## Facts

- Richard Guy Steffel distributed anti–Vietnam War handbills on an exterior sidewalk at a private shopping center in Georgia.
- Shopping center employees demanded that the handbilling stop; police were called.
- Police warned Steffel that continued handbilling would result in arrest under Georgia’s criminal trespass statute, and Steffel left.
- On a later return, police again warned of arrest if handbilling continued; Steffel left to avoid arrest, while his companion continued and was charged under the trespass statute.
- Steffel filed a federal action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that applying the trespass statute to his leafletting would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The parties stipulated that if Steffel resumed handbilling at the shopping center, he would be arrested and prosecuted.

## Issues

1. Whether repeated and credible threats of prosecution under a state criminal statute, without an arrest or pending prosecution of the federal plaintiff, present an Article III “actual controversy” permitting declaratory relief.
2. Whether principles of equity, comity, and federalism bar federal declaratory relief against threatened enforcement of a state criminal statute when no state prosecution against the federal plaintiff is pending, absent bad-faith harassment or other special circumstances.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that Steffel’s claim presented an “actual controversy” because the threat of arrest and prosecution was concrete and not speculative.
- The Court held that federal declaratory relief is not barred by *Younger*/*Samuels* principles when no state prosecution is pending against the federal plaintiff, even without a showing of bad faith or harassment.
- The Court limited its review to declaratory relief because Steffel abandoned his request for an injunction.
- The Court directed further proceedings, including consideration whether the controversy remained substantial and continuing.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff need not expose himself to arrest or prosecution to challenge a statute that credibly threatens enforcement and deters the exercise of constitutional rights.
- Credible threats of prosecution, supported by stipulation or other concrete facts, can satisfy Article III and the Declaratory Judgment Act’s “actual controversy” requirement.
- *Younger* abstention’s strongest constraints apply to federal interference with ongoing state criminal proceedings; in the absence of a pending prosecution against the federal plaintiff, those constraints do not categorically preclude declaratory judgments.
- Declaratory relief is generally less intrusive than an injunction and may be available even when injunctive relief would be inappropriate.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a credible, imminent threat of prosecution created a justiciable controversy and that federal courts may grant declaratory relief against threatened state enforcement when no state prosecution is pending against the federal plaintiff, without requiring proof of bad-faith harassment.


Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974)