Burford v. Sun Oil Co.
319 U.S. 315, 1943 U.S. LEXIS 1103, 63 S. Ct. 1098 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the abstention doctrine, a federal court sitting in equity should decline to exercise its jurisdiction over cases involving a complex state administrative scheme where federal review would disrupt state efforts to establish a coherent policy on a matter of substantial public concern, and where the state has created a specialized system for judicial review.
Facts:
- The Texas Railroad Commission was charged with regulating the vast East Texas oil field, a complex task involving geological realities, conservation, and the economic interests of the state and hundreds of operators.
- The Commission established Rule 37, which set minimum spacing requirements for oil wells but allowed for exceptions to prevent 'waste' or 'confiscation of property.'
- The Commission granted R.W. Burford a permit to drill four wells on a very small plot of land as an exception to Rule 37.
- Sun Oil Co., which operated wells on adjacent land, believed that Burford's new wells would allow him to drain oil from beneath Sun Oil's property.
- Texas state law established a specific system for judicial review of the Commission's orders, concentrating all such lawsuits in the state courts of Travis County.
Procedural Posture:
- Sun Oil Co. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Railroad Commission's order.
- The district court, a court of first instance, dismissed Sun Oil's complaint.
- Sun Oil Co. appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the case should be heard on its merits.
- The Railroad Commission and Burford (petitioners) sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should a federal court, as a matter of equitable discretion, decline to exercise its jurisdiction over a case challenging an order from a complex state administrative agency when the state has provided for a unified and specialized judicial review system?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. As a matter of sound equitable discretion, a federal court should have declined to exercise its jurisdiction in this case. Federal court intervention in complex state regulatory schemes, like Texas's system for oil and gas conservation, creates needless friction with state policies and leads to confusion. Texas has established a comprehensive regulatory and review system, with the state courts acting as 'working partners' with the Railroad Commission to develop a coherent policy for a vital state industry. Federal review would disrupt this unified system, which is designed to handle difficult questions of state law and policy with specialized knowledge. The state provides an adequate and expeditious method for judicial review, and ultimate review of any federal constitutional questions is preserved in the U.S. Supreme Court after the state process is complete.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No. A federal court should not have declined to exercise its jurisdiction, as it has a duty to hear cases properly before it under the diversity jurisdiction granted by Congress. The purpose of diversity jurisdiction is to provide an impartial federal forum for out-of-state litigants, a right which the Court is improperly abrogating. The standards for judicial review under Texas law are sufficiently clear and defined for a federal judge to apply, so there is no need to abstain as in cases where state law is unsettled. The Texas statute providing for review in a 'court of competent jurisdiction in Travis County' has long been interpreted to include federal courts. To abstain here suggests federal judges are untrustworthy or incompetent to handle state law, undermining the entire foundation of diversity jurisdiction which Congress has repeatedly refused to abolish.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The federal court should have declined to exercise its jurisdiction. This decision is not a broad attack on diversity jurisdiction but a specific application of the principle that federal courts should respect the independence of state governments in carrying out domestic policy. The key factor is that the Texas courts are not merely enforcing agency orders; they are 'working partners' with the Railroad Commission, actively participating in the fashioning of the state's domestic policy on oil conservation. For federal courts to review these orders would be to actively interfere in state policymaking, creating divided authority and serious friction between the state and federal systems.
Analysis:
This case established a significant branch of the abstention doctrine, now known as 'Burford abstention.' Unlike other forms of abstention that may only postpone federal proceedings (like Pullman abstention), Burford abstention calls for the outright dismissal of a case. It applies specifically where federal court review of a state agency's decision would be disruptive to a complex state regulatory scheme that is of great importance to the state and for which the state has provided a specialized judicial review process. This decision significantly limits the exercise of federal jurisdiction, particularly diversity jurisdiction, in cases that could entangle federal courts in the administration of state policy.
