Jump to content

Mitchum v. Foster

From Wikisource
Mitchum v. Foster (1972)
Syllabus
4598815Mitchum v. Foster — Syllabus1972
Court Documents
Concurring Opinion
Burger

Supreme Court of the United States

407 U.S. 225

Mitchum, DBA Book Mart  v.  Foster et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

No. 70-27.  Argued: December 13, 1971 --- Decided: June 19, 1972

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes a suit in equity to redress the deprivation under color of state law "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution...," is within that exception of the federal anti-injunction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, that provides that a federal court may not enjoin state court proceedings "except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress." And in this § 1983 action, though the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a federal court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding (cf. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, and companion cases) are not questioned, the District Court is held to have erred in holding that the anti-injunction statute absolutely barred its enjoining a pending state court proceeding under any circumstances whatsoever. Pp. 228-243.

315 F. Supp. 1387, reversed and remanded.


STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all members joined except POWELL and REHNQUIST, JJ., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. BURGER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion, in which WHITE and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 243.


Robert Eugene Smith argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Paul Shimek, Jr.

Raymond L. Marky, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General, and George R. Georgieff, Assistant. Attorney General.

George F. Kugler, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, and Michael R. Perle and John DeCicco, Deputy Attorneys General, filed a brief for the State of New Jersey as amicus curiae.