text:
    FLOWER v. UNITED STATES
    No. 71-1180.
    Decided June 12, 1972
   Per Curiam.

Petitioner John Thomas Flower, a regional “Peace Education Secretary” of the American Friends Service Committee and a civilian, was arrested by military police while quietly distributing leaflets on New Braunfels Avenue at a point within the limits of Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas. In an ensuing prosecution before the United States District Court for the Western. District of Texas on charges of violating 18 U. S. C. § 1382 (“Whoever reenters or is found [within a military post] after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter by any officer or person in command or charge thereof — Shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not. more than six months, or both”), it was established that petitioner had previously been barred from the post by ordfer of the deputy commanda’ because of alleged participation in an attempt to distribute “unauthorized” leaflets. The District Court found that § 1382 “is a valid law” and was validly applied. It sentenced petitioner to six months in prison. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed.. 452 F. 2d 80 (CA5 1972).

We reverse. Whatever power the authorities may have to restrict general access to a military facility, see Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886 (1961), here the fort commander chose not to exclude the public from the street where petitioner was arrested. As Judge Simpson, dissenting/noted below:

“There is -no sentry post or guard at either entrance or anywhere along the route. Traffic flows through the post on this and other streets 24 hours a day. A traffic count conducted on New Braunfels Avenue on January 22, 1968, by the Director of Transportation of the city of San Antonio, shows a daily (24-hour) vehicular count of 15,110 south of Grayson Street (the place where the street enters the post boundary) and 17,740 vehicles daily north of that point. The street is an important traffic artery used freely by buses, taxi cabs and other public transportation facilities as well as by private vehicles, and its sidewalks are used extensively at all hours . of the day by civilians as well as by military personnel. Fort Sam Houston was an open post; the street, New Braunfels Avenue, was a completely open street.” 452 F. 2d, at 90.

Under such circumstances the military has abandoned ' any claim that it has special interests in who walks, talks, or distributes leaflets on the avenue. The base commandant can no more order petitioner off this public street because he was distributing leaflets than could the city police order any leafleteer off any public street. Cf. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938), Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939). “[S]treets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion,” 308 U. S., at 163. “[0]ne who is rightfully on a street which the state has left open to the public carries with him there as elsewhere the constitutional right to express his views in an orderly fashion.” Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413, 416 (1943).

The First Amendment protects petitioner from the application of § 1382 under conditions like those of this case. Accordingly, without need to set the matter for further argument, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari 'and reverse the conviction.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Blackmun dissents, for he would grant the petition for 'certiorari and hear argument on the merits.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,

with whom The Chief Justice joins,

dissenting.

The result, if not the reasoning, of the Court’s impressionistic summary reversal of the Court of Appeals in this case is clear: without benefit of briefs or oral. argument the Court declares unconstitutional this application of 18 U. S. C. § 1382, a statute enacted to give commanders of military posts authority thought necessary by Congress to exclude civilians from the post area after proper notice.

Because the post commander of Fort Sam Houston may have permitted civilian vehicular and pedestrian traffic on New Braunfels Avenue within the limits of Fort Sam Houston, the Court holds that he has “abandoned” any claim of special interest in who walks, talks, or distributes leaflets on the avenue. Obviously the Court cannot be referring to the subjective intent of the base commander, since he gave petitioner due notice of his debarment from the base, and the bringing of this prosecution evinces a rather strong .interest on the part of the commander in petitioner’s “leafleting” activities. If the Court means to say that once any portion of a military base is opened up to unregulated vehicular traffic it automatically follows that such portion of the base acquires the status of a public square in a city or town, the mere statement of that proposition — which is all that is contained in the Court’s opinion — is not self-demonstrating. Since the Court does not hold, and it does not appear on this record that it could hold, that petitioner Flower was-treated differently from any other “leafleteers,” the Court’s holding does not deal with' any possible denial of equal protection. The case thus concerns only the First Amendment-claim of leafleteers to go anywhere on a military base to which civilian vehicles and pedestrians are granted free access.

Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39 (1966), suggests that civilian authorities may draw reasonable distinctions, based on the purpose for which public buildings .and grounds are used, in according the right to exercise First Amendment freedoms in such buildings and on such grounds. Simply because some activities and individuals are allowed on government property does not require the abandonment of otherwise allowable restrictions on its use. Indeed, it is generally recognized that demonstrations on courthouse grounds can be prohibited in order to protect the proper exercise of the judicial function. See Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559, 562 (1965). See also 63 Stat. 617, § 6, 40 U. S. C. § 13k (prohibiting any demonstrations on the grounds surrounding this Court). Similarly, the unique requirements of military morale and security may well necessitate control over certain persons and activities on the base, even while normal traffic flow through the area can be tolerated.

The Court’s opinion leaves the base commander with a Hobson’s choice. He may close access to civilian traffic' on New Braunfels Avenue and other traffic arteries traversing the post, thereby rendering the post once more subject to the authority that Congress intended him to have, but also causing substantial inconvenience to civilian residents of Bexar County who presently use these arteries. Or, he may continue to accommodate the convenience of the residents, but only at the cost of surrendering the authority Congress conferred upon him under 18 U. S. C. § 1382 to control access to the post he commands.

An additional problem, to which the Court’s opinion devotes no attention whatever, is the question of whether this petitioner should be free to challenge the validity of the post commander’s original debarment order in defending a criminal prosecution under 18 U. S. C. § 1382. The Solicitor General, in opposing the petition for a writ of certiorari, contends that petitioner would have been free to challenge the debarment order in a separate proceeding in the United States District Court, relying on Kiiskila v. Nichols, 433 F. 2d 745 (CA7 1970), and Dash v. Commanding General, 429 F. 2d 427 (CA4 1970). The Court, by determining sub silentio that exhaustion of such remedies is not required, substantially dilutes the effectiveness of the criminal sanction that Congress deliberately placed behind a post commander’s order of debarment. It accomplishes this dilution in a way that may not be at all necessary to the vindication of petitioner’s First Amendment rights. By requiring petitioner to proceed in an orderly manner to first litigate any alleged constitutional infirmity in the debarment order, the Court could assure him a forum for the assertion of such claims while preserving to the post commander the availability of a relatively summary criminal sanction against one who violated a debarment order whose validity has not been contested.

While full argument in this case on the merits might persuade me that the Court’s result was required by the Constitution, its present opinion certainly has not done so. . I therefore dissent from the summary reversal.

       From a record consisting largely of rejected offers of proof, the Court concludes that Fort Sam Houston was an “open” post. It also concludes that New Braunfels Avenue, a traffic artery within the post, was a “completely open” street, presumably more “open” than the post as a whole. While I have difficulty at this stage of the case in knowing how the Court reaches these factual conclusions, or indeed what exactly the varying degrees of “openness” are •meant to connote, my disagreement with the Court’s summary reversal is not limited to this aspect of the case.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    IVAN V. v. CITY OF NEW YORK
    No. 71-6425.
    Decided June 12, 1972
   Per Curiam.

The Court held in In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, decided March 31, 1970, that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is among the essentials of due process and fair treatment that must be afforded at the adjudicatory stage when a juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult. In this case, on January 6, 1970, before Winship was decided, petitioner was adjudged a delinquent in the Family Court of Bronx County, New York, on a finding, based on the preponderance-of-evidence standard, that, at knifepoint, he forcibly took a bicycle from another boy, an act that, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree. On direct appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed on the ground that Winship should be retroactively applied to. all cases still in the appellate process, 35 App. Div. 2d 806, 316 N. Y. S. 2d 568 (1970). The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that Winship was not to be applied retroactively, 29 N. Y. 2d 583, 272 N. E. 2d 895 (1971). On remand, the Appellate Division thereupon affirmed the delinquency adjudication, 37 App. Div. 2d 822, 324 N. Y. S. 2d 934 (1971), and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal from that affirmance, 29 N. Y. 2d 489 (1972). We disagree with the holding of the Court of Appeals that Winship is not to be applied retroactively.

