Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., et al.
422 U.S. 922 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Younger abstention doctrine, a federal court must refrain from enjoining a pending state criminal prosecution, but may grant preliminary injunctive relief against future prosecutions for plaintiffs against whom no state proceedings are pending, provided they meet the traditional standards for such relief.
Facts:
- Salem Inn, Inc., Tim-Rob Bar, Inc., and M & L Restaurant, Inc. operated bars in the Town of North Hempstead and provided topless dancing as entertainment for their customers.
- On July 17, 1973, the Town of North Hempstead enacted Local Law No. 1-1973, an ordinance making it unlawful for bar owners and others to permit entertainers to appear with uncovered breasts.
- The three corporations initially complied with the ordinance by clothing their dancers in bikini tops.
- On August 10, 1973, one day after the three corporations filed a joint federal lawsuit challenging the ordinance, M & L Restaurant, Inc. resumed its presentation of topless dancing.
- On that day and the three succeeding days, M & L and its dancers were served with criminal summonses for violating the ordinance.
- Salem Inn, Inc. and Tim-Rob Bar, Inc. continued to comply with the ordinance and did not resume topless entertainment during this period.
Procedural Posture:
- Salem Inn, Inc., Tim-Rob Bar, Inc., and M & L Restaurant, Inc. sued the Town Attorney of North Hempstead in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.
- The District Court denied an initial request for a temporary restraining order but scheduled a hearing for a preliminary injunction.
- After the lawsuit was filed but before the hearing, Nassau County Court issued criminal summonses to M & L Restaurant, Inc.
- The District Court granted a preliminary injunction for all three plaintiffs, enjoining the town from enforcing the ordinance against them.
- The Town Attorney (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that all three plaintiffs (appellees) were entitled to the preliminary injunction.
- The Town Attorney sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal but granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Younger abstention doctrine bar a federal court from issuing a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a local ordinance for all plaintiffs when a state criminal prosecution is pending against one plaintiff, but not against other similarly situated plaintiffs who are party to the same federal lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. The Younger abstention doctrine applies on a plaintiff-by-plaintiff basis and does not bar a federal court from granting a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs against whom no state criminal prosecution is pending, even if a co-plaintiff is subject to such a prosecution. For respondent M & L, against whom criminal summonses were issued after its federal complaint was filed but while the litigation was in an 'embryonic stage,' Younger abstention is appropriate, and the federal court should not have granted injunctive or declaratory relief. For respondents Salem and Tim-Rob, no state proceedings were pending, so they were not barred by Younger from seeking federal relief. The Court holds that where no state prosecution is pending, a plaintiff may seek preliminary injunctive relief, not just the declaratory relief authorized in Steffel v. Thompson, to prevent irreparable harm before a final judgment. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction to Salem and Tim-Rob because they demonstrated irreparable harm (substantial business loss) and a likelihood of success on the merits, given that the ordinance was likely unconstitutionally overbroad by applying to 'any public place' and not just establishments serving alcohol.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. While adhering to his dissent in Younger v. Harris, Justice Douglas concurs that Salem and Tim-Rob were entitled to a preliminary injunction. However, he dissents from the Court's reversal as to M & L, stating that he finds no compelling reason to distinguish M & L from the other respondents in terms of the appropriate relief. He would have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in its entirety, granting relief to all three plaintiffs.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the application of the Younger abstention doctrine, establishing that its analysis is plaintiff-specific rather than case-specific. It clarifies that legally distinct co-plaintiffs are not automatically grouped together for abstention purposes. The decision's most important contribution is extending the logic of Steffel v. Thompson, which permitted declaratory relief in the absence of a pending state prosecution, to also allow for preliminary injunctive relief. This provides a crucial remedy for plaintiffs who face irreparable harm from an allegedly unconstitutional statute but have not yet been prosecuted, solidifying a key exception to the general principle of federal non-interference with state law enforcement.
Unlock the full brief for Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., et al.