England et al. v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners et al.
375 U.S. 411 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A litigant who is sent to state court under the abstention doctrine retains the right to have their federal claims decided by the federal court unless they freely and unreservedly submit their federal claims for decision by the state courts. A litigant can preserve this right by making an explicit reservation on the state court record of their intent to return to the federal forum for disposition of the federal claims.
Facts:
- Louisiana's Medical Practice Act established specific educational requirements for individuals to practice medicine in the state.
- A group of chiropractors sought to practice in Louisiana.
- These chiropractors had graduated from schools of chiropractic but had not complied with the educational requirements mandated by the Medical Practice Act.
- The chiropractors contended that applying the Medical Practice Act to them violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of chiropractors sued the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
- A three-judge District Court was convened and, on its own motion, invoked the abstention doctrine, staying the federal case pending a state court determination.
- The chiropractors then filed suit in a Louisiana state trial court, raising both their state-law claim about the statute's applicability and their federal Fourteenth Amendment claim.
- A Louisiana intermediate appellate court ruled against the chiropractors on all claims, holding the act was applicable and constitutional.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court declined to review the appellate court's decision.
- The chiropractors returned to the U.S. District Court.
- The Board filed a motion to dismiss the federal action, which the District Court granted, ruling that the state court's decision on the federal claims barred relitigation.
- The chiropractors, as appellants, appealed the dismissal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
After a federal district court abstains and refers a case to a state court for a determination of state law, does the litigant waive their right to return to the federal court for a final decision on their federal constitutional claims if they unreservedly litigate those federal claims in the state court?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. A litigant waives their right to return to federal court for adjudication of their federal claims if, after a federal court abstains, they freely and without reservation submit those federal claims for decision by the state courts. The abstention doctrine is a postponement, not an abdication, of federal jurisdiction, and a party has a right to a federal forum for their federal claims. However, to prevent inefficiency and friction between judicial systems, a party who voluntarily seeks a full and final adjudication in state court is bound by that choice. The Court clarified that its prior decision in Windsor only requires a party to inform the state court of their federal claims so the state law can be interpreted in light of them, not to fully litigate them. To avoid forfeiture, a litigant can make an explicit reservation on the state court record, stating their intent to return to federal court for disposition of their federal claims. Because the appellants in this case acted under a reasonable but mistaken belief that Windsor required them to litigate their federal claims in state court, the rule will not be applied to them, and the case is remanded.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. While agreeing with the outcome, Justice Douglas wrote separately to criticize the underlying Pullman abstention doctrine as a 'Frankenstein' that creates unnecessary expense and years-long delays, particularly harming civil rights litigants. He argued that the majority's new 'reservation' rule, while well-intentioned, adds another procedural trap to an already flawed doctrine. He contended that federal courts are capable of deciding state-law questions and that the abstention doctrine should be reevaluated or, at a minimum, be made less mandatory and procedurally burdensome. Instead of creating new traps, the Court should lighten the requirements and recognize that a party sent involuntarily to state court should be presumed to retain their right to a federal forum unless they unequivocally elect to abandon it.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. Justice Black agreed with the majority that the District Court's reason for dismissal was erroneous. However, he argued that the dismissal itself should be affirmed on a different ground: the appellants' original complaint failed to state a substantial federal question. In his view, the underlying constitutional challenge to the state's medical licensing law was so weak that the federal court should not have exercised jurisdiction in the first place.
Analysis:
This case establishes the crucial procedural safeguard known as the 'England reservation,' clarifying the path for litigants after a federal court abstains. By creating an explicit mechanism to preserve the right to a federal forum, the Court attempted to resolve the procedural trap created by the intersection of the Pullman abstention doctrine and the principles of res judicata. This decision balances the comity-based goals of abstention with the statutory right of litigants to have federal claims adjudicated by federal courts. The ruling places a significant procedural burden on counsel to be aware of this rule and make the proper reservation to avoid inadvertently forfeiting their client's right to return to federal court.