“Where the major purpose of new constitutional doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial that substantially impairs its truth-finding function and so raises serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials, the new rule has been given complete retroactive effect. Neither good-faith reliance by state or federal authorities on prior constitutional law or accepted practice, nor severe impact on the administration of justice has sufficed to require prospective application in these circumstances.” Williams v. United States, 401 U. S. 646, 653 (1971). See Adams v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 278, 280 (1972); Roberts v. Russell, 392 U. S. 293, 295 (1968).

Winship expressly held that the reasonable-doubt standard “is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence — that bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law’.... ‘Due process commands that no man shall lose his- liberty unless the Government has borne the burden of . . . convincing the factfinder of his guilt.’ To this end, the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable, for it 'impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude of the facts in issue.’ ” 397 U. S., at 363-364.

Plainly, then, the major purpose of the constitutional standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt announced in Wins hip was to overcome an aspect of a criminal trial that substantially impairs the truth-finding function, and Winship is thus to be given complete retroactive effect. The motion for leave to .proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It -is so ordered.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. .

      The Court of Appeals followed Matter of D., 27 N. Y. 2d 90, 261 N. E. 2d 627 (1970), where Winship was said not to be retroactive but that even if it were, appellant there had waived the claim when he entered a guilty plea to the charges. In that circumstance this Court dismissed an appeal and denied .certiorari in that case. D. v. County of Onandaga, 403 U. S. 926 (1971)..


author: Mr. Justice Brennan ■ Mr. Justice Powell,

text:
    PENNSYLVANIA v. NEW YORK et al.
    No. 40,
    Orig.
    Argued March 29, 1972
    Decided June 19, 1972
    Brennan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in'which-Burger, C, J., and Douglas, Stewart, White, and Marshall, JJ., joined. Powell, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Blackmun and Rehnquist, JJ., joined, post, p. 216.

      Herman Rosenberger II, Assistant Attorney General of Pennsylvania, argued on the exceptions to the Report of the Special Master for plaintiff. On the brief were J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, and Joseph H. Res-nick, Assistant Atorney General.

      F. Michael Ahem, Assistant Attorney General, argued on the exceptions to the Report of the Special Master for intervenor-plaintiff the State of Connecticut. With him on the brief was Robert K. Killian, Attorney General. Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, arid Rob

      ert -A. Zaban, Deputy Attorney General, filed a brief on exceptions to the Report of the Special Master for intervenor-plaintiff the State of Indiana.

      Winifred L. Wentworth, Assistant Attorney General, argued on the exceptions to the Report of the Special Master for defendant the State of Florida. With her on the brief was Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General. Julius Greenfield, Assistant Attorney General, argued in support of the Report of the Special Master for defendant the State of New York. With him on the brief were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Gustave Harrow, Assistant Attorney General. Lee Johnson, Attorney General, John W. Osburn, Solicitor General, and Philip J. Entfelgau, Assistant Attorney General, filed a brief on exceptions to the Report of the Special Master for defendant the State of Oregon.
   Mr. Justice Brennan

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Pennsylvania and other States, except to, and New York supports, the Report of the Special Master filed in this original action brought by Pennsylvania against New York for a determination respecting the authority of the several States to escheat, or take custody of, unclaimed funds paid to the Western Union Telegraph Company for the purchase of money orders. We over-rulé the exceptions and enter the decree recommended by the Special Master, see post, p. 223.

The nature of Western Union’s money order business, and the source of the funds here in dispute, were described by the Court in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania, 368 U. S. 71 (1961):

“Western Union is a corporation chartered under New York law with its principal place of business in that State. It also does business and has offices in all the other States except Alaska and Hawaii, [as well as] in the District of Columbia, and in-foreign countries' and was from 1916 to 1934 subject to regulation by the I. C. C. and since then by the F. C. C. In addition to sending telegraphic messages throughout its world-wide system, it carries on a telegraphic money order business which commonly works like this. A sender goes to a Western Union office, fills out an application and gives it to the company clerk who waits on him together with the monéy to be sent and the charges for sending it. A receipt is given the sender and a telegraph message is transmitted to the company’s office nearest to the payee directing that office to pay the money order to the payee. The payee is then notified and upon properly identifying himself is given a negotiable draft, which he can either endorse and cash at once or keep for use in the future. If the payee cannot be located for delivery of the. notice, or fails to call for the draft within 72 hours, the office of destination notifies the sending office. This office then notifies the original sender of the failure to deliver and makes a refund, as it makes payments to payees, by way of a negotiable draft which may be either cashed immediately or kept for use in the future.
“In the. thousands of money order transactions carried on by the company, it sometimes happens that it can neither make payment to the payee nor make a refund to the sender. Similarly payees and senders who accept drafts as payment or refund sometimes fail to cash them. For this reason large sums of money due from Western Union for undelivered money orders and unpaid-drafts accumulate over the years in the company’s offices and bank accounts throughout the country.” .Id., at 72-73.

In 1953 Pennsylvania began state proceedings under its escheat statute to take custody of those unclaimed funds, held by Western Union, that arose from money order purchases in the company’s Pennsylvania offices. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, a judgment for the State, of about $40,000, Commonwealth v. Western Union, 400 Pa. 337, 162 A. 2d 617 (1960), but this Court reversed, Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania, supra, holding that the state court judgment denied Western Union due process of law because it could not protect the company against rival claims of other States. We noted that controversies among different States over their right to escheat intangibles could be settled only in a forum “where all the States that want to do so can present their claims for consideration and final, authoritative determination. Our Court has jurisdiction to do that.” Id., at 79.

Thereafter, in Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U. S. 674 (1965), the Court was asked to decide which of several States was entitled to escheat intangible property consisting of debts owed by the Sun Oil Co. and left unclaimed by creditors. Four different rules were proposed. Texas argued that the funds should go to the State having the most significant “contacts” with the debt, as measured by a number of factors; New Jersey, that they should go to the State of the debtor company’s incorporation; Pennsylvania, to the State where the company had its principal place of business; and Florida, to the State of the creditor’s last known address as shown by the debtor’s books and records. We rejected Texas’ and Pennsylvania’s proposals as being too uncertain and difficult to administer, and rejected .New Jersey’s because “it would too greatly exalt a minor factor to permit escheat of obligations incurred all over the country by the State in which the debtor happened to incorporate itself.” Id., at 680. Florida’s proposal, on the other hand, was regarded not only as a “simple and easy” standard to follow, but also as one that tended “to distribute escheats among the States in the proportion of the commercial activities of their residents.” Id., at 681. We therefore held that the State of the creditor’s last known address is entitled to escheat the property owed him, adding that if his address does not appear on the debtor’s books or is in a State that does not provide for escheat of intangibles, then the State of the debtor’s incorporation may take custody of the funds “until some other State comes forward with proof that it has a superior right to escheat.” Id., at 682. The opinion concluded:

“We realize that this case could have been resolved otherwise, for the issue here is not controlled by statutory or constitutional provisions or by past decisions, nor is it entirely one of logic. It is fundamentally a question of ease of administration and of equity. We believe that the rule we adopt is the fairest, is easy to apply, and in the long run will be the most generally acceptable to all the States.” Id., at 683.

