1. Federal courts of equity should not interfere with the
processes of the criminal law in state courts or determine
questions of criminal liability under those laws, unless in most
exceptional circumstances and upon clear showing that an injunction
is necessary in order to prevent an irreparable loss. P.
312 U. S.
50.
2. A suit by a railroad company to restrain state officers from
prosecuting, under a state "Full Train Crew" law, the plaintiff,
alleging that its trains are manned in accordance with the statute
when rightly construed, but that it stands in danger of irreparable
injury from multiplicity of prosecutions and possible fines, should
not be entertained by a federal court of equity when it appears as
a fact that only a single test prosecution is in contemplation,
involving only one alleged violation for the purpose of obtaining a
construction of the statute by the state courts. P.
312 U. S.
50.
3. Upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings, denials and
allegations of the answer which are well pleaded must be taken as
true. P.
312 U.S. 51.
108 F.2d 897 reversed.
Page 312 U. S. 46
Certiorari, 311 U.S. 623, to review the affirmance of a decree
enjoining the present petitioners, state prosecuting officers, from
prosecuting the railroad company's agents for alleged criminal
violations of a state "Full Train Crew" law.
MR. JUSTICE STONE, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether respondent, plaintiff in the district
court below, has established a cause of action in equity entitling
it to a decree enjoining petitioners, the Attorney General of
Nebraska and other state officers, from prosecuting respondent's
agents and officers in the state courts for criminal violations of
the Nebraska Full Train Crew Law, § 74-519, Comp.Stat. of Nebraska,
1929.
The statute makes it unlawful for any railroad in Nebraska to
operate any passenger train of more than five cars "with a crew,
consisting of less than one engineer, one fireman, one conductor,
one brakeman and one flagman." Passenger trains of five cars or
less are required to be operated with a like crew, except that only
"one brakeman or flagman" is required, instead of the one brakeman
and one flagman required in the case of trains of more than five
cars. By § 74-522, officers or agents of railroads dispatching
trains in violation of the statute are guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000 for
each offense, and
Page 312 U. S. 47
the railroad is made liable for any damage caused by
violations.
Respondent's bill of complaint invoked the jurisdiction of the
district court on grounds of diversity of citizenship. The facts
alleged, so far as now material, are as follows. Respondent
operates two trains in Nebraska on which it assigns, for the
performance of the duties of a brakeman or flagman required by the
statute, colored employees who are fully qualified to perform and
to perform those duties, but who are designated as "brakemen
porters," and paid lower wages than are respondent's white
"brakemen."
On complaint lodged with the State Railway Commission by an
officer of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, it was alleged
that respondent violated the statute by employing brakemen porters
to perform the services of brakemen or flagmen. The Commission
twice dismissed the complaint, but, upon rehearing, it ruled that,
although respondent's brakemen porters, in addition to the duties
of brakemen, when performance of such duties permit, render some
services as porters, they competently perform the duties to which
they are assigned -- namely those of brakemen or flagmen, and that
respondent's trains, so far as the public safety is concerned, are
adequately manned. The Commission declined to pass upon the
question whether their employment in the manner alleged complied
with the Full Train Crew Law of the state, and ordered that the
records in the case be made available to the state attorney general
for his use, if so advised, in prosecuting respondent for violation
of any criminal statute of the state.
The bill of complaint also alleges that employment of white
brakemen for the services now performed by respondent's brakemen
porters will compel it to pay an increase of wages in excess of the
jurisdictional amount, and that as each train movement involves an
alleged violation
Page 312 U. S. 48
of the statute, numerous prosecutions for violations, which
petitioners threaten, will result in imposing on respondent the
burden of many litigations in the state criminal courts. Such
prosecutions, if successful, it is alleged, will result in the
imposition of aggregate fines in excess of $1,000,000 a year. The
relief prayed is that the threatened prosecutions be declared to be
unauthorized by the statute, and that petitioners be enjoined from
interfering with the operation of respondent's trains through
criminal prosecution or otherwise.
After denial by the district court of petitioners' motion to
dismiss the bill of complaint for want of equity, petitioners
answered denying, among others, the allegations that respondent is
threatened with multiplicity of criminal suits, or that petitioners
intended to proceed with prosecutions for violation of the statute,
except as specifically stated in the answer. The answer sets up
affirmatively that the attorney general has under consideration the
question of respondent's compliance with the statute, and, in the
event that he should determine that it is "necessary and proper to
do so" in order to obtain a judicial determination of the question,
he would cause a single test suit to be instituted in the state
courts for some one alleged violation of the act by respondent, so
conducted as to cause a minimum of financial expense to respondent
and without seeking to inflict financial penalties or loss on
respondent prior to a final determination of the suit in the state
courts.
