitutional issues are involved and state court proceedings can resolve the issue. For example, if a person challenges a state law that violates the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal court should allow the state court to interpret the law and resolve the issue.
The Younger Doctrine holds that federal courts should abstain from cases that are pending in state proceedings. For example, if a person is being prosecuted in a state court for a criminal offense and challenges the constitutionality of the criminal statute in federal court, the federal court should not interfere with the state court proceedings. This is because states have a right to be free from federal interference with state criminal prosecutions brought in good faith.
The Burford Doctrine directs federal courts to refuse cases where state agency action is involved. Instead, federal courts should defer to state courts to review the state's agencies. For example, if a person challenges a decision made by a state agency, the federal court should allow the state court to review the decision.
The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine holds that lower federal courts may review the constitutionality of state-promulgated statutes and rules, but they may not review holdings of the state's supreme court pertaining to those policies. For example, if a person challenges a state's bar-admission policies, the federal court may review general challenges to the policies but may not review matters that were intertwined with the state's supreme court decisions in judicial proceedings.
Exceptions to the Younger Doctrine include cases where the state brought the criminal proceeding in bad faith, the statute challenged is patently unconstitutional, or the state forum is incompetent to adjudicate because of bias.
The abstention doctrine is an important principle in our legal system because it allows state courts to handle cases that are particularly significant to the state or its laws. It also helps to prevent conflicts between federal and state courts and ensures that each court has the appropriate level of authority to handle legal issues.