Douglas v. City of Jeannette
1943 U.S. LEXIS 712, 63 S. Ct. 877, 319 U.S. 157 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal courts of equity should not interfere with or enjoin threatened state court criminal prosecutions, even on constitutional grounds, except in exceptional cases where there is a showing of irreparable injury that is both great and immediate.
Facts:
- The City of Jeannette, Pennsylvania, enacted Ordinance No. 60, which prohibited soliciting orders for merchandise without first obtaining a license and paying a license tax.
- Petitioners were Jehovah's Witnesses whose religious beliefs compelled them to engage in house-to-house distribution of printed religious materials.
- As part of their activities, petitioners solicited contributions and sold books and pamphlets explaining their religious interpretations.
- In April 1939, officials from the City of Jeannette arrested and prosecuted several Jehovah's Witnesses for violating the ordinance by distributing their literature without a license.
- The city officials declared their intention to continue enforcing the ordinance against the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners (Jehovah's Witnesses) filed a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the City of Jeannette and its Mayor.
- The suit sought an injunction to prevent the city from enforcing its solicitation ordinance against them.
- The District Court found the ordinance unconstitutional and granted a permanent injunction.
- Respondents (the City and Mayor) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision on the merits and directed that the suit be dismissed.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment 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 of equity enjoin a state criminal prosecution under a city ordinance, even if the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied, where there is no showing of irreparable injury beyond that incidental to every good faith criminal proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Stone
No. A federal court of equity should not enjoin a state criminal prosecution under these circumstances. While the district court had jurisdiction to hear the case under the Civil Rights Act, the petitioners failed to establish a cause of action in equity. It is a long-standing policy that federal courts should not interfere with state criminal proceedings, as the accused can raise constitutional defenses during the state trial and any subsequent appeals. An exception exists only for cases of 'irreparable injury which is clear and imminent,' which petitioners did not demonstrate. The harm of defending a good-faith criminal prosecution does not constitute such an injury. Furthermore, the Court's decision in the companion case, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, which held the same ordinance unconstitutional as applied to Jehovah's Witnesses, removes any future threat and makes an injunction unnecessary.
Concurring - Justice Jackson
No. While concurring in the judgment to dismiss the suit, Justice Jackson writes separately to provide factual context he believes was overlooked in the companion cases of Murdock and Struthers, in which he dissents. He details the aggressive and inflammatory nature of the Jehovah's Witnesses' campaign in Jeannette, including their organized 'invasion' of the city on Palm Sunday and the distribution of literature calling the Catholic Church a 'whore' and a 'racket.' He argues that the Court's decisions in the companion cases fail to properly balance the Witnesses' First Amendment rights against the rights of householders to privacy and freedom from harassment. He agrees with the result in this case—denying the injunction—because the Murdock decision renders it moot, but he fundamentally disagrees with the constitutional analysis in Murdock that creates this outcome.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational pillar of the equitable abstention doctrine, later known as the Younger abstention doctrine, which counsels federal court restraint in interfering with state court proceedings. It establishes a very high bar for plaintiffs seeking a federal injunction against state criminal prosecutions, requiring proof of bad faith, harassment, or other extraordinary circumstances creating 'great and immediate' irreparable injury. The decision strongly reinforces principles of comity and federalism, preserving the primary role of state courts in interpreting and enforcing state laws, subject to ultimate review of federal questions by the Supreme Court. This precedent significantly limits the ability of federal courts to provide preemptive relief against potentially unconstitutional state statutes.
Unlock the full brief for Douglas v. City of Jeannette