REETZ v. BOZANICH(1970)
Appellees brought this action challenging, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and under certain provisions of the Alaska Constitution relating to fish resources, the constitutionality of an Alaska statute and regulations limiting commercial salmon fishing licensees to defined groups of persons. Appellants' motion to dismiss or alternatively to stay the proceedings pending state-court determination with respect to the Alaska constitutional provisions (which have never been interpreted by an Alaska court) was denied and appellees' motion for summary judgment was granted, the three-judge District Court holding the Act and regulations invalid under both the Federal and State Constitutions. Held: The District Court should have abstained from deciding the case on the merits pending resolution of the state constitutional questions by the state courts, a procedure that could conceivably avoid any decision under the Fourteenth Amendment and any possible irritant in the federal-state relationship. City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U.S. 639 . Pp. 85-87.
297 F. Supp. 300, vacated and remanded.
Charles K. Cranston, Assistant Attorney General of Alaska, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were G. Kent Edwards, Attorney General, and Robert L. Hartig, Assistant Attorney General.
Robert Boochever argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Seth Warner Morrison III. [397 U.S. 82, 83]
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S.C. 2281, 2284, declaring certain fishing laws of Alaska and regulations under them unconstitutional and enjoining their enforcement. 297 F. Supp. 300. We noted probable jurisdiction. 396 U.S. 811 .
The laws in question, passed in 1968, concern salmon net gear licenses for commercial fishing, not licenses for other types of salmon fishing. They are challenged because they limit licensees to a defined group of persons. The Act in material part provides: 1
Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Act and regulations deprived them of their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and also their rights under the Alaska Constitution. That constitution provides in Art. VIII, 3:
Appellants' motion to dismiss or to stay was denied. Appellees' motion for summary judgment was granted, the three-judge District Court holding that the Act and regulations in question were unconstitutional both under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and under the Constitution of Alaska. 297 F. Supp., at 304-307.
This case is virtually on all fours with City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U.S. 639 , where a single district judge in construing a Mississippi statute held that it violated both the Federal and the State Constitutions. The Court of Appeals affirmed and we vacated its judgment and remanded to the District Court with directions to hold the case while the parties repaired to a state tribunal "for an authoritative declaration of applicable state law." Id., at 640.
It is, of course, true that abstention is not necessary whenever a federal court is faced with a question of local law, the classic case being Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228 , where federal jurisdiction was based on diversity only. Abstention certainly involves duplication of effort and expense and an attendant delay. See England v. Louisiana State Board, 375 U.S. 411 . That is why we have said that this judicially created rule which stems from Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 , should be applied only where "the issue of state law is uncertain." Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 534 . Moreover, we said in Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 248 , that abstention was applicable "only in narrowly limited `special circumstances,'" citing Proper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472, 492 . In Zwickler, a state statute was attacked on the ground that on its face it was repugnant to the First Amendment; and it was conceded that state court construction could not render unnecessary a decision of the First Amendment question. 389 U.S., at 250 . A state court decision here, however, [397 U.S. 82, 87] could conceivably avoid any decision under the Fourteenth Amendment and would avoid any possible irritant in the federal-state relationship.
The Pullman doctrine was based on "the avoidance of needless friction" between federal pronouncements and state policies. 312 U.S., at 500 . The instant case is the classic case in that tradition, for here the nub of the whole controversy may be the state constitution. The constitutional provisions relate to fish resources, an asset unique in its abundance in Alaska. The statute and regulations relate to that same unique resource, the management of which is a matter of great state concern. We appreciate why the District Court felt concern over the effect of further delay on these plaintiffs, the appellees here; but we have concluded that the first judicial application of these constitutional provisions should properly be by an Alaska court.
We think the federal court should have stayed its hand while the parties repaired to the state courts for a resolution of their state constitutional questions. We accordingly vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[ Footnote 2 ] Alaska Commercial Fishing Regulations 102.09 (a) (1969).
[ Footnote 3 ] As defined in the regulations, id., 102.09 (a) (2).
[ Footnote 4 ] While the original complaint challenged the 1968 regulations, it was amended to challenge the 1968 Act and the 1969 regulations under it, which regulated the 1969 fishing season. [397 U.S. 82, 88]