<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d8427150\x26blogName\x3dEx+Post\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://expost.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://expost.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d1132334940054765571', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Thursday, December 16, 2004

Kowalski v. Tesmer

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.
Any thoughts?

UPDATE: Crime & Federalism weighs in.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home