Talk:Abstention doctrine

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The elements of a discussion on this topic should be primarily regarding whether or not there is a such thing as a state having jurisdiction over Constitutional issues. One issue for example is the simple fact that that if a State passes a law that is not Constitutional, then how can a state be unbiased in judging it's own laws.

I'm not sure where you're coming from there - abstention doctrines are more about the use of power of federal courts than in state courts. It is well settled law that states can have jurisdiction over constitutional issues to the extent that Congress does not withhold such jurisdiction exclusively to the federal courts. BD2412 ^talk 15:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Pullman abstention to focus on the fact that the federal court is abstaining not so that the state court can rule a law unconstitutional under the federal constitution, but so that the state court might construct ambiguous law in a way that doesn't require a federal constitutional ruling. --Rmalloy 14:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) This article is pretty good! Nice job everyone. --140.247.248.113 02:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Younger Abstention - clarification[edit]

"... if an individual who was charged ... under a state law believes [a connected] search was ... in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, that person may have a cause of action to sue the state ... a federal court will not hear the case until the person is convicted of the crime."

Presumably there is still a cause of action for unlawful search even if that person is aquitted - shouldn't that be mentioned? Jonathan Hall (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to that. It is conceivable that a person who is acquitted has no cause of action at all, because their acquittal vindicates their rights. bd2412 T 23:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesiastical Abstention[edit]

It seems the "Ecclesiastical Abstention" doctrine, apparently rooted in Watson v Jones, would also fall within the ambit of this article; however, I'm not a lawyer, and therefore lack confidence to add a piece on it. Abb3w (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]