SherbyNet - /page/wikibook/entry.mu

Micron Document

<!DOCTYPE html>

<title>Anti-Injunction Act</title>

</head>

Anti-Injunction Act

</h1>

</header>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .hatnote{font-style:italic}.mw-parser-output div.hatnote{padding-left:1.6em;margin-bottom:0.5em}.mw-parser-output .hatnote i{font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .hatnote+link+.hatnote{margin-top:-0.5em}@media print{body.ns-0 .mw-parser-output .hatnote{display:none!important}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Not to be confused with <a href="Tax_Anti-Injunction_Act" title="Tax Anti-Injunction Act">Tax Anti-Injunction Act</a>.</div>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:": "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:" · ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:" (";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:")";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:" "counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:" ("counter(listitem)"\a0 "}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1126788409">

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .plainlist ol,.mw-parser-output .plainlist ul{line-height:inherit;list-style:none;margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .plainlist ol li,.mw-parser-output .plainlist ul li{margin-bottom:0}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1246091330">

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .sidebar{width:22em;float:right;clear:right;margin:0.5em 0 1em 1em;background:var(--background-color-neutral-subtle,#f8f9fa);border:1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1);padding:0.2em;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%;border-collapse:collapse;display:table}body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .sidebar{display:table!important;float:right!important;margin:0.5em 0 1em 1em!important}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-subgroup{width:100%;margin:0;border-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-left{float:left;clear:left;margin:0.5em 1em 1em 0}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-none{float:none;clear:both;margin:0.5em 1em 1em 0}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-outer-title{padding:0 0.4em 0.2em;font-size:125%;line-height:1.2em;font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-top-image{padding:0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-top-caption,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-pretitle-with-top-image,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-caption{padding:0.2em 0.4em 0;line-height:1.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-pretitle{padding:0.4em 0.4em 0;line-height:1.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-title,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{padding:0.2em 0.8em;font-size:145%;line-height:1.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{padding:0.1em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-image{padding:0.2em 0.4em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-heading{padding:0.1em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-content{padding:0 0.5em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-content-with-subgroup{padding:0.1em 0.4em 0.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-above,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-below{padding:0.3em 0.8em;font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-collapse .sidebar-above,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-collapse .sidebar-below{border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-bottom:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-navbar{text-align:right;font-size:115%;padding:0 0.4em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-list-title{padding:0 0.4em;text-align:left;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.6em;font-size:105%}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-list-title-c{padding:0 0.4em;text-align:center;margin:0 3.3em}@media(max-width:640px){body.mediawiki .mw-parser-output .sidebar{width:100%!important;clear:both;float:none!important;margin-left:0!important;margin-right:0!important}}body.skin--responsive .mw-parser-output .sidebar a>img{max-width:none!important}@media screen{html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-list-title,html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{background:transparent!important}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-title-with-pretitle a{color:var(--color-progressive)!important}}@media screen and (prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-list-title,html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{background:transparent!important}html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-title-with-pretitle a{color:var(--color-progressive)!important}}@media print{body.ns-0 .mw-parser-output .sidebar{display:none!important}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><table class="sidebar nomobile nowraplinks"><tbody><tr><td class="sidebar-top-image"></td></tr><tr><th class="sidebar-title" style="display:block;margin-bottom:0.3em;"><a href="Federal_judiciary_of_the_United_States" title="Federal judiciary of the United States">United States federal</a> <a href="Civil_procedure" title="Civil procedure">civil procedure</a> doctrines</th></tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading" style="background:#ADDFFF;">

<a href="Justiciability" title="Justiciability">Justiciability</a></th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content plainlist" style="padding-top:0.15em;padding-bottom:0.6em;">

<ul><li><a href="Advisory_opinion" title="Advisory opinion">Advisory opinions</a></li>

<li><a href="Standing_(law)" title="Standing (law)">Standing</a></li>

<li><a href="Ripeness" title="Ripeness">Ripeness</a></li>

<li><a href="Mootness" title="Mootness">Mootness</a></li>

<li><a href="Political_question" title="Political question">Political questions</a></li>

<li><a href="Constitutional_avoidance" title="Constitutional avoidance">Constitutional avoidance</a></li></ul>

</div></td>

</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading" style="background:#ADDFFF;">

<a href="Federal_jurisdiction_(United_States)" title="Federal jurisdiction (United States)">Jurisdiction</a></th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content plainlist" style="padding-top:0.15em;padding-bottom:0.6em;">

<a href="Subject-matter_jurisdiction" title="Subject-matter jurisdiction">Subject-matter</a></th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content hlist" style="padding-top:0.15em;padding-bottom:0.6em;">

<ul><li><a href="Federal_question_jurisdiction" title="Federal question jurisdiction">Federal question</a></li>

<li><a href="Diversity_jurisdiction" title="Diversity jurisdiction">Diversity</a></li>

<li><a href="Amount_in_controversy" title="Amount in controversy">Amount in controversy</a></li>

<li><a href="Supplemental_jurisdiction" title="Supplemental jurisdiction">Supplemental</a></li>

<li><a href="Removal_jurisdiction" title="Removal jurisdiction">Removal</a></li>

<li><a href="Class_Action_Fairness_Act_of_2005" title="Class Action Fairness Act of 2005">Class Action Fairness Act of 2005</a></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading" style="background:#E1F5FF;font-weight:normal;">

<a href="Personal_jurisdiction" title="Personal jurisdiction">Personal</a></th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content hlist" style="padding-top:0.15em;padding-bottom:0.6em;">

