Judicial Federalism Outline

X. Judicial Federalism

Anti-Injunction Act

The Anti-Injunction Act (“AIA”) currently provides that a federal court “may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except [1] as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, [2] where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or [3] to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283.

BACKGROUND. The AIA, as originally enacted in 1793. (No one is sure why the AIA was enacted; Professor Mayton argues that the Act’s purpose was to prohibit a single Justice from enjoining a state proceeding while riding circuit). As originally enacted, the AIA did not recognize any exceptions. However, courts crafted several exceptions, for situations where (1) another Act of Congress expressly or impliedly authorized injunctions to stay state proceedings; (2) the stayed action was in rem; (3) the stayed action would have relitigated a federal court decision; or (4) the plaintiff in federal court was the United States or a federal agency asserting “superior federal interests.”

In Toucey, the Court expressly disavowed the relitigation exception and indicated that it intended to adopt a more textually constrained approach. In response, the 1948 amendments added explicit exceptions and indicated, in legislative history, that Congress intended to restore “the basic law as generally understood and interpreted prior to the Toucey decision.”

The AIA and Certiorari Jurisdiction. Note that the AIA (and similar statutes, including the Johnson Act and the Tax Injunction Act) were enacted prior to the abolition of mandatory Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction. The abolition of mandatory Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction may affect the AIA’s constitutionality if one believes that there is a right to have some federal court adjudicate every federal claim.

“AN INJUNCTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS.” Functional Approach. Injunctions that have the same effect as a stay of proceedings are barred by the AIA even if they do not take the form of an “injunction to stay proceedings.” Thus, Atlantic Coast held that the AIA prohibited a federal court from ordering the parties to refrain from utilizing the results of a completed state proceeding.

Injunction Prohibiting Commencement of Proceedings Are Permissible. Injunctions issued prior to state court consideration of the merits may be permissible. Thus, Ex Parte Young held that the AIA did not prohibit a federal court from issuing an injunction against any criminal proceedings not yet instituted.

Prejudgment Garnishment. Lynch held that a prejudgment garnishment was not a “proceeding” in state court within the meaning of the AIA, and hence could be enjoined by a federal court.

EXCEPTIONS. Atlantic Coast indicated that the reach of the AIA should be applied literally, its exceptions should not be construed narrowly, and that “any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state court to proceed.”

Under Atlantic Coast, a federal court is not permitted to enjoin a state court proceeding merely because (1) the proceedings interfere with a protected federal right or (2) invade an area preempted by federal law, even if the interference or invasion is “unmistakably clear.”

No Exception For Later-Filed In Personam Proceedings. The AIA precludes a federal court from enjoining a later-filed in personam state court action (Kline v. Burke Construction). Under this approach, both actions will proceed, and the law of preclusion will apply once one of the actions has come to judgment.

Fraudulent State Court Judgments. Prior to 1948, several Supreme Court decisions sustained the power of federal courts to enjoin litigants form enforcing judgments fraudulently obtained in state courts.

Injunctions Sought By The United States. Leiter Minerals recognized an exception to the AIA for injunctions sought by the United States.

Expressly Authorized. In light of the 1948 Act’s legislative history, the Court has construed “expressly authorized” to mean “impliedly authorized.” The test is “whether an Act of Congress, clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity, could be given its intended scope only by the state of a state court proceeding” (Mitchum).¹

“In Aid of Its Jurisdiction.” This exception confirms the “res” exception, and authorizes federal courts to stay proceedings in state cases that have been removed. However, the provision does not authorize federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings that encroach on the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB (Richman Brothers), and most lower courts have similarly held that the exception does not authorize federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings that encroach on the exclusive jurisdiction of federal district courts.

Relitigation Exception. For the relitigation exception to apply, the earlier federal court decision must have disposed of the merits of the legal issue being addressed in state court (Choo).² Moreover, the relitigation exception is limited “to those situations in which the state court has not yet ruled on the merits of the res judicata issue” (Parsons Steel). If a state court has ruled that a previous federal proceeding does not bind it, the federal court must respect this decision, per the Full Faith and Credit Statute (§1738), even if an injunction could have issued under the relitigation exception prior to the state court’s finding of no preclusion.

AIA AND §1983. Mitchum held that §1983 creates an “expressly authorized” exception to the AIA. The Court relied on evidence that §1983 was intended to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment against action “under color of state law” that denies federal rights, whether taken by state executive, legislative, or judicial officers. Maine v. Thiboutot makes clear that §1983 reaches denial of any federal right, regardless whether statutory or constitutional.

“Under Color of State Law.” An action...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Federal Courts Outlines.