Enforcement of a state penal statute, even of one contrary to
the federal Constitution, may be interfered with by injunction
orders of a federal court only in extraordinary circumstances where
the danger of irreparable loss is both great and immediate. P.
271 U. S.
243.
3 F.2d 674
affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the district court refusing a
preliminary injunction in a suit by Fenner and others
Page 271 U. S. 241
to restrain Boykin and Lowry, state officers, from enforcing a
criminal law against dealings in agreements for purchase or sale of
cotton for future delivery.
Page 271 U. S. 242
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal is without merit, and the interlocutory decree below
must be affirmed.
By an Act approved August 20, 1906, the Legislature of Georgia
declared unlawful certain agreements for the purchase or sale, for
future delivery, of designated commodities, and made participation
therein a misdemeanor. It also prohibited maintenance of an office
where such agreements are offered, and specified what should
constitute
prima facie evidence of guilty connection
therewith. Laws 1906, p. 95.
Appellees, Boykin and Lowry, are the solicitor general and
sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, charged respectively with the
general duty of prosecuting and arresting offenders.
Page 271 U. S. 243
Subsequent to the passage of the Act of 1906, appellants,
citizens of states other than Georgia, established in Fulton County
a branch office, with the ordinary quotation board, where they
solicited and received orders, accompanied by margins, to purchase
or sell cotton for future delivery on the New York and New Orleans
Exchanges. They were threatened with arrest and prosecution for
violating the Act of 1906. By a bill in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, they challenged the
validity of that statute upon the ground that it interfered with
the free flow of commerce between the states. They alleged that the
threatened action would deprive them of rights guaranteed by the
federal Constitution, and asked that appellees be enjoined from
proceeding therewith.
The district court, three judges sitting, having heard the
matter, concluded that the statute condemned gambling transactions
only, did not affect interstate commerce, and that the proposed
proceedings against appellants would not deprive them of any right.
The request for preliminary injunction was accordingly refused, and
this appeal followed.
3 F.2d
674.
The trial court discovered no necessity for the relief asked.
The record discloses no adequate reason for a different conclusion
here. There was no abuse of discretion.
Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, and
following cases have established the doctrine that, when absolutely
necessary for protection of constitutional rights, courts of the
United States have power to enjoin state officers from instituting
criminal actions. But this may not be done except under
extraordinary circumstances where the danger of irreparable loss is
both great and immediate. Ordinarily there should be no
interference with such officers; primarily, they are charged with
the duty of prosecuting offenders against the laws of the state,
and
Page 271 U. S. 244
must decide when and how this is to be done. The accused should
first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts, even
though this involves a challenge of the validity of some statute,
unless it plainly appears that this course would not afford
adequate protection. The Judicial Code provides ample opportunity
for ultimate review here in respect of federal questions. An
intolerable condition would arise if, whenever about to be charged
with violating a state law, one were permitted freely to contest
its validity by an original proceeding in some federal court.
Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U.
S. 497,
266 U. S.
500.
Affirmed.