<ul><li><a href="In_personam" title="In personam">In personam</a></li>

<li><a href="Quasi_in_rem_jurisdiction" title="Quasi in rem jurisdiction">Quasi in rem</a></li></ul></td>

</tr></tbody></table></td>

</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading" style="background:#ADDFFF;">

<a href="Federalism_in_the_United_States" title="Federalism in the United States">Federalism</a></th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content plainlist" style="padding-top:0.15em;padding-bottom:0.6em;">

<ul><li><a href="Erie_doctrine" title="Erie doctrine">Erie doctrine</a></li>

<li><a href="Abstention_doctrine" title="Abstention doctrine">Abstention</a></li>

<li><a href="Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States" title="Sovereign immunity in the United States">Sovereign immunity</a></li>

<li><a href="Abrogation_doctrine" title="Abrogation doctrine">Abrogation</a></li>

<li><a href="Rooker%E2%80%93Feldman_doctrine" title="Rooker–Feldman doctrine">Rooker–Feldman doctrine</a></li>

<li><div style="display: inline-block; line-height: 1.2em; padding: .1em 0;"><a href="Adequate_and_independent_state_ground" title="Adequate and independent state ground">Adequate and independent state ground</a></div></li></ul>

</div></td>

</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-navbar"><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1239400231">

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .navbar li a abbr{color:var(--color-base)!important}@media(prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .navbar li a abbr{color:var(--color-base)!important}}@media print{.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:none!important}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style></td></tr></tbody></table>The Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2283">§ 2283</a>), is a <a href="Act_of_Congress" title="Act of Congress">United States federal statute</a> that restricts a <a href="Federal_judiciary_of_the_United_States" title="Federal judiciary of the United States">federal court's</a> authority to issue an <a href="Injunction" title="Injunction">injunction</a> against ongoing <a href="State_court_(United_States)" title="State court (United States)">state court</a> proceedings, subject to three enumerated exceptions. It states:

<dl><dd>"A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."<a href="#cite_note-1">[1]</a></dd></dl>

The Act was originally enacted as part of the <a href="Judiciary_Act_of_1793" title="Judiciary Act of 1793">Judiciary Act of 1793</a>. The current Act was enacted in 1948. As interpreted by the <a href="Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States">Supreme Court of the United States</a>, the Act is a bastion of <a href="Federalism_in_the_United_States" title="Federalism in the United States">federalism</a> and embodies the need to avoid "needless friction" between state and federal courts.<a href="#cite_note-2">[2]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="History">History</h2></div>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="1793_enactment_and_19th-century_development">1793 enactment and 19th-century development</h3></div>

Section 5 of the <a href="Judiciary_Act_of_1793" title="Judiciary Act of 1793">Judiciary Act of 1793</a> provided that no "writ of injunction [shall] be granted to stay proceedings of any court of a state."<a href="#cite_note-3">[3]</a>

The provision has no <a href="Legislative_history" title="Legislative history">legislative history</a>.<a href="#cite_note-4">[4]</a> The traditional view, as advanced by the Supreme Court, is that the statute's prohibition promoted <a href="Federalism_in_the_United_States" title="Federalism in the United States">federalism</a> by "unconditionally" prohibiting federal courts from interfering in state court proceedings.<a href="#cite_note-5">[5]</a> Some modern scholars have argued for a more limited reading: that the 1793 Act merely prevented a single Supreme Court justice <a href="Riding_circuit" class="mw-redirect" title="Riding circuit">riding circuit</a> from enjoining state court proceedings.<a href="#cite_note-6">[6]</a> Nonetheless, the <a href="Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States">Supreme Court</a> in the 19th century interpreted the statute to prohibit any federal court from enjoining state court proceedings.<a href="#cite_note-7">[7]</a>

In 1874, the Act was amended to formally prohibit injunctions by both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts.<a href="#cite_note-8">[8]</a> Congress later inserted the provision, unchanged, into the <a href="Judicial_Code_of_1911" title="Judicial Code of 1911">Judicial Code of 1911</a>.<a href="#cite_note-9">[9]</a>

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Supreme Court and <a href="United_States_courts_of_appeals" title="United States courts of appeals">lower federal courts</a> read in numerous exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act. Some exceptions were based on statutes: the Act was held to allow injunctions to protect cases in federal court pursuant to the federal <a href="Removal_jurisdiction" title="Removal jurisdiction">removal</a><a href="#cite_note-10">[10]</a> and <a href="Interpleader" title="Interpleader">interpleader</a><a href="#cite_note-11">[11]</a> statutes, legislation limiting shipowners’ liability<a href="#cite_note-12">[12]</a> and granting federal jurisdiction over farm mortgages,<a href="#cite_note-13">[13]</a> as well as <a href="Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States" title="Habeas corpus in the United States">federal habeas</a> cases.<a href="#cite_note-14">[14]</a>

The other exceptions came from the <a href="Common_law" title="Common law">common law</a>. For instance, a federal court could stay state court proceedings where the federal court had previously seized the piece of property (also called a res) that was the subject of the litigation,<a href="#cite_note-15">[15]</a> or where a litigant who lost a federal case sought to relitigate a <a href="Collateral_estoppel" title="Collateral estoppel">precluded</a> claim or issue in state court (also known as the Relitigation Exception).<a href="#cite_note-16">[16]</a>

