Steffel v. Thompson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsDeclaratory JudgmentYounger abstentionSection 1983actual controversydeclaratory judgmentthreatened prosecutionpending prosecution

Facts

Petitioner was twice distributing antiwar handbills on an exterior sidewalk of the North DeKalb Shopping Center when shopping center personnel and police told him to stop and warned that he would be arrested if he continued. He left both times to avoid arrest. When petitioner later returned with a companion, the companion continued handbilling after the warning, was arrested, and was arraigned under Georgia's criminal trespass statute. The parties stipulated that if petitioner returned and refused to stop handbilling on request, a warrant would be sworn out and he might be arrested and charged under the statute.

Issue

Whether a federal court may issue declaratory relief on the constitutionality of a state criminal statute when prosecution has been threatened but no state prosecution is pending against the federal plaintiff at the time the federal action is filed, and the plaintiff has not shown bad faith enforcement or other special circumstances. Also, whether petitioner alleged an Article III actual controversy.

Rule

When no state criminal prosecution is pending at the time the federal complaint is filed, federal declaratory relief is not barred by Younger-Samuels principles if the plaintiff demonstrates a genuine threat of enforcement of a disputed state criminal statute. This is true whether the constitutional challenge is facial or as applied, and failure to show irreparable injury does not by itself preclude declaratory relief.

🔒

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.

In Columbus, Ohio, Maya Ortiz wants to distribute pamphlets criticizing a city-backed festival from a privately owned plaza open to the public. Plaza security and a city police officer have twice told her that if she returns and refuses to leave, she will be charged under Ohio's criminal trespass statute; the next day, another pamphleteer standing beside her was arrested under the same statute after refusing to stop.

Maya files a federal § 1983 action seeking only a declaratory judgment that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to her planned pamphleteering. No state prosecution is pending against Maya when she files. Which is the best answer?

Explanation. When no state criminal prosecution is pending against the federal plaintiff at filing, a federal declaratory action is not barred if the plaintiff shows a genuine threat of enforcement. Repeated warnings plus the actual arrest of a similarly situated companion make the threat real and immediate rather than imaginary or speculative. The plaintiff need not expose herself to arrest before challenging a statute said to deter constitutional rights. (Derived from Steffel v. Thompson (1974).)