On March 13, 1970, Pennsylvania filed this original action to renew its efforts to escheat part of Western Union’s unclaimed money order proceeds. The complaint alleged that Western Union had accumulated more than $1,500,000 in unclaimed funds “on account of money orders purchased from the company on or before December 31, 1962,” and that about $100,000 of that amount, “held by Western Union on account of money orders purchased from it in Pennsylvania,” was subject to escheat by that State. Pennsylvania, asked for a judgment resolving the conflicting claims of it and the defendant States, and for a temporary injunction against payment of the funds by Western Union or a taking of them by the defendant States, pending disposition of the case.

In their arguments before the Special Master, the parties suggested three different formulas to resolve their conflicting claims. Pennsylvania contended that Western Union’s money order records do not identify anyone as a “creditor” of the company and in many instances do not list an address for either the sender or payee; therefore, strict application of the Texas v. New Jersey rule to this type of intangible would result in the escheat of almost all the funds to the State of incorporation, here New York. To avoid this result, Pennsylvania proposed that the State where the money order was purchased be permitted to take the funds. It claimed that the State where the money orders are bought should be presumed to be the State of the sender’s residence. Connecticut, California, and Indiana supported this proposal, as did New Jersey as amicus curiae.

- Florida and Arizona also supported Pennsylvania, but argued that where the payee had received but not cashed the money order, his address, if known, should detérmine escheat, regardless of the sender’s address.

New York argued that Texas -v. New Jersey should be strictly applied, but that it was not retroactive. Thus, as to money orders purchased between 1930 and 1958 (seven years before the Texas decision) New York asserted its right as the State of incorporation to all unclaimed funds, regardless of the creditor’s address. As for money orders drawn after 1958, New York would apply the Texas-rule, and take the funds in all cases where ' the creditor’s address did not appear or was located in a State not providing- for escheat.

The Special Master has submitted a report recommending that the Texas rule “be applied to all the items involved in this case regardless of the date of the transactions out of which- they arose.” Report 21. The Report expresses some doubt about the constitutionality of the suggested alternatives, stating that both the place-of-purchase and place-of-destination rules might permit intangible, property rights to be “cut off or adversely affected, by state action in .an in rem proceeding in a forum having no continuing relationship to any of the parties to the proceedings.” Id., at 19. These doubts, however, were not the sole basis for the Special Master’s recommendation. He found that “[a]s in the case. of. the obligations in [Texas v. New Jersey], [the Texas] .rule presents an easily administered standard preventing multiple claims and giving all parties a fixed rule on which they can rely.” Id., at 20. He concluded that:

“Any sum now held by Western Union unclaimed for the period of time prescribed by the applicable State statutes may be escheated or taken into custody by the State in which the records of Western Union placed the address of the creditor, .whether that creditor be the payee of an unpaid draft, the sender of a money order entitled to a refund, or an individual whose claim has been underpaid through error. ... [I]f no address is contained in the records of Western Union, or if the State in which the address of the creditor falls has no applicable escheat law, then the right to escheat or take custody shall be in the domiciliary State of the debtor, in this case, New York.” Id., at 20-21.

The Report also states that New York would bear the burden of establishing “as to all escheatable items the absence from Western Union’s records of an address for the creditor.” Id., at 16.

Pennsylvania’s exceptions argue "that where a transaction is of a type that “the obligor does not make entries upon, its books and records showing the address of the obligee,” only “the State of origin of the transaction” should be permitted to escheat. Florida and Arizona have abandoned their state-of-destination test, and together with the other participating States save New York, have joined in Pennsylvania’s exceptions. Tr. of Oral Arg. 20, 42.

Pennsylvania’s proposal has. some surface appeal. Because Western Union does not regularly record the addresses of its money order creditors, it is likely that the corporate domicile will receive a much larger share, of the unclaimed funds here than in the case of other obligations, like bills for services rendered, where such records are kept as a matter of business practice. In a sense, there is some inconsistency between that result and our refusal in Texas to make the debtor’s domicile the primary recipient of unclaimed intangibles. Furthermore, the parties say, the Texas rule is nothing more than a legal presumption that the creditor’s residence, is in the State of his last known address. A presumption based on the place of purchase is equally valid, they argue, and should be applied in order to prevent New York from gaining this windfall.

Assuming, without resolving the doubts expressed by the Special Master, that the Pennsylvania rule provides a constitutional basis for escheat, we do not regard the likelihood of a “windfall” for New York as a sufficient reason for carving out this, exception to the Texas rule. Texas v. New Jersey was not grounded on the assumption that all creditors’ addresses are known. Indeed, as to four of the eight classes of debt involved in that case, the Court expressly found that some of the creditors “had no last address indicated.” 379 U. S., at 675-676, n. 4. Thus, the only arguable basis for distinguishing money orders is that they involve a higher percentage of unknown addresses. But we are not told what pércentage is high enough to justify an exception to the Texas rule, nor is it entirely clear that money orders constitute the only form of transaction where the percentage of unknown addresses may run high. In other words, to vary the application of the Texas rule according to the adequacy of the debtor’s records would require this Court to do precisely what we said should be avoided — that is, “to decide each escheat case on the basis of its particular facts or to devise new rules of law to apply to ever-developing new categories of facts.” Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U. S., at 679.

Furthermore, a substantial number of creditors’ addresses may in fact be available in this case. Although Western Union has not kept ledger records of addresses, the parties stipulated, and the Special Master found, that money order applications have been retained in the company’s records “as far back as 1930 in some instances and are generally available since 1941.” Report 9. 'To the extent that creditor addresses are available from those forms, the “windfall” to New York will, of course, be diminished.

We think that as a matter of fairness the claimant Statés, and. not Western Union, should bear the cost of finding and recording the available addresses, and we shall remand to the Special Master for a hearing and recommendation as to the appropriate formula for distributing those costs. As for future money order transactions, nothing we say here prohibits the States from requiring Western Union to keep adequate address records. The decree recommended by the Special Master is adopted and entered, and the cause is remanded to the Special Master for further proceedings and the filing of a proposed supplemental decree with respect to the distribution of costs of the inquiry as to available addresses.

It is so ordered.

[For decree adopted and entered, by the Court, see post, p. 223.]'

■ Mr. Justice Powell,

with- whom Mr. Justice Black-mun and Mr. Justice Rehnquist join, dissenting.

The majority opinion today purports to apply the rule laid down in Texas v. New Jersey, 379 .U. S. 674 (1965), to a fact situation not contemplated when that case was decided. In applying that rule to these new facts, it seems to me that the Court exalts the rule but derogates the reasons supporting it.

I

Texas v. New Jersey, a case decided within' the Court’s original jurisdiction, is a unique precedent. Disposition of that case necessarily required á departure from the Court’s usual mode of decisionmaking. Our role in this country’s scheme of government is ordinarily a restricted one, limited in large measure to the resolution of conflicts calling for the interpretation and application either of statutory acts or of provisions of the Federal Constitution. In the performance of this function, an individual Justice’s views as to what he might consider “fair” or “equitable” or “expeditious” are largely immaterial. Infrequently, however, we are called on to resolve disputes arising under the original jurisdiction of the Court (Art. Ill, § 2) in which, our judgment is unaided by statutory or constitutional directives.

In approaching such cases, we may find, as did the Court in Texas v. New Jersey, that fairness and expeditiousness provide the guideposts for our decision:

“[T]he issue here is not controlled by statutory or" constitutional provisions or by past decisions, nor is it entirely one of logic. It is fundamentally a question of ease of administration and of equity.” Id., at 683.