Because of all these exceptions, a prominent <a href="Law_review" title="Law review">law review</a> article in 1932 declared that, by that year, the statute was “long . . . dead.”<a href="#cite_note-17">[17]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="Toucey_v._New_York_Life_Insurance_Co._(1941)">Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co. (1941)</h3></div>

The modern era of Anti-Injunction Act doctrine began in 1941, when the Supreme Court decided Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co.<a href="#cite_note-18">[18]</a> The case began when <a href="New_York_Life_Insurance_Company" title="New York Life Insurance Company">New York Life</a> prevailed in federal court on Toucey's claim to collect monthly disability insurance payments. Toucey then assigned his benefits to another individual, who sued New York Life in state court on functionally the same claim. On New York Life's request, the federal district court enjoined the state court proceeding. The <a href="United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eighth_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit">Eighth Circuit</a> upheld the injunction, reasoning that the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply because the injunction at issue was necessary to "effectuate and preserve" the "fruits of the decree" in the initial federal case.<a href="#cite_note-19">[19]</a>

The issue before the Supreme Court was the propriety of this application of the common-law Relitigation Exception. The Supreme Court, in a <a href="Majority_opinion" title="Majority opinion">majority opinion</a> by Justice <a href="Felix_Frankfurter" title="Felix Frankfurter">Felix Frankfurter</a>, held that the injunction was inappropriate because the Relitigation Exception "patently violates the expressed prohibition of Congress."<a href="#cite_note-20">[20]</a> The Court declared its intention going forward to only recognize exceptions to the AIA where Congress had expressly authorized them or where a federal court first acquires jurisdiction over a res and seeks to exclude duplicative state litigation over the same res.<a href="#cite_note-21">[21]</a>

Congress partially overruled Toucey in 1948 by revising the Anti-Injunction Act to allow injunctions, like the one in Toucey, to protect earlier federal court judgments. It also codified the two exceptions the Court had already acknowledged.<a href="#cite_note-22">[22]</a> The 1948 Act's legislative history states its purpose as "restor[ing] the basic law as generally understood and interpreted prior to the Toucey decision."<a href="#cite_note-23">[23]</a>

The Act hasn't changed since 1948.<a href="#cite_note-24">[24]</a> It reads: "A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."<a href="#cite_note-25">[25]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Current_doctrine">Current doctrine</h2></div>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="Purposes">Purposes</h3></div>

The modern Supreme Court has affirmed Toucey’s understanding that the Act is rooted in notions of <a href="Comity" title="Comity">comity</a> and <a href="Federalism" title="Federalism">federalism</a>.<a href="#cite_note-26">[26]</a> Per the Court, the Anti-Injunction Act's "core message" is "respect for state courts,"<a href="#cite_note-27">[27]</a> and it was "designed to prevent conflict between federal and state courts."<a href="#cite_note-28">[28]</a> Accordingly, the Court has interpreted the three statutory exceptions narrowly and prohibits lower courts from creating new exceptions.<a href="#cite_note-29">[29]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="Key_terms">Key terms</h3></div>

<ul><li>"Court": The AIA only limits the power of a “court of the United States” to enjoin state proceeding. A “court of the United States” includes the <a href="Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States">United States Supreme Court</a> and the lower federal courts, including the District Court of <a href="Puerto_Rico" title="Puerto Rico">Puerto Rico</a> but not the District Courts for the <a href="Panama_Canal_Zone" title="Panama Canal Zone">Canal Zone</a>, <a href="Guam" title="Guam">Guam</a>, the <a href="Northern_Mariana_Islands" title="Northern Mariana Islands">Northern Mariana Islands</a>, or the <a href="Virgin_Islands" title="Virgin Islands">Virgin Islands</a>.<a href="#cite_note-30">[30]</a></li>

<li>"Injunction": The AIA's prohibition on injunctions of state court proceedings extends to <a href="Declaratory_judgment" title="Declaratory judgment">declaratory judgments</a> with the same effect as an injunction.<a href="#cite_note-31">[31]</a> Whether a <a href="Temporary_restraining_order" class="mw-redirect" title="Temporary restraining order">temporary restraining order</a> or <a href="Preliminary_injunction" class="mw-redirect" title="Preliminary injunction">preliminary injunction</a> counts as an injunction is a fact-specific question.<a href="#cite_note-32">[32]</a></li>

<li>"Proceeding": A “<a href="Legal_proceeding" title="Legal proceeding">proceeding</a>” for the purposes of the AIA include “[a]ll steps taken or which may be taken in the state court or by its officers from the institution to the close of the final process."<a href="#cite_note-33">[33]</a> The prohibition applies to <a href="Appellate_jurisdiction" class="mw-redirect" title="Appellate jurisdiction">appellate</a> as well as to <a href="Original_jurisdiction" title="Original jurisdiction">original proceedings</a>.<a href="#cite_note-34">[34]</a> It does not include <a href="Arbitration_in_the_United_States" title="Arbitration in the United States">arbitration</a> or other private dispute resolution mechanisms instituted by agreement between the parties,<a href="#cite_note-35">[35]</a> unless the arbitration involves a judicial inquiry (for instance, to decide and enforce rights and liabilities).<a href="#cite_note-36">[36]</a> The Act's prohibition also does not apply to state <a href="Administrative_proceeding" class="mw-redirect" title="Administrative proceeding">administrative proceedings</a>.<a href="#cite_note-37">[37]</a></li>

