## Facts

- James A. Dombrowski and the Southern Conference Educational Fund, Inc. (SCEF), a civil-rights organization, alleged Louisiana officials used state anti-subversion statutes to suppress their advocacy and association.
- Appellants sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of Louisiana’s Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law and Communist Propaganda Control Law.
- Appellants alleged the statutes were facially overbroad under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and were being used as a harassment program to deter civil-rights activities.
- The complaint alleged arrests, raids, seizure of organizational records, and continued threats of prosecution without a genuine expectation of valid convictions.
- A three-judge federal district court dismissed the action, reasoning abstention was appropriate because state courts might narrowly construe the statutes.
- After dismissal, individual appellants were indicted under one of the challenged statutes, and appellants alleged prolonged uncertainty and ongoing threats without timely state adjudication.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court should abstain from granting declaratory or injunctive relief against threatened or pending state prosecutions when the challenged statutes are alleged to be facially overbroad and enforced in bad faith to deter protected expression.
2. Whether the chilling effect on First Amendment activity caused by threatened enforcement of an overly broad speech-related criminal statute constitutes irreparable injury warranting federal equitable relief.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The Court held federal declaratory and injunctive relief may be available against enforcement of state criminal statutes that are excessively broad and threaten substantial suppression of First Amendment freedoms.
- The Court concluded abstention was improper where the statutes were attacked on their face and where enforcement was alleged to be in bad faith for the purpose of discouraging protected activities.
- The Court treated the allegations of harassment, seizures, and prosecution threats as sufficient to state a claim for equitable relief.
- A dissent argued federal courts should refrain from interfering with state criminal processes and should allow state courts to address the statutes’ construction and constitutionality in the first instance.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts ordinarily do not interfere with good-faith state criminal prosecutions; constitutional defenses are typically raised in the state proceeding.
- Equitable relief may issue to prevent substantial loss or impairment of expressive freedoms from prosecution under an excessively broad statute regulating expression.
- A credible chilling effect on First Amendment activity can constitute irreparable injury, even if a prosecution’s ultimate success is doubtful.
- Abstention is inappropriate where a statute is justifiably challenged on its face for overbreadth, or where it is allegedly enforced in bad faith as a tool of harassment to deter protected expression and association.
- Facial challenges are permitted where overbreadth makes a statute susceptible to sweeping applications that substantially burden protected speech.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that federal courts need not abstain and may grant declaratory and injunctive relief when state officials use facially overbroad statutes regulating expression in bad faith to harass speakers and chill First Amendment activity, because awaiting state criminal proceedings may not adequately protect expressive freedoms.


Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965)