The case before us today requires the application of similar principles, and I agree that Mr.-Justice Black’s opinion in Texas v. New Jersey points the way to the most desirable result. In my view, however, the majority’s application of that precedent to the facts of this case . offends both the "fairness” and "ease of administration” . bases of that opinion.

The Court in Texas v. New Jersey was asked to decide which States could take title to escheatable intangible personal property in the form of debts owed by Sun Oil Co. to a large number of individual creditors. After rejecting several alternatives offered by the parties, the Court adopted the rule proposed by the State of Florida and approved by the Special Master. Under that rule the power to escheat the debts in question, in the first instance, was to be accorded “to the State of the creditor’s last known address as shown .by the debtor’s books and records.” Id., at 680-681. In the “infrequent” case in which no record of last address was available or in which the appropriate State’s laws did not provide for the escheat of abandoned intangibles, the property was to go to the State of the debtor’s corporate domicile. Id., at 682.

This, disposition recommended itself to the Court for several reasons. The rule was generally consistent with the common-law maxim “mobilia sequuntur personam” under which intangible personal property may be found to follow the domicile of its owner — here the creditor. Id., at 680 n.. 10. In looking to the residence of the creditor, the rule adopted by the Court recognized that, the Company’s unclaimed debts were assets of the individual creditors rather than" assets of the debtor. Id., at 681. Also, in distributing the property among the creditors’ States, the rule had the advantage of dividing the property in a manner roughly proportionate to the commercial activities of each State’s residents. In using the last-known address as the sole indicator of domicile, the rule would be easy to administer and apply. Thé Court recognized, of course, that this approach might lead to the escheat of property to a State from which the creditor had removed himself in the period since the debt arose. Yet it concluded that these instances would “tend to a large extent to cancel each other out,” and would .not disrupt the basic fairness and expeditiousness of the result. Id., at 681.

Paradoxically, the mechanistic application of the Texas v. New Jersey rule to the present case leads ultimately to the defeat of each of the beneficial justifications for that rule. Unlike the records of the numerous debts owed by Sun Oil, Western Union’s records may reflect the creditors’ addresses for'only a relatively small percentage of the transactions. As a consequence, the greater portion of the entire Western Union fund will go to the State of New York — the State of corporate domicile. Effectively then, the obligation of the debtor will be converted into an asset of the debtor’s State of domicile to the exclusion of the creditors’ States. The Court in Texas v. New Jersey specifically repudiated .this result on" the ground that it was inconsistent with “principles of fairness.” Id., at 680. It would have “exalt [ed] a minor factor to permit escheat of obligations incurred all over the country by the State in which the debtor happened to incorporate itself;” Ibid. The fact that the Court was willing to permit this result in the few cases in which no record of address was available or in which no law of escheat governed, does not diminish the clear view of the Court that this result would be impermissible as a basis for disposing of more than a small minority of the debts. Yet the decision today ignores the Court’s urn willingness, to “exalt” the largely coincidental domicile of the corporate debtor. It also disregards the Court’s clearly expressed intent that the eseheatable property be distributed in proportions roughly, comparable to the volume of transactions conducted in each State.

Furthermore, the rule today, is incompatible with the Court’s view in Texas v. New Jersey that an easily and inexpensively discernible mode of allocation be utilized. The majority’s rule will require the examination.of every available money order application to determine whether the applicant filled out the address blank for his own address, .or in the case of money order drafts received but not cashed, whether the holder’s address had been preserved. Western Union estimated in the stipulated statement of facts that such an item-by-item examination could be undertaken at a cost of. approximately $175,000. Report of the Special Master 16.

In stun, the invocation of the Texas v. New Jersey rule in the manner contemplated by the majority will lead to a result that is neither expeditious nor equitable.

II

The reasons underlying Texas v. New Jersey could best be effectuated by a relatively, minor but logical deviation in the manner in which that rule is implemented in this case. Rather than embarking upon a potentially fruitless search for the creditor’s last-known address as a rough indicator of domicile, reliance should be placed upon the State where the debtor-creditor relationship was established. In most cases that State is likely also to be the site of the creditor’s domicile. In other words, in the case of money orders sent and then returned to the initiating Western Union office because the sendee failed to claim the money, the State in which the money order was purchased may be presumed to be the State of the purchaser-creditor's domicile. And, where the draft has been received by either the initiating party or by the recipient but not negotiated, the State in which the draft was issued may be assumed to be the State of that creditor’s domicile.-

This modification is preferable, first, because it preserves the equitable foundation of the Texas v. New Jersey rule. The State of the corporate debtor’s domicile is denied a “windfall”; the fund is divided in a proportion approximating the volume of transactions occurring in each State; and the integrity of the notion that these amounts represent assets of the individual purchasers or recipients of money orders is maintained. Secondly, the relevant information would be more easily obtainable. The place of purchase and the office of destination are reflected in Western Union’s ledger books and it would, therefore, be unnecessary to examine the innumerable application. forms themselves. Since the ledgers are more readily available, the allocation of the fund would be effected at less expense than would be required by the majority’s resolution.

Despite these advantages, the Special Master rejected this alternative. He reasoned that an undetermined number of these transactions must have taken place outside the creditors’ State of domicile. Specifically, he cited the cases in which a New. Jersey or Connecticut resident might purchase a money order in. New York, or' cases in which a resident of Virginia or Maryland might piake his purchase in the District of Columbia. Report of the Special Master T8. While such cases certainly exist, they are merely exceptions to a generally reliable rule that money order purchases are likely to' have occurred within the~State of the purchaser’s domicile. That perfection is not achieved is no reason to reject this alternative. The Texas v. New Jersey Court recognized that absolute fairness was not obtainable and that the most that could be expected was a rule providing a reasonable approximation. Id., at 681 n. 11. Certainly this objection should not be allowed to frustrate the better alternative in favor of one that is less fair and more difficult to administer.

Ill

The majority opinion intimates, as I think it must, that the. ultimate consequence of its decision today is inconsistent {ante, at 214)' -with the result in Texas v. New Jersey. While the opinion appears to recognize that New York will reap the very “windfall’’ that Texas v. New Jersey sought to avoid, its refusal to bend in the face of this consequence goes largely unexplained. Apparently, the basis for its decision is the conviction that the Court’s prior precedent was designed to settle the question of escheat of intangible personal property “once and for all.” Id., at 678. The majority adheres to the existing rule because of some apprehension that flexibility in this case will deprive the. Court of a satisfactory test for the resolution of future cases. The opinion anticipates that departure from Texas v. New Jersey will leave other cases to be decided on an ad hoc basis, depending in each case on the “adequacy of the debtor’s records.” Ante, at 215. Although the factual ’circumstances of future cases cannot be predicted, it is likely that most of such- cases can be resolved within the principles of Texas v. New Jersey. The factual' range is limited. The' debtor either will or will not maintain creditors’ addresses in the ordinary course of business. In some categories of transactions, such as those involving money orders and traveler’s checks, adequate address records may not be available. In the case of ordinary corporate debts, however, it is more likely that records will be available. Moreover, as the majority points out, any State is free to require corporations doing business in that State to maintain records of their creditors’ addresses. Ante, at 215.

In short, the threat of frequent and complicated cases in this area seems remote. It provides little justification for -the majority’s Cinderella-like compulsion to accommodate this ill-fitting precedential “slipper.” From a result that seems both inflexible and inequitable, I dissent.

       Of the remaining States party to this case, Florida has filed exceptions as defendant, and Connecticut and Indiana as intervening plaintiffs. New Jersey has filed a brief amicus curiae in support of Pennsylvania’s position.

