Ann Althouse, The Misguided Search for State Interest in Abstention Cases 63 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1051 (1988).
Abstract
In this Article, Professor Althouse examines the abstention doctrine, under which federal courts decline to interfere with certain proceedings already begun in state court. Traditionally, courts have applied the abstention doctrine when they believed a case involved particularly strong state interests. Professor Althouse argues, however, that courts have generally erred in their abstention analyses. In focusing on state interests, courts may harm the effective enforcement of federal law, the interest the doctrine was originally intended to protect. Professor Althouse believes that federal interests should be determinative when courts consider whether to abstain. Support for her theory comes from the recent Supreme Court decision in Pennzoil v. Texaco, where the Court found that a state Courts interest in remaining free from federal judicial intrusion was a state interest strong enough to require abstention. Though she considers this state interest weak under traditional abstention analysis, Professor Althouse contends that the case nonetheless presented the ideal circumstances for abstention. In a case like Pennzoil, where a state court has already begun to process a case raising federal issues, a move to federal court can result in serious delay and inefficiency. In addition, federal intervention in such cases may actually diminish the capacity of state courts to enforce federal law, not only through the mere expression of mistrust, but also by depriving them of the opportunity to gain experience in the application and enforcement of federal law.
