| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Dunno. |
| Posture: | Dunno. |
| Issue: | If a party's case is diverted to state court based on Pullman abstention, how should federal claims be dealt with during the course of the state proceeding? |
| Holding: | Hard to say-- this is really stripped down. |
| Rule: | A federal rights claimant can inform the state court that he is exposing federal claims there only for the purpose of satisfying Windsor, and that he intends (should he lose in state court) to return to federal court to resolve his federal claims. |
| Reasoning: | Congress has conferred certain specific categories of jurisdiction on
the federal courts. It would be objectionable if litigants who
properly invoked federal jurisdiction could be compelled without
their consent, and through no fault of their own, to accept a
state court's determination of those claims. The availability
of appellate review is not a proper substitute.
Abstention is a judge-fashioned rule for according appropriate deference to the respective competencies of the parallel court systems, but it is not the abdication of jurisdiction. A plaintiff can forego the right to the federal venue, of course, but the plaintiff can also alert the state court to the existence of federal issues (so that the state can construe its state law in light of the pending federal issues) but reserve the federal issues for federal determination. |
| Dicta: | Jurisdiction is a duty. The right of a plaintiff to choose a federal court where there is such a choice cannot properly be denied. |