       We granted leave to file the bill of complaint, 398 U. S. 956, permitted the State of Connecticut to intervene as a party plaintiff, and appointed Mr. John F. Davis as a Special Master to take evidence and make appropriate reports. 400 U. S. 811. Thereafter, California and Indiana were permitted to intervene as plaintiffs, and Arizona as.a defendant. 400 U. S. 924, 1019 ; 401 U. S. 931.

       The exception of Indiana as to a typographical error in the recommended decree is sustained. The phrase “escheat of custodial taking” in paragraph 2, lines 4-5 of the decree should read “escheat or custodial taking-.”

       The. Pennsylvania statute, Act of July 29, 1953, P. L. 986, § 1, (Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 27, § 333) provides in part:
      “(b) Whensoever the . . . person entitled to any . . . personal property within or subject to the control of the Commonwealth or the whereabouts of such . . . person entitled has been or shall be and remain unknown for the period of seven successive years, such . . . personal property . . . shall escheat to the Commonwealth ....
      “(°) Whensoever any . . . personal property within or subject to the control of this Commonwealth has been or shall be and remain unclaimed for the period of seven successive years, such . . . personal property . . . shall escheat to the Commonwealth . . . .”

       The Court has taken no. action on the plea for temporary injunction, and accepts the recommendation of the Special Master that it now “be denied as 'unnecessary.” Report 3 n. 2.

       New York makes no claim with respect to money orders issued before 1930.

       Section 1309 of New York’s Abandoned Property Law provides for the custodial taking, not escheat, of uncashed money orders, so that “the rights of a holder of a ... money order to payment... shall be in no wise affected, impaired or enlarged by reason of the provisions of this section or by reason of the payment to the state comptroller of abandoned property hereunder.”

       Insofar as the invocation of any provision of the Revised Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act would be inconsistent with this decree, the decree prevails. See Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U. S. 43, 45-46 (1971).

      See Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U. S. 1, 9-10 (1928).


text:
    PENNSYLVANIA v. NEW YORK et al.

    No. 40,
    Orig.
    Decided June 19, 1972
    Decree entered June 19, 1972
   DECREE

It is now Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as follows:

1. Each item of property in question in this case as. to which a last known address of the person entitled thereto is shown on the books and records of the defendant, Western Union Telegraph Co., is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by the State of that last known address, as shown on the books and records of defendant, Western Union Telegraph Co., to the extent of that State's power under its own laws, to escheat or take custodially.

2. Each item of property in question in this case as. to which thére is no address of the person entitled thereto shown on the books and records of defendant Western Union Telegraph Co. is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by New York, the State in which Western Union Telegraph Co. was incorporated, to the extent of New York's power under its own laws to escheat or take custodially, subject to the right of any other State to recover such property from New York upon proof that the last known address of the creditor was within that other State's borders.

3. Each item of property in question in this case as to which the last known address of the. person entitled thereto as shown on the books and records of .defendant Western Union'Telegraph Co. is in a- State the laws of which do not provide, for the escheat of such property, is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by New York, the State in which Western Union Telegraph Co. was incorporated, to the. extent of New York's power under its own laws to escheat or- to take cus-todially, subject- to the right of the State of the last known address to recover the property from New York if and when the law of the State of the last known address makes provisions for escheat or custodial taking of such property.


author: Mr. Justice Stewart Mr.. .Chief Justice Burger,

text:
    MITCHUM, dba BOOK MART v. FOSTER et al.
    No. 70-27.
    Argued December 13, 1971
    Decided June 19, 1972
    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 BlackmüN, JJ., joined, post, p. 243.

      Robert Eugene Smith. argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Paul Skimek, 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. Peñe and John DeCicco, Deputy Attorneys General, filed a brief for the State of New Jersey as amicus curiae.

   Mr. Justice Stewart

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The federal anti-injunction statute provides that a federal .court “may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of. its jurisdiction,, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” An Act of Congress, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, expressly authorizes a “suit in equity” to redress “the deprivation,” under color of state law, “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . ...” The question before us is whether this “Act of Congress” comes within the “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute so as to permit a federal court in a § 1983 suit to grant an injunction to stay a proceeding pending in. a state court. This question, which has divided the federal courts, has lurked in the background of many of our recent cases, but we have not until today explicitly decided it.

I

The prosecuting attorney of Bay County, Florida, brought a proceeding in a Florida court to close down the appellant's’ bookstore as a public nuisance under the claimed authority of Florida law. The state court entered a preliminary order prohibiting continued operation of the bookstore. After further inconclusive proceedings in the state courts, the appellant filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging that „ the actions of the state judicial and law enforcement officials were depriving him of rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Relying upon 42 U. S. C. .§ 1983, he asked for injunctive and declaratory relief against the state court proceedings, on the. ground that Florida laws were being unconstitutionally applied by the state court so as to cause him great and irreparable harm; A single federal district judge issued temporary restraining orders, and ,a three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284. After a hearing, .the three-judge court dissolved the temporary restraining orders and refused to. enjoin the state court proceeding, holding that the “injunctive relief sought here as to the proceedings pending in the Florida courts does not come, under any of the exceptions set forth in Section 2283. It is not expressly authorized by Act of Congress,, it is not necessary in the aid of this court’s jurisdiction, and it is not sought in order to protect or effectuate any judgment of this court.” 315 F. Supp. 1387, 1389. An appeal was brought directly here under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 402 U. S. 941.

II

In denying injunctive relief, the District Court relied on this Court’s decision in Atlantic Coast, Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood, of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281. The Atlantic Coast Line case did not deal with the “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute, but the Court’s opinion in that ease does bring into sharp focus the critical importance of the question now before us. For in that case we expressly rejected the view that the anti-injunction statute merely states a flexible doctrine of comity, and made clear that the statute imposes an absolute ban upon the issuance of a federal injunction against a pending state court proceeding, in the absence of one of the recognized exceptions:

“On its face the present Act is an absolute, prohibition against enjoining state court proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of three specifically defined exceptions. The respondents here have intimated that the Act only establishes a ‘principle of comity,’ not a binding rule on the power of the federal courts. The argument implies that in certain circumstances a federal court may enjoin state court proceedings even if that action cannot be justified by any of the three exceptions. We cannot accept any such contention. . . . [We] hold that any injunction against state court proceedings otherwise proper under general equitable principles must be based on one of the specific statutory exceptions to § 2283 if it is to be. upheld. . . .” 398 U. S., at 286-287.

It follows, in the present context, that'if 42 U. S. C. § 1983 is not within the. “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute, then a federal equity court is wholly without power to grant any relief in a § 1983 suit seeking to stay a state court proceeding. In short, if a § 1983 action is not an “expressly authorized” statutory exception, the anti-injunction law absolutely prohibits in such an action all federal equitable intervention in a pending state court proceeding, whether civil or criminal, and regardless of how extraordinary the particular circumstances may be.

Last Term, in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, and its companion cases, the Court dealt at length with the subject of federal judicial intervention in pending state criminal prosecutions. In Younger a three-judge federal district court in a § 1983 action had enjoined a criminal prosecution pending in. a California court. In. asking us to reverse that judgment, the appellant argued that the injunction .was in violation of the federal anti-injunction statute. 401 U. S., at 40. But the Court carefully eschewed any reliance on the statute in reversing the judgment, basing its decision. instead upon what the Court called “Our Federalism” — upon “the national policy forbidding fedéral courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances.” 401 U. S., at 41, 44.

