8.2.1 Younger Abstention

In Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court held that federal courts must abstain from interference with pending state court criminal proceedings.1  The Fifth Circuit has long held that federal courts should abstain under Younger only in very limited, narrow circumstances.2  Ten years after Younger, the Supreme Court ruled that the Younger abstention applies in civil proceedings if there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding, the proceedings implicates important state interests, and there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; this is known as the Middlesex test.3

In 2013 the Supreme Court clarified that “even in the presence of parallel state proceedings, abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the ‘exception, not the rule.’”4  Prior to conducting the Middlesex test, the federal court must first determine if the proceeding falls into one of the “exceptional circumstances” that “justif[ies] a federal court’s refusal to decide a case in deference to the States.”5  These circumstances include ongoing state criminal prosecutions, certain civil enforcement proceedings, and pending “civil proceedings involving certain orders . . . uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.”6  This test arguably restricts the ability of federal courts to abstain in eviction cases.7  As a practical matter, a federal suit seeking to enjoin an eviction must be filed before the eviction action is filed to avoid Younger abstention issues.

• 1401 U.S. 37, 53 (1971).
• 2Morial v. Judiciary Comm’n of La., 565 F.2d 295, 299 (5th Cir. 1977) (“The Younger principles simply are not . . . a broad, discretionary, device for the evasion of the responsibility of federal courts to protect federal rights from invasion by state officials.”).
• 3Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).
• 4Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 81–82 (2013) (quoting Haw. Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 236 (1984)).
• 5Id. at 78 (quoting New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 368 (1989)).
• 6Id.
• 7For examples of housing cases (non-FHA) where tenants have defeated Younger abstention, see Kemp v. Chi. Hous. Auth., No. 10 C 3347, 2010 WL 2927417 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (termination of public housing assistance); Ayers v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 908 F.2d 1184, 1195 n. 21 (3d Cir. 1990) (due process); McNeill v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 719 F. Supp. 233, 255 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (procedures for terminating rent subsidy).