Sobol v. Perez
289 F.Supp. 392, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9030 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court may enjoin a state criminal prosecution, notwithstanding the Anti-Injunction Act, when the prosecution is initiated in bad faith for the purpose of harassment and to deter the exercise of constitutionally protected rights, causing irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy in state court.
Facts:
- Richard Sobol, an attorney not licensed in Louisiana but admitted in other jurisdictions, came to Louisiana as a staff attorney for the Lawyers Constitutional Defense Committee (LCDC) to handle civil rights cases.
- LCDC maintained a formal association with the New Orleans law firm of Collins, Douglas and Elie.
- In October 1966, Gary Duncan, a young Black man, was involved in an altercation with white youths after his relatives desegregated a public school in Plaquemines Parish.
- Duncan was subsequently charged with cruelty to a juvenile. His family retained Sobol and Robert F. Collins of the associated Louisiana firm to represent him.
- At Duncan's initial court appearance, Collins introduced Sobol to the court as an attorney associated with him on the case.
- The cruelty charge was dropped, but Duncan was immediately re-charged with simple battery based on the same incident. Sobol represented Duncan alone at the subsequent trial.
- After Duncan's conviction, District Attorney Leander Perez, Jr., initiated an investigation into Sobol's bar status.
- On February 21, 1967, while Sobol was at the Plaquemines Parish courthouse to arrange an appeal bond for Duncan, Perez had him arrested and jailed for practicing law without a Louisiana license.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Sobol, Gary Duncan, and Isaac Reynolds filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking to enjoin Sobol's state criminal prosecution.
- Because the complaint challenged the constitutionality of state statutes, a three-judge district court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284.
- The United States intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs, and the State of Louisiana and the Louisiana State Bar Association intervened on behalf of the defendants.
- Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, which the court denied.
- The three-judge court held a trial on the merits to determine whether to grant injunctive relief.
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 a federal court have the authority to enjoin a state criminal prosecution that, while initiated under a facially valid statute, is brought in bad faith for the purpose of harassing an attorney and deterring the exercise of constitutional rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A federal court can enjoin a state criminal prosecution brought in bad faith for purposes of harassment. The court found that the prosecution of Sobol was not a legitimate enforcement of Louisiana's unauthorized practice of law statutes but was an unlawful prosecution intended to harass him and deter civil rights litigation. The prosecution was without basis in law or fact, as Sobol complied with the state's visiting attorney statute by being "temporarily present" and acting "in association with" local counsel, a position supported even by the intervening Louisiana State Bar Association. The circumstances of the prosecution—including the lack of any prior warning to Sobol, the manner of his arrest and jailing, and the context of hostility toward civil rights efforts in the parish—demonstrated that its purpose was to intimidate Sobol and other lawyers from representing Black clients in civil rights cases. This bad-faith prosecution creates irreparable injury by chilling the exercise of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, for which a defense in state court is not an adequate remedy.
Analysis:
This case is a significant application of the bad-faith harassment exception to the principle of federal court abstention from interfering in state proceedings, a doctrine later crystallized in Younger v. Harris. It establishes that federal courts can look behind the face of a state criminal proceeding to examine the prosecutor's motive and the context of the enforcement action. The decision affirms the power of federal courts to act as a crucial check on state officials who use the machinery of criminal law to suppress constitutional rights, particularly in the contentious context of the Civil Rights Movement. It underscores that procedural compliance with a statute does not shield a prosecution from federal review if its underlying purpose is illegitimate harassment.