<li>"Parties bound": The Anti-Injunction Act's text applies to all parties to a federal court proceeding, but the Supreme Court has recognized a number of exceptions. In Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. United States, the Court held that the federal government may enjoin state proceedings if necessary to prevent irreparable injury to the national interest.<a href="#cite_note-38">[38]</a> Similarly, the Act does not apply to federal agencies that effectively function as a national sovereign and that assert a superior federal interest.<a href="#cite_note-39">[39]</a></li></ul>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="Statutory_exceptions">Statutory exceptions</h3></div>

The Anti-Injunction Act contemplates three circumstances under which its bar on injunctions of state-court proceedings does not apply. Specifically, federal courts are not barred from enjoining proceedings (1) “as expressly authorized by Act of Congress,” (2) “when necessary in aid of” the federal court's jurisdiction, or (3) “to protect or effectuate federal court judgments.”<a href="#cite_note-40">[40]</a> These three exceptions are known as, respectively, the Expressly Authorized Exception, the Aid of Jurisdiction Exception, and the Relitigation Exception. The Supreme Court has stated that the three statutory exceptions are exclusive and “should not be enlarged by loose statutory construction.”<a href="#cite_note-41">[41]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading4"><h4 id="Expressly_Authorized_Exception">Expressly Authorized Exception</h4></div>

Under the Expressly Authorized Exception, federal courts can enjoin state court proceedings "as expressly authorized by Act of Congress."<a href="#cite_note-42">[42]</a> The theory behind the exception is that, by expressly allowing stays of state court proceedings pursuant to certain statutes, Congress validly overrides the limitation that it imposed in the Anti-Injunction Act.<a href="#cite_note-43">[43]</a> To fall within the exception, the Supreme Court has held, a statute "need not expressly refer to" the AIA, but it must "clearly create a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court [that] could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state court proceeding."<a href="#cite_note-44">[44]</a>

The major Supreme Court cases interpreting the Expressly Authorized Exception are Mitchum v. Foster<a href="#cite_note-45">[45]</a> and Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp.<a href="#cite_note-46">[46]</a>

<ul><li>Mitchum v. Foster (1972): <a href="42_U.S.C._%C2%A7_1983" class="mw-redirect" title="42 U.S.C. § 1983">42 U.S.C. § 1983</a> allows a person to sue in federal court for violations of federal constitutional rights.<a href="#cite_note-47">[47]</a> In Mitchum, the Supreme Court held that Section 1983 "expressly authorizes" federal injunctions of state proceedings because its purpose was to "interpose the federal courts between the States and the people" and to enforce the <a href="Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Fourteenth Amendment</a> against state action, "whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial."<a href="#cite_note-48">[48]</a> Thus, the federal district court in Mitchum could lawfully issue an injunction preventing a Florida state court from issuing a <a href="Temporary_restraining_order" class="mw-redirect" title="Temporary restraining order">temporary restraining order</a> that violated Mitchum's <a href="First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution">First</a> and <a href="Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Fourteenth Amendment</a> rights.<a href="#cite_note-49">[49]</a></li>

<li>Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp. (1977): Section 16 of the <a href="Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914" title="Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914">Clayton Antitrust Act</a> allows federal suits for injunctive relief against unlawfully anticompetitive behavior.<a href="#cite_note-50">[50]</a> In Vendo Co., the Supreme Court held that Section 16 was not an "expressly authorized" exception to the AIA.<a href="#cite_note-51">[51]</a> Then-Justice <a href="William_Rehnquist" title="William Rehnquist">William Rehnquist</a>'s <a href="Plurality_opinion" class="mw-redirect" title="Plurality opinion">plurality opinion</a> reasoned that a federal court's power to enjoin state court proceedings was not necessary to give the Clayton Act "its intended scope" because the Act's legislative history did not convey the same distrust of state judiciaries as did Section 1983's.<a href="#cite_note-52">[52]</a> Justice <a href="Harry_Blackmun" title="Harry Blackmun">Harry Blackmun</a>'s <a href="Concurring_opinion" title="Concurring opinion">concurring opinion</a> argued that Section 16 should expressly authorize injunctions, but only where a pending state court proceeding is itself part of a "'pattern of baseless repetitive claims' that are being used as an anti-competitive device."<a href="#cite_note-53">[53]</a></li></ul>

According to a leading treatise, "[l]ower courts have struggled to reconcile" these two decisions.<a href="#cite_note-54">[54]</a> Statutes held to fall within the exception include the <a href="Anti-Drug_Abuse_Act_of_1988" title="Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988">Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988</a><a href="#cite_note-55">[55]</a> and the <a href="Agricultural_Credit_Act_of_1987" title="Agricultural Credit Act of 1987">Agricultural Credit Act</a>.<a href="#cite_note-56">[56]</a> Statutes held to fall outside the exception include the <a href="Longshore_and_Harbor_Workers'_Compensation_Act" title="Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act">Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act</a>;<a href="#cite_note-57">[57]</a> the <a href="Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure" title="Federal Rules of Civil Procedure">Federal Rules of Civil Procedure</a>;<a href="#cite_note-58">[58]</a> the <a href="Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act" title="Equal Credit Opportunity Act">Equal Credit Opportunity Act</a>;<a href="#cite_note-59">[59]</a> and the <a href="Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990" title="Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990">Americans with Disabilities Act</a>.<a href="#cite_note-60">[60]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading4"><h4 id="Aid_of_Jurisdiction_Exception">Aid of Jurisdiction Exception</h4></div>

