In an action brought to restrain the enforcement of a state
statute on federal constitutional grounds, the federal court should
retain jurisdiction until a definitive determination of local law
questions is obtained from the local courts, and the judgment of
the District Court in this case is vacated, and the cause is
remanded to it with directions to retain jurisdiction until efforts
to obtain an appropriate adjudication in the state courts have been
exhausted. Pp.
353 U. S.
364-367.
146 F. Supp. 214, judgment vacated and cause remanded with
directions.
PER CURIAM.
In 1953, the Alabama Legislature enacted a statute, Ala.Laws
1953, No. 720 P. 974, which provides that any public employee who
joins or participates in a "labor union or labor organization"
forfeits the "rights, benefits, or privileges which he enjoys as a
result of his public employment." Section 1 defines a "labor union
or labor organization" to include an organization of employees
whose purpose is to deal with employers concerning grievances,
labor disputes, or conditions of employment. Teachers,
Page 353 U. S. 365
certain employees of the State Docks Board, and city and county
employees, however, are exempted from the provisions of the
Act.
Appellants are an organization composed of employees of
governmental and civic agencies, and a member of the organization
who is employed by a retail liquor store operated by the Alabama
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. They commenced this action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
to enjoin the enforcement of the state statute on the grounds that
it abridged the freedoms of expression and association of public
employees, and that the statute violated the Due Process,
Privileges and Immunities, and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
The three-judge District Court, convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
ยงยง 2281, 2284, withheld the exercise of its jurisdiction, retaining
the cause "for a reasonable time to permit the exhaustion of such
State administrative and judicial remedies as may be available."
116 F.
Supp. 354, 359. We affirmed that judgment of the District
Court. 347 U.S. 901.
Appellant union commenced an action in the Alabama courts to
obtain an "authoritative construction" of the state statute. A bill
in equity was filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County,
Alabama, praying that the enforcement of the statute against the
union or its members be enjoined, and for a declaratory judgment
that the union was not a "labor union or labor organization" within
the meaning of the statute. In its complaint, the union denied that
the statute applied to it or its members. None of the
constitutional contentions presented in the action pending in the
United States District Court were advanced in the state court
action. After hearing testimony, the Circuit Court of Montgomery
County denied the union's prayer for relief, holding that the
statute applied to the
Page 353 U. S. 366
union, its members, and its activities. The Alabama Supreme
Court affirmed. 262 Ala. 285,
78 So. 2d
646. It held that a local union operating under the appellant's
rules and constitution would be subject to the provisions of the
Act.
The case was resubmitted to the three-judge District Court for
final decree. The District Court dismissed the action with
prejudice, saying that the Alabama courts have not construed the
Act "in such a manner as to render it unconstitutional, and, of
course, we cannot assume that the State courts will ever so
construe said statute." 146 F. Supp. 214, 216. We noted probable
jurisdiction. 352 U.S. 905.
We do not reach the constitutional issues. In an action brought
to restrain the enforcement of a state statute on constitutional
grounds, the federal court should retain jurisdiction until a
definitive determination of local law questions is obtained from
the local courts. One policy served by that practice is that of not
passing on constitutional questions in situations where an
authoritative interpretation of state law may avoid the
constitutional issues.
Spector Motor Co. v. McLaughlin,
323 U. S. 101,
323 U. S. 105.
Another policy served by that practice is the avoidance of the
adjudication of abstract, hypothetical issues. Federal courts will
not pass upon constitutional contentions presented in an abstract,
rather than in a concrete, form.
Rescue Army v. Municipal
Court, 331 U. S. 549,
331 U. S. 575,
331 U. S. 584.
The bare adjudication by the Alabama Supreme Court that the union
is subject to this Act does not suffice, since that court was not
asked to interpret the statute in light of the constitutional
objections presented to the District Court. If appellants' freedom
of expression and equal protection arguments had been presented to
the state court, it might have construed the statute in a different
manner. Accordingly, the judgment of the District
Page 353 U. S. 367
Court is vacated, and this cause is remanded to it with
directions to retain jurisdiction until efforts to obtain an
appropriate adjudication in the state courts have been
exhausted.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK took no part in the consideration or decision
of this case.