## Facts

- Local law-enforcement officials obtained four warrants and seized four copies of an allegedly obscene film shown at an adult theater operated by the theater owners.
- State obscenity misdemeanor charges were initially filed against two theater employees in municipal court.
- A state superior court proceeding resulted in an order declaring the film obscene and directing seizure of all copies found at the theater.
- The theater owners did not pursue state appellate review of the obscenity ruling; instead, they filed a federal civil action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the California obscenity statute and return of the seized films.
- A three-judge federal district court convened to consider the constitutionality of the statute.
- While the federal case was pending, the state criminal prosecution expanded to include the theater owners as defendants.
- The three-judge court nonetheless declared the statute unconstitutional, ordered return of the seized films, and declined to dismiss under Younger, finding no pending state charges against the owners when the federal suit was filed and concluding there was bad faith/harassment.
- After the Supreme Court summarily dismissed an appeal challenging the same statute for want of a substantial federal question, the three-judge court refused to treat that disposition as controlling and reaffirmed its judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Younger abstention and related limits on federal interference apply when the state begins (or expands) criminal proceedings after the federal complaint is filed but before any substantial federal merits proceedings occur.
2. Whether a Supreme Court summary dismissal “for want of a substantial federal question” binds lower federal courts on the constitutional issue presented.
3. Whether the state’s warrant-based seizures and enforcement conduct established bad faith or harassment sufficient to permit federal intervention despite Younger.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held it had appellate jurisdiction over both the injunction and declaratory judgment.
- The Court reversed the three-judge district court and directed dismissal of the federal action.
- Younger required abstention because the theater owners were added to the state criminal case before any “proceeding of substance on the merits” occurred in federal court.
- The Court rejected the claimed bad faith/harassment exception, finding the circumstances did not justify federal intervention.
- The Court held the three-judge court erred by disregarding the Supreme Court’s prior summary disposition upholding the same statute against a constitutional challenge.

## Legal Principles

- Younger abstention applies when the state initiates criminal proceedings against federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed, so long as the state case begins before any substantial federal proceedings on the merits.
- Federal courts generally may not grant injunctive or declaratory relief that interferes with an ongoing state criminal prosecution when the federal claims can be raised in the state forum and no recognized exception applies.
- The bad faith/harassment exception to Younger is narrow and was not satisfied by warrant-based seizures and a bona fide effort to enforce a presumptively valid criminal statute.
- Supreme Court summary dismissals and summary affirmances are merits determinations on the federal question presented and bind lower courts unless and until the Supreme Court indicates otherwise.

## Conclusion

The Court required dismissal of the federal challenge to California’s obscenity statute because state criminal proceedings encompassing the federal plaintiffs commenced before federal merits litigation, triggering Younger abstention, and because lower courts were bound by the Supreme Court’s prior summary disposition rejecting a constitutional attack on the same statute.


Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975)