Mitchum v. Foster
407 U.S. 225 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes a suit in equity to redress the deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law, constitutes an 'expressly authorized' exception to the federal Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 2283), thereby permitting a federal court to enjoin pending state court proceedings in appropriate circumstances.
Facts:
- Mitchum operated the Book Mart, a bookstore in Bay County, Florida.
- The prosecuting attorney of Bay County, Foster, initiated a legal proceeding in a Florida state court against Mitchum.
- The state prosecutor sought to close Mitchum's bookstore, claiming it constituted a public nuisance under Florida law.
- The Florida court issued a preliminary order prohibiting the continued operation of the bookstore.
- Mitchum alleged that the actions of the state judicial and law enforcement officials were unconstitutionally applied, depriving him of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Procedural Posture:
- The prosecuting attorney of Bay County, Florida, brought a nuisance abatement proceeding against Mitchum in a Florida state trial court.
- The state court entered a preliminary order prohibiting the operation of Mitchum's bookstore.
- Mitchum filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida against state officials, including Foster.
- A single federal judge issued temporary restraining orders against the state court proceeding.
- A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the case.
- After a hearing, the three-judge court dissolved the restraining orders and denied the injunction, holding that § 1983 was not an 'expressly authorized' exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.
- Mitchum, as appellant, brought a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court against Foster et al., as appellees.
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes a 'suit in equity' to redress the deprivation of federal constitutional rights under color of state law, fall within the 'expressly authorized by Act of Congress' exception to the federal Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
Yes, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 falls within the 'expressly authorized' exception of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act establishes an absolute prohibition against federal courts enjoining state court proceedings unless one of its three specific exceptions applies. To determine if a statute qualifies as an 'expressly authorized' exception, the Court established a test: whether an Act of Congress, which creates a uniquely federal right or remedy enforceable in federal equity court, could be given its intended scope only by staying a state court proceeding. A statute need not expressly reference the Anti-Injunction Act to qualify. The legislative history of § 1983, originally enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, shows that its very purpose was to alter the relationship between the federal government and the states by interposing federal courts as guardians of federal rights against state infringement, including infringement by state judiciaries. Congress recognized that state courts might be unable or unwilling to protect these rights. Therefore, to fulfill its intended purpose, § 1983 must empower federal courts to enjoin state proceedings that threaten to cause great and irreparable harm to constitutional rights. This holding removes the absolute statutory bar of § 2283 in § 1983 actions but does not eliminate the restraining principles of equity, comity, and federalism articulated in Younger v. Harris.
Concurring - Chief Justice Burger
Yes, I concur that § 1983 is an exception to the absolute bar of the Anti-Injunction Act. However, this holding only removes the statutory prohibition. It does nothing to 'question or qualify in any way the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a federal court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding.' While Younger v. Harris established that these principles create a high bar for enjoining state criminal proceedings, the Court has not yet decided the precise restraint they impose in the context of state civil proceedings. Therefore, on remand, the District Court must consider whether these principles, similar to those in Younger, prevent the issuance of an injunction in this particular 'nuisance abatement' case.
Analysis:
This decision is critically important as it formally bridges the gap between the Anti-Injunction Act's broad prohibition and the protective purpose of § 1983. By holding that § 1983 is an 'expressly authorized' exception, the Court ensured that federal courts possess the statutory power to intervene and protect constitutional rights from being violated through state court proceedings. Had the court ruled otherwise, the abstention principles of Younger v. Harris would have been moot, as the Anti-Injunction Act would have imposed an absolute, non-discretionary bar on federal intervention. The decision thus preserves the role of federal courts as the ultimate guarantors of federal rights while simultaneously reaffirming that this power is not a license for frequent interference, but one that must be tempered by the principles of comity and federalism.
Unlock the full brief for Mitchum v. Foster