Under the Aid of Jurisdiction Exception, federal courts can enjoin state court proceedings if "necessary in aid of" the federal court's jurisdiction.<a href="#cite_note-61">[61]</a> The exception's legislative history indicates that its purpose was "to make clear the recognized power of the Federal courts to stay proceedings in State cases <a href="Removal_jurisdiction" title="Removal jurisdiction">removed</a> to the district courts."<a href="#cite_note-62">[62]</a> In other words, if a lawsuit begun in state court is removed to federal court, the federal court can enjoin the state court from continuing to exercise <a href="Jurisdiction" title="Jurisdiction">jurisdiction</a>. The Aid of Jurisdiction Exception also applies "when the federal court first acquires jurisdiction in parallel <a href="In_rem_jurisdiction" title="In rem jurisdiction">in rem</a> actions."<a href="#cite_note-63">[63]</a>

Despite the exception's seemingly permissive language, however, the Supreme Court has reiterated that it does not extend to <a href="In_personam" title="In personam">in personam</a> actions (i.e. cases not dealing with real property).<a href="#cite_note-64">[64]</a> In Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers,<a href="#cite_note-65">[65]</a> Justice <a href="Hugo_Black" title="Hugo Black">Hugo Black</a>'s majority opinion held that the exception does not apply simply because there is duplicative litigation in state and federal courts, even if the federal court has <a href="Exclusive_jurisdiction" title="Exclusive jurisdiction">exclusive subject matter jurisdiction</a>.<a href="#cite_note-66">[66]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading4"><h4 id="Relitigation_Exception">Relitigation Exception</h4></div>

Under the Relitigation Exception, federal courts can enjoin state proceedings if necessary to "protect or effectuate" a previous federal judgment.<a href="#cite_note-67">[67]</a> According to the Supreme Court, this exception is "designed to implement 'well-recognized concepts' of <a href="Res_judicata" title="Res judicata">claim</a> and <a href="Collateral_estoppel" title="Collateral estoppel">issue preclusion</a>."<a href="#cite_note-68">[68]</a> The exception was included in the 1948 Act to expressly overrule Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co.<a href="#cite_note-69">[69]</a> Its purpose, according to one treatise, is to "prevent the harassment of successful federal litigants through repetitious state litigation."<a href="#cite_note-70">[70]</a>

Litigation concerning the Relitigation Exception centers on whether the requirements of claim preclusion (also called <a href="Res_judicata" title="Res judicata">res judicata</a>) and issue preclusion (also called <a href="Collateral_estoppel" title="Collateral estoppel">collateral estoppel</a>) were met in a previously-decided federal action. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that the exception only applies to issues that a federal court has finally and fully decided.<a href="#cite_note-71">[71]</a> Likewise, the exception only applies when the state court itself has not yet ruled on the merits of a preclusion defense.<a href="#cite_note-72">[72]</a> Several commentators have suggested that this incentivizes defendants not to argue preclusion in state court, which may not be as receptive as a federal court to granting a motion to dismiss.<a href="#cite_note-73">[73]</a> Rather, one treatise counsels, "the person subjected to a repetitive suit in state court should immediately seek a federal court injunction."<a href="#cite_note-74">[74]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Related_issues">Related issues</h2></div>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="Relationship_to_non-statutory_abstention">Relationship to non-statutory abstention</h3></div>

The Anti-Injunction Act can be seen as one of several <a href="Abstention_doctrine" title="Abstention doctrine">abstention doctrines</a> invoked by federal courts to decline to decide certain matters that would intrude upon the powers of another court.<a href="#cite_note-75">[75]</a> For instance, under so-called <a href="Railroad_Commission_v._Pullman_Co." title="Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.">Pullman abstention</a>, a federal court will generally abstain from deciding a case presenting unresolved state-law and federal constitutional questions if a state court could clarify the state-law question to make the constitutional ruling unnecessary.<a href="#cite_note-76">[76]</a> Under <a href="Younger_v._Harris" title="Younger v. Harris">Younger abstention</a>, a federal court will generally abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings.<a href="#cite_note-77">[77]</a> Other important abstention doctrines include <a href="Burford_v._Sun_Oil_Co." title="Burford v. Sun Oil Co.">Burford abstention</a> (abstain where state court has particular expertise in a complex area of state law)<a href="#cite_note-78">[78]</a> and <a href="Louisiana_Power_%26_Light_Co._v._City_of_Thibodaux" title="Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux">Thibodaux abstention</a> (abstain to allow state court to decide matters of great local importance).<a href="#cite_note-79">[79]</a>

Like the Anti-Injunction Act, Pullman, Younger, Burford, and Thibodaux abstention are rooted in principles of federalism.<a href="#cite_note-80">[80]</a> Unlike the Anti-Injunction Act, they are not based in statute. For that reason, they have been prominently criticized as "judicial usurpation[s] of legislative authority in violation of separate of powers."<a href="#cite_note-81">[81]</a> This is because, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, "[i]n the main, federal courts are obliged to decide cases within the scope of federal jurisdiction."<a href="#cite_note-82">[82]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="Relationship_to_similarly_named_statutes">Relationship to similarly named statutes</h3></div>

A number of other federal statutes are also referred to as "Anti-Injunction Acts." They are:

<ul><li>The <a href="Tax_Anti-Injunction_Act" title="Tax Anti-Injunction Act">Tax Anti-Injunction Act</a>, 28 U.S.C. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1341">§ 1341</a>, prevents federal district courts from "enjoin[ing], suspend[ing] or restrain[ing] the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State."<a href="#cite_note-83">[83]</a></li>