In Younger, this Court emphatically reaffirmed “the fundamental policy against federal .interference with, state criminal prosecutions.” 401 U. S., at 46. It made clear that even “the' possible' unconstitutionality of a statute ‘on its face’ does not in itself justify an injunction against good-faith attempts to enforce it.” 401 U. S., at 54. At the same time, however, the Court clearly left room for federal injunctive intervention in a pending state court prosecution in certain exceptional circumstances — where irreparable injury is “both great and immediate,” 401 U. S., at 46, where the state law is “ ‘flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions,’ ” 401 U. S., at 53, or where there is a showing of “bad faith, harassment, or .'. . other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable relief.” 401 U. S., at, 54. In the companion case of Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, the Court said that “[o]nly in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate.” 401 U. S., at 85. See also Dyson v. Stein, 401 U. S. 200, 203.

While the Court in Younger and its companion cases expressly disavowed deciding the question now before us — whether § 1983 comes within the “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute, 401 U. S., at 54 — it is evident that our decisions in those cases cannot be disregarded in deciding this question. In the first place, if § 1983 is not within the statutory exception,' then the anti-injunction statute would have absolutely barred the injunction issued in Younger, as the appellant in that case argued, and there would have been no occasion whatever for the Court to decide that, case upon the “policy” ground of “Our Federalism.” Secondly, if § 1983 is not within the “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute, then we must overrule Younger and its companion cases insofar as they recognized the permissibility of injunctive relief against pending criminal prosecutions in certain limited and exceptional circumstances. For, under the doctrine of Atlantic Coast Line, the anti-injunction statute would, in a § 1983 case, then be an “absolute prohibition” against federal equity intervention in a pending state criminal or civil proceeding — under any circumstances whatever.

The Atlantic Coast Line and Younger cases thus serve to delineate both the importance and the finality of the question now before us. And it is in the shadow of those cases that the question must be decided.

III

The anti-injunction statute goes back almost to the beginnings of our history as a Nation. In 1793, Congress enacted a law providing that no “writ of injunction be granted [by any federal court] to stay proceedings in any 'court of a state. . . Act of March' 2, 1793; 1 Stat. 335. The precise origins of • the legislation are shrouded in obscurity, .but the consistent understanding has been that its basic purpose is to prevent “needless friction between state and federal courts.” Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Gas Co., 309 U. S. 4, 9. The law remained unchanged until 1874, when it was amended to permit a federal court to stay state court proceedings that interfered with the administration of a federal bankruptcy proceeding. The present wording of the legislation was adopted with the enactment of Title 28 of the United States Code in 1948.

Despite the seemingly uncompromising language of the anti-injunction statute prior to 1948, the Court soon recognized that exceptions must be made to its blanket prohibition if the import and purpose of other Acts of Congress were to be given their intended scope: . So it was that, in addition to the bankruptcy law exception that Congress explicitly, recognized in 1874, the Court through the years found that federal courts were empowered. to enjoin state court proceedings, despite the anti-injunction.statute,.in carrying.out-.the will.of Congress under at least six. other .federal'-laws.: -These" covered a broad speetrum of congressional-' action: ,(l) legislation providing for removal .of litigation from state to federal courts, (2) legislation limiting the liability of shipowners, (3) legislation providing for federal interpleader actions, (4) legislation conferring federal jurisdiction over farm mortgages, (5) legislation governing federal habeas corpus proceedings, and (6) legislation providing for control of prices.

In addition to the exceptions to the anti-injunction statute found to be embodied in these various Acts of Congress- the Court recognized other “implied” exceptions to thé blanket prohibition of' the anti-injunction statute. One was an “in rem” exception, allowing a federal court to enjoin a state court proceeding in order to protect its jurisdiction of a res over which it had first acquired jurisdiction. Another was a “relitiga-tioh” exception, permitting a federal court to enjoin relitigation in a state court of issues already decided in federal litigation. Still a third exception, more recently developed, permits a federal injunction of state court proceedings when the plaintiff in the federal court is the United States itself, or a federal agency asserting “superior federal interests.”

In Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U. S. 118, the Court in 1941 issued an opinion casting considerable doubt upon the approach to the anti-injunction statute reflected in its previous decisions. The Court’s opinion expressly disavowed the “relitigation” exception to the statute, • and emphasized generally the importance of recognizing the statute’s basic directive “of ‘hands off’ by the federal courts in.the use of the injunction..to stay litigation in a state court.” 314 U. S., at 132. The congressional response to Toucey was the enactment in 1948 of the anti-injunction statute in its present form in 28 U. S. C. § 2283, which, as the Reviser’s Note makes evident, served not only to overrule the specific holding of Toucey, but to restore “the basic law as generally understood and interpreted prior to the Toucey decision.”

. We proceed, then, upon the understanding that in determining whether § 1983 comes within the “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute, the criteria to be applied are those reflected in the Court’s decisions prior to Toucey, A review of those decisions makes reasonably clear what the relevant criteria are. In the first place, it is evident that, in order to qualify under the “expressly authorized” exception of the anti-injunction statute, a federal law need not contain an express reference to that statute. As the Court has said, “no prescribed formula is required; an authorization need- not expressly refer to § 2283.” Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. Co., 348 U. S. 511, 516. Indeed, none of the previously recognized' statutory exceptions contains any such reférence. Secondly, a federal law need not expressly authorize an injunction of a state .court proceeding in order to qualify as an exception. Three of the six previously recognized statutory exceptions contain no such authorization. Thirdly, it is clear that, in order to qualify as an “expressly authorized” exception to the anti-injunction statute, an Act of Congress must have created a specific and uniquely federal right or remedy, enforceable in a federal court of equity, that could be frustrated if the federal court were not empowered to enjoin a state court proceeding." This is not to say that in order to come within the exception an Act of Congress must, on its face and in every one of its provisions, be totally incompatible with the prohibition of the anti-injunction statute. The test, rather, is whether an Act of Congress, clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity, could be given its intended scope only, by the stay of a state court proceeding. See Toucey, supra, at 132-134; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226; Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. V. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 599; Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U. S. 66, 78; Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U. S. 433; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503.

With these criteria in view, we turn to consideration of 42 U. S. C. § 1983.

W

Section 1983 was originally § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. 17 Stat. 13. It was .“modeled" on § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 186.6, Í4 Stat. 27; and was enacted for the express purpose of “enforcing] the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 17 Stat. 13. The predecessor of § 1983 was thus an important part of the basic alteration in our federal system wrought in the Reconstruction era through federal legislation and constitutional amendment. As a résult of the new . structure of law that emerged in the post-Civil War era — and especially of the Fourteenth. Amendment, which was its centerpiece — ‘the role of the Federal Government' as a guarantor of basic federal rights against state power was clearly established. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167; McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668; Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1; Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 245-249; H. Flack, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (1908); J. tenBroek, The Anti-Slavery Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment (1951). Section 1983 opened the federal courts to private citizens, offering a uniquely federal remedy against incursions under the claimed authority of state law upon rights secured by the Constitution and Jaws of the .Nation.

It is clear from the legislative debates surrounding passage of § 1983’s predecessor that the Act was intended to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment “against State action,... whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.” Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (emphasis supplied). Proponents of the legislation noted that state courts were being used to harass and injure individuals, either because the state courts were powerless to stop deprivations or were in league with those who were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights.

