Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsYounger abstentionPreliminary injunctionsDeclaratory reliefSection 1983Younger v. HarrisSamuels v. MackellSteffel v. Thompson

Facts

Three corporations operated bars in the Town of North Hempstead and had offered topless dancing before the town enacted an ordinance forbidding uncovered female breasts in establishments and other public places. All three sued in federal court alleging the ordinance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and sought temporary, preliminary, and declaratory relief. After the federal complaint was filed and a temporary restraining order was denied, M & L resumed topless dancing and was served with criminal summonses on four successive days; Salem and Tim-Rob did not resume topless entertainment until after the district court issued a preliminary injunction. The district court enjoined enforcement against all three plaintiffs, and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue

Whether Younger and related cases barred federal injunctive or declaratory relief when one plaintiff was already subject to a state criminal prosecution but the other two were not. Also, whether the two unprosecuted plaintiffs could receive preliminary injunctive relief against future enforcement of the ordinance.

Rule

Younger and Samuels bar federal injunctive and declaratory relief for a plaintiff against whom a state criminal prosecution is pending, absent special circumstances, even if the prosecution begins shortly after the federal complaint is filed when the federal case is still embryonic and no contested matter has been decided. But where no state proceeding is pending against a plaintiff, Younger does not restrict consideration of preliminary injunctive relief; that plaintiff may seek such relief under the traditional standard requiring irreparable injury, likelihood of success on the merits, and careful weighing of the competing interests.

🔒

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.

Three unrelated bookstores in Columbus, Ohio file a joint § 1983 action challenging a city ordinance that criminalizes the display of certain illustrated magazines in any commercial venue. The day after the district court denies a temporary restraining order, one store, Maple Street Books, resumes the prohibited display and is charged in municipal court; the other two stores continue complying and face no charges before the district court rules on a preliminary injunction.

How should the federal court apply Younger in deciding the request for preliminary relief?

Explanation. The majority held that Younger must be applied party-by-party where legally distinct plaintiffs are not shown to be closely related in ownership, control, or management. A plaintiff already subject to a pending state criminal proceeding while the federal case remains embryonic is barred by Younger from injunctive relief absent special circumstances. But coplaintiffs with no pending state prosecution are not automatically swept in and may seek preliminary injunctive relief under ordinary standards.