<li>26 U.S.C. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7421">§ 7421</a>, sometimes also called the Anti-Injunction Act,<a href="#cite_note-84">[84]</a> prevents federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over pre-enforcement suits to restrain "the assessment or collection of any tax."<a href="#cite_note-85">[85]</a> This statute is similar to the Tax Anti-Injunction Act but has been held to apply only to federal taxes.<a href="#cite_note-86">[86]</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="Abstention_doctrine" title="Abstention doctrine">Abstention doctrine</a></li>

<li>United States federal judiciary legislation</li>

<li><a href="Younger_v._Harris" title="Younger v. Harris">Younger v. Harris</a></li></ul>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="References">References</h2></div>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit;word-wrap:break-word}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:"\"""\"""'""'"}.mw-parser-output .citation:target{background-color:rgba(0,127,255,0.133)}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-free.id-lock-free a{background:url("./mw/Lock-green.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited.id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration.id-lock-registration a{background:url("./mw/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription.id-lock-subscription a{background:url("./mw/Lock-red-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url("./mw/Wikisource-logo.svg")right 0.1em center/12px no-repeat}body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background-size:contain;padding:0 1em 0 0}.mw-parser-output .cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;color:var(--color-error,#d33)}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{color:var(--color-error,#d33)}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#085;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right{padding-right:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflink{font-weight:inherit}@media screen{.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{color:#18911f}}@media screen and (prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{color:#18911f}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2283">"28 U.S. Code § 2283 - Stay of State court proceedings"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="#cite_ref-2">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/398/281/">"Atlantic Coast L. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281 (1970)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a href="#cite_ref-4">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=fac_artchop">John Daniel Reaves & David S. Golden, The Federal Anti-Injunction Statute in the Aftermath of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 5 Ga. L. Rev. 294, 296 (1971).</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><a href="#cite_ref-5">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/37/">"Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-6"><a href="#cite_ref-6">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFMayton1978" class="citation journal cs1">Mayton, William T. (1978). "Ersatz Federalism under the Anti-Injunction Statute". Columbia Law Review. 78 (2): 330–370. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1121899">10.2307/1121899</a>. <a href="ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0010-1958">0010-1958</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1121899">1121899</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-7"><a href="#cite_ref-7">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/48/612/">"Peck v. Jenness, 48 U.S. 612 (1849)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-8"><a href="#cite_ref-8">^</a> Rev. Stat. of 1872, ch. 12, §720, 18 Stat. 134.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-9"><a href="#cite_ref-9">^</a> § 265, Judicial Code of 1911, 28 U.S.C. § 379 (1940).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-10"><a href="#cite_ref-10">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/103/494/">"Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494 (1880)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-11"><a href="#cite_ref-11">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/300/414/">"Dugas v. American Surety Co., 300 U.S. 414 (1937)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-12"><a href="#cite_ref-12">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/109/578/">"Providence & N.Y. S.S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 578 (1883)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-13"><a href="#cite_ref-13">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/308/433/">"Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433 (1940)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-14"><a href="#cite_ref-14">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/117/241/">"Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-15"><a href="#cite_ref-15">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/65/450/">"Freeman v. Howe, 65 U.S. 450 (1860)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-16"><a href="#cite_ref-16">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/198/188/">"Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Alabama & Georgia Mfg. Co., 198 U.S. 188 (1905)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-17"><a href="#cite_ref-17">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFDurfeeSloss1932" class="citation journal cs1">Durfee, Edgar Noble; Sloss, Robert L. (1932). "Federal Injunction against Proceedings in State Courts: The Life History of a Statute". Michigan Law Review. 30 (8): 1145–1169. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1280713">10.2307/1280713</a>. <a href="ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0026-2234">0026-2234</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1280713">1280713</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-18"><a href="#cite_ref-18">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/314/118/">"Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., 314 U.S. 118 (1941)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-19"><a href="#cite_ref-19">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16427056777084694093&q=Toucey+v.+New+York+Life+Ins.+Co.,+102+F.2d+16&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31">Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 102 F.2d 16, 23 (8th Cir. 1939).</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-20"><a href="#cite_ref-20">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/314/118/">"Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., 314 U.S. 118 (1941)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-21"><a href="#cite_ref-21">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/314/118/">"Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., 314 U.S. 118 (1941)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-22"><a href="#cite_ref-22">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2283">"28 U.S. Code § 2283 - Stay of State court proceedings"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-23"><a href="#cite_ref-23">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2283">"28 U.S. Code § 2283 - Stay of State court proceedings"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-24"><a href="#cite_ref-24">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFChemerinsky,_Erwin2018" class="citation book cs1">Chemerinsky, Erwin (18 November 2018). Federal jurisdiction (Seventh ed.). New York. p. 782. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-1-4548-7661-8</bdi>. <a href="OCLC_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="OCLC (identifier)">OCLC</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/944957947">944957947</a>.</cite><code class="cs1-code">{{cite book}}</code>: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-25"><a href="#cite_ref-25">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2283">"28 U.S. Code § 2283 - Stay of State court proceedings"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-26"><a href="#cite_ref-26">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/398/281/">"Atlantic Coast L. R. Co. v. Engineers, 398 U.S. 281 (1970)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-27"><a href="#cite_ref-27">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/299/">"Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-28"><a href="#cite_ref-28">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/623/">"Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623 (1977)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-29"><a href="#cite_ref-29">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/299/">"Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-30"><a href="#cite_ref-30">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFMullenix,_Linda_S.,_1950-2015" class="citation book cs1">Mullenix, Linda S., 1950- (2015). Understanding federal courts and jurisdiction. Redish, Martin H.,, Vairo, Georgene (Second ed.). New Providence, NJ. pp. 12.02[c][2]. