Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs
134 S. Ct. 584, 82 U.S.L.W. 4027, 187 L. Ed. 2d 505 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal court abstention under the Younger v. Harris doctrine is a narrow exception applicable only to three exceptional categories of state proceedings: (1) ongoing state criminal prosecutions, (2) certain civil enforcement proceedings akin to criminal prosecutions, and (3) civil proceedings involving orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.
Facts:
- Sprint Communications, Inc. (Sprint), a national telecommunications provider, paid intercarrier access fees to Windstream Iowa Communications, Inc. (Windstream), a local carrier, for long-distance calls.
- In 2009, Sprint stopped paying these fees for calls made using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), believing federal law preempted state regulation of such calls.
- In response, Windstream threatened to block all calls to and from Sprint's customers.
- Sprint filed a complaint with the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) asking it to prevent Windstream from discontinuing service.
- After Windstream retracted its threat, Sprint successfully moved to withdraw its complaint.
- Despite the withdrawal, the IUB continued the proceedings to resolve the underlying legal question of whether VoIP calls were subject to intrastate access fees.
- The IUB ultimately issued an order ruling that the intrastate fees did apply to VoIP calls.
Procedural Posture:
- Sprint filed a complaint against the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) members in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Contemporaneously, Sprint filed a petition for judicial review of the IUB's order in Iowa state court.
- The IUB filed a motion in federal court asking the court to abstain from hearing the case under the Younger doctrine.
- The U.S. District Court granted the IUB's motion and dismissed Sprint's complaint.
- Sprint, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to abstain but vacated the dismissal, remanding the case with instructions to stay the federal proceeding pending the outcome of the state court action.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Eighth Circuit's decision.
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 abstain from hearing a case when a parallel state proceeding involves the judicial review of a state administrative agency's order that does not fall into one of the three established 'exceptional' categories?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. The Younger abstention doctrine does not require a federal court to abstain in these circumstances because the doctrine applies only to three narrow categories of cases. The Court clarified that abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule. The 'exceptional circumstances' that justify Younger abstention are limited to: 1) ongoing state criminal prosecutions; 2) certain 'civil enforcement proceedings' that are akin to criminal prosecutions, typically initiated by the state to sanction wrongdoing; and 3) 'civil proceedings involving certain orders...uniquely in furtherance of the state courts' ability to perform their judicial functions.' The state administrative proceeding here, initiated by a private party to resolve a commercial dispute, does not fit into any of these categories. The Eighth Circuit erred by applying the three-factor test from Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. as a freestanding basis for abstention; those factors are merely additional considerations for cases that already fall within one of the three core Younger categories.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the Younger abstention doctrine, reining in its expansion by some lower courts. By explicitly limiting Younger to the three 'exceptional' categories identified in New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans (NOPSI), the Court reinforces the 'virtually unflagging' obligation of federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given to them. This ruling makes it more difficult for federal courts to abstain from cases involving challenges to state administrative or regulatory actions, thereby preserving the federal forum for litigants raising federal questions against state agencies.