As Representative Lowe stated, the “records of * the [state] tribunals are searched in vain for evidence of effective redress [of federally secured rights] .... What less than this [the Civil Rights Act of 1871] will afford an adequate remedy? The Federal Government cannot serve a writ of mandamus 'upon State Executives or upon State courts- to compel them to protect the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens .... The case has arisen . . . when the Federal Government must, resort to its own agencies to carry its own authority into execution. Hence this bill throws open the doors of the United States courts to'those whose rights under the Constitution are denied or impaired.” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374^376 (1871), This view was echoed by Senator Osborn: “If the State courts had proven themselves competent to suppress the local disorders, or to maintain law and order, we should not have been called upon to legislate . . , . We are driven by existing facts to provide for the several states in the South what they have been unable to fully provide for themselves; i. e., the full and complete administration of justice in the courts. And the courts with reference to which we legislate must be the United States courts.” Id., at 653. And Representative Perry concluded: “Sheriffs, having eyes to see, see not; judges, having ears to hear, hear not; witnesses conceal the' truth or falsify it; grand and petit juries act as if they might be accomplices .... [A] 11 the apparatus and machinery of civil government, all the processes of justice, skulk away as if government and justice were crimes and feared detection. Among the most dangerous things an injured party can do is to appeal .to- justice.” Id., at App. 78.

' Those who opposed the Act of 1871 clearly recognized that the proponents, were extending federal power in an attempt to- remedy the state courts’ failure to secure federal rights. The debate was not about whether the predecessor of § 1983 extended to actions of state courts, but whether this innovation was necessary or desirable.

This legislative history makes evident that Congress clearly conceived that it was altering the relationship between the States and the Nation with respect to the protection of federally created rights; it was concerned that state instrumentalities could not protect those rights; it realized that state officers might, in fact, be antipathetic to the vindication of those rights; and it believed that these failings extended to the state courts.-

V

Section 1983 was thus a product of a vast transformation from the concepts of federalism. that had prevailed in the late 18th century when the anti-injunction. statute was enacted. The very purpose of § 1983 was to interpose the federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people’s federal rights — to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, “whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.” Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S., at 346. In carrying out that purpose, Congress plainly authorized the federal courts to issue injunctions in § 1983 actions, by expressly authorizing a “suit in equity” as one of the means of redress. And this Court long ago recognized that, federal injunctive relief against a state court proceeding can in some circumstances, be essential to prevent great, immediate, and irreparable loss of a person’s constitutional rights. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123;. cf. Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33; Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479. For these reasons we conclude that, under the criteria established in our previous decisions construing the anti-injunction statute, § 1983 is an Act of Congress that falls within the “expressly authorized” exception of that law.

In so concluding, we do not question or qualify in any way the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a federal court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding. These principles, in the context of state criminal prosecutions, were canvassed at length last Term in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, and its companion cases. They are principles that have been emphasized by this Court many times in the past. Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240; Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. .89; Beal v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 312 U. S. 45; Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S. 387; Williams v. Miller, 317 U. S. 599; Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157; Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117; Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611. Today we decide only that the District Court in this case was in error in holding that, because .of the anti-injunction statute, it was absolutely without power in this' § 1983 action to enjoin»a .proceeding pending in a state court under any circumstances whatsoever.

■ The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Mr.. .Chief Justice Burger,

with whom Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Blackmun join, concurring.

I concur in the opinion of . the Court and add a few words to emphasize what the Court is and is not de-ckling today as I read the opinion. The Court holds only tliat 28 U. S. C. § 2283, which is art absolute bar to injunctions against state court proceedings in most suits, does not apply to a suit brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 seeking an injunction of state proceedings. But, as the Court’s opinion has noted, it does nothing to “question or qualify in any way the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a federal court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding.” Ante, at 243. In the context of pending state criminal proceedings, we held in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), that these principles allow a federal court properly to issue an injunction in only a narrow class of circumstances. .We have not yet reached or decided’ exactly how great a restraint is imposed by these principles on a federal court.asked to enjoin state civil proceedings. Therefore, on remand in this case, it seems to me the District Court, before reaching, a decision on the merits of appellant’s claim, should properly consider whether general notions of equity or .principles of federalism, similar to those invoked in Younger, prevent the issuance of. an injunction against the state “nuisance abatement” proceedings in the circumstances of this case.

       28 U. S. C. §2283.

       The statute provides in full: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom; or usage,, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

       Compare Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F. 2d 119 (CA3) (§ 1983 is an “expressly authorized” exception), with Baines v. City of Danville, 337 F. 2d 579 (CA4) (§ 1983 is not an “expressly authorized” exception).

       See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 484 n. 2; Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611, 613 n, 3; Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 54. See also Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U. S. 538, 556; Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U. S. 15.
      In Younger, supra, Mr. Justice Douglas was the only member of the Court who took a position on the question now before us. He expressed the view that § 1983 is included in the “expressly authorized exception to § 2283 .” 401 U. S., at 62. Cf. id., at 54 .(Stewart, J., joined by Harlan, J., concurring); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 120 n. 14 (separate opinion of BreNNAN, J., joined by White and Marshall, JJ.).

       Federal jurisdiction was based upon 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3). The statute states in relevant part:
      “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to 'be commenced by' any person:
      “(3) To- redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for eqúal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of-the United States . . .

       The statute provides: "Except as otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or' denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.”

       At issue were the other two exceptions of the anti-injunction statute: “where necessa^ in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281, 288.

       See First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Village of Skokie, 173 F. 2d 1; Baines, 337 F. 2d, at 593. See also Taylor & Willis, The Power of Federal Courts to Enjoin Proceedings in State Courts, 42 Yale L. J. 1169, 1194 (1933).

        Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66; Boyle v. Landry, 401 U. S: 77; Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82; Dyson v. Stein, 401 U. S. 200; Byrne v. Karalexis, 401 U. S. 216.

       “The history of this provision in the Judiciary Act of 1793 is not.fully known. We know that on December 31/ 1790, Attorney General Edmund Randolph reported to the House of Representatives on desirable changes in. the Judioiary Act of 1789. Am. State Papers, Mise., vol. 1, No. 17, pp. 21-36. The most serious question, raised by Randolph concerned the arduousness of the -circuit duties imposed on the Supreme Court justices. But the Report also suggested a number of amendments dealing with procedural matters. A section of the proposed bill submitted by him provided that 'no injunction in equity shall be granted by a district court to a judgment at law of a State court.’ Id., p. 26. Randolph explained that this clause 'will debar the district court from interfering with the judgments at. law in the State courts; for if the plaintiff and defendant rely upon the State courts, as far as the judgment, they ought to continue there as they have begun. It is enough to' split the same suit into one1 at law, and another in equity, without adding a further separation, by throwing the common law side of the ques--' tion into the State courts, and the equity side into the federal courts.’ Id., p. 34. The Report was considered by the House sitting as a Committee of the Whole, and then was referred to successive special, committees for further consideration. No action was taken until after Chief Justice Jay and his associates wrote the President that their circuit-riding duties were too burdensome. American State Papers, Misc., vol. 1, No. 32, p. 51. In response to this complaint, which was transmitted to Congress, the Act of March 2, 1793, was passed, containing in § 5, inter alia, the prohibition against staying state court proceedings.
      “Charles Warren in his article Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 345, 347, suggests that this provision was the direct consequence of Randolph’s report. This seéfns doubtful, .in view of the very narrow purpose of Randolph’s proposal, namely, that federal courts of equity should not interfere with the enforcrnent- of judgments at law rendered in the state courts. See Taylor and Willis, The Power of Federal Courts to Enjoin Proceedings in State Courts, 42 Yale L. J. 1169, 1171, n. 14.
      “There is no record of any debates over the statute. See 3 Annals of Congress (1791-93). It has been suggested that'the provision reflected the then strong feeling against the unwarranted intrusion ' of federal courts upon state sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dali. 419, was decided on February 18, 1793, less .than two weeks before the provision was enacted into law. The significance of this-proximity is doubtful. Compare Warren Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 345, 347-348, with Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 200.U. S. 273, 291-292. Much more probable is the suggestion that the provision' reflected the prevailing prejudices against equity jurisdiction. The Journal of William Monday (1927 ed.), chronicling the piroceedings of the Senate while he was one of its members (1789-1791), contains abundant evidence of a widespread hostility to chancery practice. See especially, pp. 92-94, 101-06 (debate on/the bill that became Judiciary Act of 1789). Moreover, Senator Ellsworth (soon, to become Chief Justice of the United Statesjy the principal draftsman of both the 1789 and 1793 Judiciary-Acts, often indicated a dislike for equity jurisdiction. See Brown, Life of Oliver Ellsworth (1905 ed.) 194; Journal of William Maclay (1927 ed.) 103-04; Warren, New Light on the History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 49, 96-100.” Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U. S. 118, 130-132.
      See also Note, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 612 (1971); 1A J. Moore, Federal Practice 2302 (1965); H. Hart & H. Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1075-1078 (1953); Durfee & Sloss, Federal Injunction Against Proceedings in State Courts: The Life History of a Statute, 30 Mich. L. Rev. 1145 (1932).