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-1-63044-792-2</bdi>. <a href="OCLC_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="OCLC (identifier)">OCLC</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/881875926">881875926</a>.</cite><code class="cs1-code">{{cite book}}</code>: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-31"><a href="#cite_ref-31">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4075613194398162693&q=862+F.2d+491+(5th+Cir.+1988).&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31">Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Jackson, 862 F.2d 491, 504-508 (5th Cir. 1988).</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-32"><a href="#cite_ref-32">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16974908930544288903&q=Bennett+v.+Medtronic,+Inc.,+285+F.3d+801+(9th+Cir.+2002).&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31">Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 804-805 (9th Cir. 2002).</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-33"><a href="#cite_ref-33">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/296/393/">"Hill v. Martin, 296 U.S. 393 (1935)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-34"><a href="#cite_ref-34">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/296/393/">"Hill v. Martin, 296 U.S. 393 (1935)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-35"><a href="#cite_ref-35">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2628861797356464051&q=Prudential+Real+Estate+Affiliates,+Inc.+v.+PPR+Realty,+Inc.,+204+F.3d+867+(9th+Cir.+2000)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31">Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2000)</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-36"><a href="#cite_ref-36">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2628861797356464051&q=Prudential+Real+Estate+Affiliates,+Inc.+v.+PPR+Realty,+Inc.,+204+F.3d+867+(9th+Cir.+2000)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31">Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc., 204 F.3d at 879-80.</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-37"><a href="#cite_ref-37">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11604139811953598560&q=641+F.3d+1126&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31">United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Lee Inv. LLC, 641 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 2011).</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-38"><a href="#cite_ref-38">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/352/220/">"Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 220 (1957)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-39"><a href="#cite_ref-39">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/138/">"NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U.S. 138 (1971)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-40"><a href="#cite_ref-40">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2283">"28 U.S. Code § 2283 - Stay of State court proceedings"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-41"><a href="#cite_ref-41">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/398/281/">"Atlantic Coast L. R. Co. v. Engineers, 398 U.S. 281 (1970)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-42"><a href="#cite_ref-42">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2283">"28 U.S. Code § 2283 - Stay of State court proceedings"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-43"><a href="#cite_ref-43">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFChemerinsky,_Erwin2018" class="citation book cs1">Chemerinsky, Erwin (18 November 2018). Federal jurisdiction (Seventh ed.). New York. p. 785. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-1-4548-7661-8</bdi>. <a href="OCLC_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="OCLC (identifier)">OCLC</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/944957947">944957947</a>.</cite><code class="cs1-code">{{cite book}}</code>: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-44"><a href="#cite_ref-44">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/225/">"Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-45"><a href="#cite_ref-45">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/225/">"Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-46"><a href="#cite_ref-46">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/623/">"Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623 (1977)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-47"><a href="#cite_ref-47">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983">"42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-48"><a href="#cite_ref-48">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/225/">"Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-49"><a href="#cite_ref-49">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/225/">"Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-50"><a href="#cite_ref-50">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/26">"15 U.S. Code § 26 - Injunctive relief for private parties; exception; costs"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-51"><a href="#cite_ref-51">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/623/">"Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623 (1977)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-52"><a href="#cite_ref-52">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/623/">"Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623 (1977)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-53"><a href="#cite_ref-53">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/623/">"Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623 (1977)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-54"><a href="#cite_ref-54">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFMullenix,_Linda_S.,_1950-2015" class="citation book cs1">Mullenix, Linda S., 1950- (2015). Understanding federal courts and jurisdiction. Redish, Martin H.,, Vairo, Georgene (Second ed.). New Providence, NJ. p. 12.02. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-1-63044-792-2</bdi>. <a href="OCLC_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="OCLC (identifier)">OCLC</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/881875926">881875926</a>.</cite><code class="cs1-code">{{cite book}}</code>: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-55"><a href="#cite_ref-55">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/512/849/">"McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-56"><a href="#cite_ref-56">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10296153328756001648&q=887+F.2d+844&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31">Zajac v. Fed. Land Bank of St. Paul, 887 F.2d 844, 855-56 (8th Cir. 1989).</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-57"><a href="#cite_ref-57">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4075613194398162693&q=862+F.2d+491&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31">Tex. Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Jackson, 862 F.2d 491, 503-504 (5th Cir. 1988).</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-58"><a href="#cite_ref-58">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15112104607315340793&q=851+F.2d+1269&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31">In re Temple, 851 F.2d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 1988).</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-59"><a href="#cite_ref-59">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14469103519988575502&q=940+F.+Supp.+804&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31">Bledsoe v. Fulton Bank, 940 F. Supp. 804, 807-809 (E.D. Pa. 1996).</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-60"><a href="#cite_ref-60">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17168578885682192896&q=972+F.+Supp.+1412&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31">Lussier v. Dep't. of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 972 F. Supp. 1412, 1418-22 (M.D. Fla. 1997).