Hicks v. Miranda
422 U.S. 332 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the principle of comity, a federal court must abstain from adjudicating a constitutional challenge to a state statute if a state criminal proceeding is initiated against the federal plaintiff after the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have occurred in the federal court.
Facts:
- On November 23 and 24, 1973, police seized four copies of the film “Deep Throat” from the Pussycat Theatre in Buena Park, California.
- The seizures were conducted pursuant to four separate judicial warrants.
- Following the seizures, criminal misdemeanor charges were filed against two employees of the theater.
- The theater was operated by Pussycat Theatre Hollywood, a corporation of which Vincent Miranda was president.
- After the theater owners filed a federal lawsuit, the pending state criminal complaint was amended to name the owners, Vincent Miranda and Walnut Properties, Inc., as additional defendants.
Procedural Posture:
- The Superior Court of Orange County, a state trial court, declared the film “Deep Throat” obscene and ordered all copies seized.
- The theater owners (appellees) did not appeal the state court's order.
- Appellees filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against police officers and prosecutors (appellants), seeking an injunction and a declaration that the state obscenity statute was unconstitutional.
- The single District Judge denied a temporary restraining order but requested the convening of a three-judge court.
- The state criminal complaint was amended in Orange County Municipal Court to add the appellees as defendants.
- The three-judge District Court declared the California obscenity statute unconstitutional and issued an injunction ordering the return of the seized films.
- The state officials (appellants) filed a direct appeal 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:
Does the Younger abstention doctrine require a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a state criminal statute if state criminal proceedings are initiated against the federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed but before any substantial proceedings on the merits have occurred in federal court?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
Yes. The Younger abstention doctrine requires dismissal where state criminal proceedings are initiated against federal plaintiffs after the filing of a federal complaint but before any proceedings of substance on the merits. The principle of comity, which underpins Younger, dictates that federal courts should not interfere with pending state criminal prosecutions. This principle applies with full force even if the state prosecution begins after the federal action, so long as the federal court has not yet engaged in substantial proceedings on the merits. The interests of the theater owners and their employees were intertwined, and the federal action sought to directly interfere with the state's case against the employees from the outset. The District Court also erred in finding bad faith and harassment, as the seizures were authorized by judicial warrants, and disagreement with a state court's interpretation of a statute does not constitute bad faith.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
No. The Court's ruling trivializes the holding in Steffel v. Thompson, which permitted federal declaratory relief when no state prosecution was pending at the time the federal complaint was filed. This new rule does not eliminate the 'race to the courthouse' but merely allows the state to start later and still win, effectively ousting federal courts from their role as primary guarantors of constitutional rights. It creates an open invitation for state officials to defeat federal jurisdiction simply by filing state criminal charges in response to a federal civil rights lawsuit. This distorts the balance of federalism by failing to protect the legitimate interests of the national government in vindicating federal rights.
Concurring - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
The Chief Justice joined the majority opinion but wrote separately to address a procedural issue regarding the composition of the three-judge District Court. He noted that the judge who initially requested the three-judge court was not appointed to serve on it, contrary to the mandatory language of 28 U.S.C. § 2284(1). While the appellants' failure to make a timely objection prevented it from being a fatal error in this case, he emphasized that the statute's requirement that the initiating judge serve on the panel is mandatory and any deviation should be explained on the record.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the Younger abstention doctrine, which previously applied only when state proceedings were pending at the time a federal suit was filed. By extending the doctrine to cover state prosecutions initiated after a federal complaint, the Court made it substantially more difficult for individuals to seek pre-enforcement review of state criminal statutes in federal court. This ruling created what the dissent termed a 'race to the courthouse,' where state prosecutors can effectively preempt a federal challenge by quickly filing criminal charges, thereby forcing the litigation into state court. The case reinforces the principles of comity and federalism by prioritizing the state's interest in adjudicating its own criminal laws without federal interference.
Unlock the full brief for Hicks v. Miranda