Askew v. Hargrave

Supreme Court of the United States · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsAbstentionEqual ProtectionThree-Judge District Courtabstentionstate-law avoidancepending state proceedingequal protection

Facts

Florida enacted a 1968 public education financing law combining state appropriations with local ad valorem school taxes. One provision, the Millage Rollback Law, made a district eligible for state funds only if it limited school-purpose ad valorem taxes to no more than 10 mills, subject to certain exceptions. The plaintiffs alleged that this cap discriminated against children in property-poor counties because 10 mills there produced fewer dollars per child than 10 mills in wealthier counties. After suit was filed, a separate Florida state-court action challenged the same law primarily on state constitutional grounds.

Issue

Whether the federal District Court should have declined immediate decision in light of a pending state-court action raising primarily state-law challenges that could eliminate the need to decide the federal equal protection issue, and whether summary judgment on the equal protection claim was proper on the limited factual materials presented.

Rule

A federal court should consider abstention when a pending state proceeding raises primarily state-law or state constitutional claims whose resolution may obviate the need to decide a federal constitutional question; Monroe v. Pape and McNeese do not bar abstention in that circumstance. In addition, an equal protection claim should not be decided on summary judgment without a fully developed factual record where the operation of the challenged statute within a broader legislative program may be critical to the constitutional analysis.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Parents in Dayton, Ohio sue in federal district court alleging that a statewide school-transportation funding cap violates the Equal Protection Clause because poorer districts raise less revenue per student under the cap. Two weeks later, a separate suit filed in Ohio state court by different school boards challenges the same cap primarily under the Ohio Constitution's education and taxation provisions and seeks to invalidate the statute on those state grounds.

How should the federal court treat the defendants' request that it refrain from immediately deciding the federal constitutional claim?

Explanation. The majority explained that abstention should be considered where a pending state proceeding asserts primarily state-law or state constitutional claims that, if sustained, may obviate the need to decide the federal constitutional question. It rejected the view that Monroe and McNeese categorically bar abstention in that setting. (Derived from Askew v. Hargrave (n.d.).)