</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-61"><a href="#cite_ref-61">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2283">"28 U.S. Code § 2283 - Stay of State court proceedings"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-62"><a href="#cite_ref-62">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2283">"28 U.S. Code § 2283 - Stay of State court proceedings"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-63"><a href="#cite_ref-63">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFMullenix,_Linda_S.,_1950-2015" class="citation book cs1">Mullenix, Linda S., 1950- (2015). Understanding federal courts and jurisdiction. Redish, Martin H.,, Vairo, Georgene (Second ed.). New Providence, NJ. p. 12.03. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-1-63044-792-2</bdi>. <a href="OCLC_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="OCLC (identifier)">OCLC</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/881875926">881875926</a>.</cite><code class="cs1-code">{{cite book}}</code>: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-64"><a href="#cite_ref-64">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/398/281/">"Atlantic Coast L. R. Co. v. Engineers, 398 U.S. 281 (1970)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-65"><a href="#cite_ref-65">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/398/281/">"Atlantic Coast L. R. Co. v. Engineers, 398 U.S. 281 (1970)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-66"><a href="#cite_ref-66">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/398/281/">"Atlantic Coast L. R. Co. v. Engineers, 398 U.S. 281 (1970)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-67"><a href="#cite_ref-67">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2283">"28 U.S. Code § 2283 - Stay of State court proceedings"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-68"><a href="#cite_ref-68">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/140/">"Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140 (1988)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-69"><a href="#cite_ref-69">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2283">"28 U.S. Code § 2283 - Stay of State court proceedings"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-70"><a href="#cite_ref-70">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFMullenix,_Linda_S.,_1950-2015" class="citation book cs1">Mullenix, Linda S., 1950- (2015). Understanding federal courts and jurisdiction. Redish, Martin H.,, Vairo, Georgene (Second ed.). New Providence, NJ. pp. 12.03[3][a]. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-1-63044-792-2</bdi>. <a href="OCLC_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="OCLC (identifier)">OCLC</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/881875926">881875926</a>.</cite><code class="cs1-code">{{cite book}}</code>: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-71"><a href="#cite_ref-71">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/140/">"Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140 (1988)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-72"><a href="#cite_ref-72">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/474/518/">"Parsons Steel v. First Ala. Bank, 474 U.S. 518 (1986)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-73"><a href="#cite_ref-73">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFChemerinsky,_Erwin2018" class="citation book cs1">Chemerinsky, Erwin (18 November 2018). Federal jurisdiction (Seventh ed.). New York. p. 796. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-1-4548-7661-8</bdi>. <a href="OCLC_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="OCLC (identifier)">OCLC</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/944957947">944957947</a>.</cite><code class="cs1-code">{{cite book}}</code>: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-74"><a href="#cite_ref-74">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFChemerinsky,_Erwin2018" class="citation book cs1">Chemerinsky, Erwin (18 November 2018). Federal jurisdiction (Seventh ed.). New York. p. 796. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-1-4548-7661-8</bdi>. <a href="OCLC_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="OCLC (identifier)">OCLC</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/944957947">944957947</a>.</cite><code class="cs1-code">{{cite book}}</code>: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-75"><a href="#cite_ref-75">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFChemerinsky,_Erwin2018" class="citation book cs1">Chemerinsky, Erwin (18 November 2018). Federal jurisdiction (Seventh ed.). New York. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-1-4548-7661-8</bdi>. <a href="OCLC_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="OCLC (identifier)">OCLC</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/944957947">944957947</a>.</cite><code class="cs1-code">{{cite book}}</code>: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-76"><a href="#cite_ref-76">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/496/">"Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-77"><a href="#cite_ref-77">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/37/">"Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-78"><a href="#cite_ref-78">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/315/">"Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-79"><a href="#cite_ref-79">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/360/25/">"Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25 (1959)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-80"><a href="#cite_ref-80">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/37/">"Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-81"><a href="#cite_ref-81">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFRedish1984" class="citation journal cs1">Redish, Martin H. (1984). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6891&context=ylj">"Abstention, Separation of Powers, and the Limits of the Judicial Function"</a>. The Yale Law Journal. 94 (1): 71–115. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F796316">10.2307/796316</a>. <a href="ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0044-0094">0044-0094</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/796316">796316</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-82"><a href="#cite_ref-82">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/insco20131210j07">"SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, IN | 134 S.Ct. 584 (2013) | 20131210j07 | Leagle.com"</a>. Leagle. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-83"><a href="#cite_ref-83">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1341">"28 U.S. Code § 1341 - Taxes by States"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-84"><a href="#cite_ref-84">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFChemerinsky,_Erwin2018" class="citation book cs1">Chemerinsky, Erwin (18 November 2018). Federal jurisdiction (Seventh ed.). New York. p. 798. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-1-4548-7661-8</bdi>. <a href="OCLC_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="OCLC (identifier)">OCLC</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/944957947">944957947</a>.</cite><code class="cs1-code">{{cite book}}</code>: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-85"><a href="#cite_ref-85">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7421">"26 U.S. Code § 7421 - Prohibition of suits to restrain assessment or collection"</a>. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-26.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-86"><a href="#cite_ref-86">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFChemerinsky,_Erwin2018" class="citation book cs1">Chemerinsky, Erwin (18 November 2018). Federal jurisdiction (Seventh ed.). New York. p. 798. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-1-4548-7661-8</bdi>. <a href="OCLC_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="OCLC (identifier)">OCLC</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/944957947">944957947</a>.</cite><code class="cs1-code">{{cite book}}</code>: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

</li>

</ol></div></div><div><div class="zim-footer">

This article is issued from <a class="external text" title="Last edited on 2025-06-05" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?title=Anti-Injunction_Act&oldid=1294037553">Wikipedia</a>. The text is available under <a class="external text" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en">Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0</a> unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

</div>

</div></div>

</div>

</main>

</div>

</body></html>