       As so amended, the- statute provided that state court proceedings could be enjoined “where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy.” Rev. Stat. § 720 (1874).

       See French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S.. 226. The federal' removal provisions, both .civil and criminal, 28 U. S. .C. §§ 1441-1450, provide that once a copy of the removal petition is filed with the clerk of the state court, the “State court^shall proceed no further unless and until the case, is remanded.” 28 TJ. S. C." § 1446 (e).

       See Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. HiU Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578. The Act of 1851, 9 Stat. 635,.as amended, provides that once a shipowner has deposited with the court an amount equal to the value of his interest in the ship, “all claims and* proceedings, against th.e owner with respect to the matter in question shall cease.” 46 U. S: C. § 185.

         See Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U. S. 66. The inter-pleader Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 416, as currently written provides that in “any civil action of interpleader ... a district court may . . . enter its order restraining [all claimants] . . . from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in ány. State or United States court affecting, the property, instrument or obligation involved in the interpleader action.” 28 U. S. C. §2361.

       See Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U. S. 433. The Frazier-Lemke Farm- ■ Mortgage Act, as amended in 1935, 49 Stat, 944, provides that in situations to which it is applicable a federal court shall “stay all judicial or official proceedings in any court.” 11 U. S. C. § 203 (s) (2) (1940 ed.).

       See Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 248-249, The Federal Habeas Corpus Act provides that a federal court before which a habeas corpus proceeding is pending may “stay any proceeding against the person detained in any State Court... for any matter involved in the habeas corpus, proceeding.” 28 U. S. C. §2251.

       Section 205 (a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 33, provided that the Price Administrator could request a federal district court to enjoin acts that violated or threatened to violate the Act. In Porter v. Dicken, 328 U. S. 252, we held that this authority was broad enough to justify an injunction to restrain state court procéedings. Id., at 255. The Emergency Price Control Act was thus considered a congressionally authorized exception to the anti-injunction statute. Ibid.; see also Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503. Section 205 (a) expired in 1947. Act of July 25. 1946, 60 Stat. 664.

       See, e. g., Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U. S., at 135— 136; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226.

       See, e. g., Toucey, supra, at 137-141; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340; Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U. S. 356. See generally 1A J. Moore, Federal Practice 2302-2311 (1965).

        Letter Minerals Inc. v. United States, 352 U. S. 220; NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U. S. 138.

       The Reviser’s Note states in part: “The exceptions specifically include the words 'to protect or effectuate' its judgments,’ for lack of which the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts are without pow;er to enjoin relitigation of casés and controversies fully adjudicated by such courts. (See Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., . . . 314 U. S. 118 . . . .) "A vigorous dissenting opinion [314 U. S, 141] notes that at the time of the 1911 revision of the Judicial Code, the power of the courts ... of the United States to protect-their judgments was unquestioned and that the revisers of that code noted no change and Congress intended no change.” H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A181-182 (1947).

        Ibid.

       Cf. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. Co., 348 U. S. 511, 521 (dissenting opinion).

       See nn. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, supra.

       See nn. 12, 13, and 17, supra. The federal courts have found that other Acts- of Congress that do not refer to § 2283 or to injunctions against state court proceedings nonetheless come within ' the “expressly authorized” language of the anti-injunction statute. See; e. g., Walling v. Black Diamond Coal Mining Co., 59 F. Supp. 348, 351 (WD Ky.) (the Fair Labor Standards Act); Okin v. SEC, 161 F. 2d 978, 980 (CA2) (the Public Utility Holding Company Act) ; Dilworth v. Riner, 343 F. 2d 226, 230 (CA5) (the 1964 Civil Rights Act); Studebaker Corp. v. Gittlin, 360 F. 2d 692 (CA2) (the Securities and Exchange Act).

       Cf. Baines v. City of Danville, 337 F. 2d 579 (CA4).

       See remarks of Representative Shellabarger, chairman of the House Select Committee which drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 68 (1871), and Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U. S. 538, 545 n. 9.

       In addition to proposing the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, Congress; from 1866 to 1875 enacted the following civil rights legislation: Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140; Act of April 20, 1871, 17 Stat. 13; and Act of March 1, 1875, 18 Stat. 335. In 1875, Congress also passed the general federal-question provision, giving federal courts the power tq hear suits arising under Art. Ill, §2, of the Constitution. Act. of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470. This is the predecessor of 28 U. S. C. § 1331.

       See generally Gressman, The Unhappy History of Civil Rights Legislation, 50 Mich. L. Rev. 1323 (1952); Note, 75 Yale L. J. 1007 (1966); F. Frankfurter & J, Landis, The Business of the Supreme. Court 65 (1928). As one commentator has put it: "That statutory plan [of the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress to enforce it] did supply the means of vindicating those rights [of person and property] through the instrumentalities of the federal government... . . It did constitute the federal government the protector of the civil rights . . . .” TenBroek, at 185. See. also United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787, 801 n. 9; K. Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction (1965).

       As Representative Shellabarger stated, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 “not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all people where, under color of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled under the Constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship.” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 68 (1871). And as Representative Hoar stated: “The principal danger that menaces us to-day is from the effort within the States to deprive considerable numbers of persons of the civil and equal rights which the General Government is endeavoring to secure to them.” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. 335.
      Although, as originally drafted in 1871, § 1983’s predecessor protected rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitutionthe provision included by the Congress in the Revised Statutes o1874 was enlarged to provide protection for rights, privileges, or immunities secured by federal law as well. Rev. Stat. § 1979.

       Representative Cobum.stated: “The United States courts are further above mere'local influence than the county courts; -their judges can act with more independence, cannot be put under terror, as local judges can; their sympathies are not so nearly identified with those of the vicinage; the jurors are taken from the State, and not the neighborhood; they will be able to rise above prejudices or bad .passions or terror more easily. . . .” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong.. 1st Sess., 460 (1871).
      See also id., at App. 85 (Rep. Bingham); 321 (Rep. Stoughton); 333-334 (Rep. Hoar); 389 (Rep. Elliot); 394 (Rep. Rainey); 429 (Rep. Beatty); App. 68-69 (Rep. Shellabarger); App. 78 (Rep. Perry); 345 (Sen. Sherman); 505 (Sen. Pratt); 577 (Sen. Carpenter) ; ,651 (Sen. Sumner); 653 (Sen. Osborn); App. 255 (Sen. Wilson). Cf. id., at 697 (Sen. Edmunds).

       See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 361 (Rep. Swann); 385 (Rep. Lewis); 416 (Rep. Biggs); 429 (Rep. McHenry); App. 179 (Rep. Voorhees); 599-600 (Sen. Saulsbury); App. 216 (Sen. Thurman).