William O. Douglas

Name: Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion
Author: William O. Douglas

Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (1971)

Summary

“Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion”, published in 1971, is a work by William O. Douglas. It explores elements such as statutes, American federalism and First Amendment.

Quotes from Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (William O. Douglas)

William O. Douglas, Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (1971)

“ Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (1971)

“ Equity jurisdiction will be exercised to enjoin the threatened enforcement of a state law which contravenes the Federal Constitution wherever it is essential in order effectually to protect property rights and the rights of persons against injuries otherwise irremediable; and, in such a case, a person, who as an officer of the State is clothed with the duty of enforcing its laws, and who threatens and is about to commence proceedings, either civil or criminal, to enforce such a law against parties affected may be enjoined from such action by a federal court of equity. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (1971)

“ The Civil War Amendments made civil rights a national concern. Those Amendments, especially § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, cemented the change in American federalism brought on by the war. Congress immediately commenced to use its new powers to pass legislation. Just as the first Judiciary Act, 1 Stat. 73, and the "anti-injunction" statute represented the early views of American federalism, the Reconstruction statutes, including the enlargement of federal jurisdiction, [5] represent a later view of American federalism. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (1971)

“ I see no reason why these appellees should be made to walk the treacherous ground of these statutes. They, like other citizens, need the umbrella of the First Amendment as they study, analyze, discuss, and debate the troubles of these days. When criminal prosecutions can be leveled against them because they express unpopular views, the society of the dialogue is in danger. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (1971)

“ In Younger, there is a prosecution under an unconstitutional statute, and relief is denied. In Boyle, there is harassment, but, as yet, no prosecution. Allegations of a prosecution or harassment under facially unconstitutional statutes should be sufficient for the exercise of federal equity powers.
Dombrowski and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 indicate why, in Boyle, federal intervention against enforcement of the state laws is appropriate. The case of Younger is even stronger. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (1971)

“ As the standards of certainty in statutes containing criminal sanctions are higher than those in statutes containing civil sanctions, so are the standards of certainty touching on freedom of expression higher than those in other areas. Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 515-516.
There must be ascertainable standards of guilt. Men of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of the enactment. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (1971)

“ Indeed, the phrase "commit any criminal offense" is so broad as to include threats to commit misdemeanors punishable by fine only. These evils are not so substantial that the state's interest in prohibiting the threat of them outweighs the public interest in giving legitimate political discussion a wide berth. Landry v. Daley, 280 F.Supp. 938, 964. [p64]
Landry and others brought a class action challenging the constitutional validity of five sections of the Illinois statutes. They alleged arrests under all but two of the challenged sections. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (1971)

“ The fact that we are in a period of history when enormous extrajudicial sanctions are imposed on those who assert their First Amendment rights in unpopular causes emphasizes the wisdom of Dombrowski v. ”

William O. Douglas

Summary

Quotes from Younger v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (William O. Douglas)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature