What I'm trying to figure out in Kowalski
is the relevance of the Younger v. Harris
decision to the court's finding that the attorneys didn't have standing. Justice Ginsburg points out rightly in her dissent
that "[w]hether a federal court should abstain under Younger is . . . distinct from whether a party has standing to sue." In the absence of a pending state action involving the attorneys, Younger
should clearly be a separate analysis.
It seems that the court is either
trying to raise the third party standing requirement when the party whose 1983 immunity is being infringed is currently involved in state court litigation or
trying to extend the Younger
doctrine to include all actions extending from the state court litigation.
UPDATE: Crime & Federalism weighs in