Abstention Doctrine

Abstention Doctrine, one of a number of policies adopted by the Supreme Court that allow the federal judiciary to refrain from ruling on constitutional questions. Often called the “Pullman” abstention doctrine because it was adopted by the Court in Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. (1941), the doctrine is applicable when two conditions are met. First, a state statute that has not yet received a definitive interpretation by the state supreme court must be challenged in federal court on constitutional grounds. Second, the statute must be sufficiently unclear so that an authoritative construction by the state judiciary may resolve the constitutional issue. Under such circumstances the federal courts, without permanently relinquishing jurisdiction, may choose to abstain from issuing a constitutional ruling until the state's highest court determines the statute's meaning. Federal judges have a great deal of discretion in invoking the doctrine and may choose not to do so, for example, when the statute on its face violates fundamental liberties.

The primary purpose of Pullman abstention is to reinforce principles of federalism. It is based on the proposition that federal courts should not intervene in state affairs unless absolutely necessary. If an interpretation by a state court may potentially resolve a dispute, then it is preferable to permit the state judiciary to act before the federal courts interfere. The notion of generally limiting federal court involvement in state affairs has existed since the beginning of the republic, with Congress making reference to it as early as 1793.

See also Federal Questions; State Constitutions and Individual Rights; State Courts.

Thomas G. Walker