The district court, without trial of any issue of fact, gave its
decree for respondent, on the pleadings, for an injunction as
prayed. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 108
F.2d 897. We granted certiorari, 311 U.S. 623, on a petition which
challenged the equity jurisdiction of the district court to enjoin,
in the circumstances, a criminal proceeding in the state courts,
the question being of public importance since it
Page 312 U. S. 49
involves the appropriate relationship of the federal to the
state courts.
The court of appeals, construing the statute, held that the
crews on respondent's trains conform to the statutory requirements;
that criminal prosecution of respondent's officers is unauthorized
by the Act and unlawful. It supported the exercise of the equity
powers of the court to restrain the prosecutions on the ground that
the attempted enforcement of the statute as construed by
petitioners would subject respondent to a multiplicity of such
prosecutions and to the risk, if petitioners' construction of the
statute should be sustained, that fines or penalties aggregating a
large amount would be imposed.
It is a familiar rule that courts of equity do not ordinarily
restrain criminal prosecutions.
In re Sawyer, 124 U.
S. 200,
124 U. S. 211;
Davis & Farnum Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles, 189 U.
S. 207;
Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman,
266 U. S. 497,
266 U. S. 500.
No citizen or member of the community is immune from prosecution,
in good faith, for his alleged criminal acts. The imminence of such
a prosecution, even though alleged to be unauthorized and hence
unlawful, is not, alone, ground for relief in equity, which exerts
its extraordinary powers only to prevent irreparable injury to the
plaintiff who seeks its aid.
Terrace v. Thompson,
263 U. S. 197,
263 U. S. 214;
Packard v. Banton, 264 U. S. 140,
264 U. S. 143;
Tyson v. Banton, 273 U. S. 418,
273 U. S. 428;
Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.
S. 445,
274 U. S.
452.
This is especially the case where the only threatened action is
the prosecution in the state courts by state officers of an alleged
violation of state law, with the resulting final and authoritative
determination of the disputed question whether the act complained
of is lawful or unlawful.
Harkrader v. Wadley,
172 U. S. 148;
Spielman Motor Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S.
89,
295 U. S. 95.
The federal courts are without jurisdiction to try alleged
Page 312 U. S. 50
criminal violations of state statutes. The state courts are the
final arbiters of their meaning and appropriate application,
subject only to review by this Court if such construction or
application is appropriately challenged on constitutional grounds.
Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, supra; Fenner v. Boykin,
271 U. S. 240.
Hence, interference with the processes of the criminal law in
state courts, in whose control they are lodged by the Constitution,
and the determination of questions of criminal liability under
state law by federal courts of equity, can be justified only in
most exceptional circumstances, and upon clear showing that an
injunction is necessary in order to prevent irreparable injury.
Cf. Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, supra; Cline v. Frink
Dairy Co., supra; Spielman Motor Co. v. Dodge, supra. And, in
the exercise of the sound discretion, which guides the
determination of courts of equity, scrupulous regard must be had
for the rightful independence of state governments and a remedy
infringing that independence which might otherwise be given should
be withheld if sought on slight or inconsequential grounds.
Di
Giovanni v. Camden Insurance Assn., 296 U. S.
64,
296 U. S. 73,
and cases cited.
Here, the court below found danger of irreparable injury in the
threatened multiplicity of prosecutions and risk that the aggregate
fines which might be imposed would be very large. But whether more
than one criminal prosecution is threatened was, by the pleadings,
made an issue of fact which the district court did not resolve. If
it had found, after a hearing, as the answer alleges, that only a
single suit is contemplated, we could not say that any such
irreparable injury is threatened as would justify staying the
prosecution and withdrawing the determination of the legal question
from the state courts, whose appointed function is to decide it.
Boise
Artesian
Page 312 U. S. 51
Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U.
S. 276,
213 U. S. 287;
Spielman Motor Co. v. Dodge, supra, 295 U. S.
96.
If its decision should be favorable to respondent, no reason is
shown for anticipating further prosecutions. If it were adverse,
penalties in large amount, it is true, might be incurred, but they
may well be the consequence of violations of state law. No question
is here presented of the constitutional validity of the statute
because the penalties which it inflicts are so great as to prevent
recourse to the courts for the adjudication of respondent's rights
under it.
See Ex parte Young, 209 U.
S. 123,
209 U. S. 144;
Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Tucker, 230 U.
S. 340,
230 U. S.
349.
It does not appear that any motion was made by the parties for
judgment on the pleadings. But the record shows that the trial
court entered the decree in respondent's favor on its own motion.
Upon such a motion, denials and allegations of the answer which are
well pleaded must be taken as true. So taken, the decree for
respondent cannot be sustained, and must be reversed. The majority
of the Court are of opinion
* that, in view of
the state of the record and certain concessions made by counsel on
the argument here, any further hearing of the issue of irreparable
injury to respondent from a threatened multiplicity of suits has
been waived. The reversal will accordingly be with instructions to
the district court to dismiss the bill of complaint.
It is so ordered.
* THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS and MR. JUSTICE
STONE are of opinion that the case should be remanded to the
district court for further proceedings.