Steffel v. Thompson
415 U.S. 452 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal declaratory relief is not precluded when a federal plaintiff demonstrates a genuine threat of enforcement of a disputed state criminal statute, but no state prosecution is pending, regardless of whether injunctive relief is appropriate or has been sought.
Facts:
- On October 8, 1970, petitioner Steffel and others were distributing handbills protesting the Vietnam War on a sidewalk at the North DeKalb Shopping Center.
- Shopping center employees asked them to stop and leave, and when they refused, police officers were summoned.
- The officers told the group they would be arrested if they did not stop handbilling, so the group left to avoid arrest.
- Two days later, Steffel and a companion returned to the shopping center to handbill again.
- Police were called and again warned Steffel that he would be arrested if he did not stop.
- Steffel left to avoid arrest, but his companion continued handbilling, was arrested, and was subsequently charged with criminal trespass under Georgia law.
- Steffel desired to continue his handbilling activities at the shopping center but refrained from doing so out of a credible fear of arrest and prosecution.
Procedural Posture:
- Steffel filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction.
- The District Court denied all relief and dismissed the action, finding no 'active controversy' because there was no showing of bad-faith enforcement.
- Steffel appealed only the denial of declaratory relief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the 'bad faith harassment' test for injunctive relief also applies to requests for declaratory relief against threatened prosecutions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is federal declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of a state criminal statute precluded when a prosecution under the statute is threatened but not pending, and there is no showing of bad-faith enforcement?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No. Federal declaratory relief is not precluded when a prosecution is threatened but not pending. The principles of equity, comity, and federalism articulated in Younger v. Harris, which generally bar federal courts from interfering with pending state criminal prosecutions, have little force in the absence of a pending state proceeding. When no state prosecution is pending, federal intervention does not result in duplicative proceedings or disrupt the state's criminal justice system, nor does it reflect negatively on the state court's ability to enforce constitutional principles. A refusal to intervene would place the plaintiff in the untenable position of either intentionally flouting state law to create a test case or forgoing what they believe to be constitutionally protected activity. The legislative history of the Declaratory Judgment Act demonstrates Congress intended it as a milder, alternative remedy to the injunction, to be available even when the traditional prerequisites for an injunction, such as irreparable injury, cannot be met.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
Joins the majority opinion but emphasizes that federal declaratory judgment jurisdiction is not available to anyone who merely feels 'chilled' by a law's existence. A plaintiff must objectively demonstrate a 'genuine threat of enforcement' of the disputed statute. In this case, Steffel met this high standard by showing he was twice threatened with imminent arrest and that his companion was actually arrested for the same conduct, creating a concrete controversy. Cases meeting this standard will be 'exceedingly rare.'
Concurring - Justice White
Agrees with the Court's opinion but writes separately to express tentative views on issues not decided by the majority. A final declaratory judgment holding a plaintiff's conduct to be constitutionally immune from prosecution should be accorded res judicata effect in any subsequent state prosecution of that same conduct. Furthermore, a federal court that has issued a declaratory judgment should not be barred from later enjoining a state prosecution for conduct it has declared immune, pursuant to the 'further necessary or proper relief' provision of the Declaratory Judgment Act.
Concurring - Justice Rehnquist
Agrees with the Court's opinion but writes to emphasize its limits. The holding applies only to declaratory relief where prosecution is threatened, not to injunctive relief or where prosecution is pending. A plaintiff who files for a declaratory judgment and then continues the prohibited conduct risks dismissal of the federal suit if arrested, as the prosecution would then be 'pending.' Furthermore, a favorable declaratory judgment should not be seen as a stepping stone to a later injunction against prosecution, as this would undermine the principles of federalism from Younger v. Harris. A state prosecutor's choice to enforce a law despite a contrary federal declaratory judgment is not, by itself, evidence of bad faith.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the Younger abstention doctrine, establishing a critical distinction between pending and merely threatened state prosecutions. By permitting federal declaratory judgments in cases of threatened prosecution, Steffel provides an essential avenue for individuals to vindicate their constitutional rights in a federal forum without first having to risk arrest and conviction. This holding creates a 'safety valve' that prevents citizens from being 'chilled' into forgoing protected activities, thereby ensuring federal courts remain primary guardians of constitutional rights when state courts have not yet become involved. The case solidifies the role of the declaratory judgment as a distinct and less intrusive remedy than an injunction, with different standards for its application.
Unlock the full brief for Steffel v. Thompson