Abstention
This page includes a writing template for analyzing this topic and usage notes to guide its application. In general, the template is designed to serve as a starting point for your analysis. It should be adapted to fit the specific facts of your case and your professor’s preferences.
On this page:
Writing Template
Issue
I: The issue is whether the court may choose to abstain from hearing the case.
Analysis
R: A federal court may choose to abstain from deciding a claim when there is a strong state interest at stake, as established under the Pullman, Younger, Burford, or Colorado River doctrines.
Pullman Doctrine
R: Under the Pullman Doctrine, a federal court may abstain from ruling on a federal constitutional claim that depends on resolving an unsettled issue of state law. This doctrine is invoked when the state law is ambiguous or unclear, and resolution of the state law issue could potentially eliminate the need for federal constitutional adjudication.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the Pullman Doctrine [applies/does not apply].
Younger Doctrine
R: The Younger Doctrine mandates that federal courts must abstain from intervening in ongoing state criminal proceedings unless there is a showing of bad faith, harassment, or a patently unconstitutional state statute. The federal court must also abstain from deciding on civil proceedings (1) when they resemble criminal prosecutions, and when (2) they involve orders uniquely in furtherance of the state court’s ability to perform its judicial functions, such as contempt orders.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the Younger Doctrine [applies/does not apply].
Burford Doctrine
R: The Burford Doctrine allows federal courts to abstain when adjudication would interfere with a complex state administrative regulatory scheme that (1) serves an important state policy and (2) provides timely and adequate judicial review by state courts.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the Buford Doctrine [applies/does not apply].
Colorado River Doctrine
R: The Colorado River Doctrine allows a federal court to abstain from hearing a case when there are parallel proceedings in state and federal court that involve the same issues.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the Colorado River Doctrine [applies/does not apply].
Conclusion
C: Therefore, the court [may/may not] choose to abstain from hearing the case.
Notes
JurisJotter templates synthesize legal principles into a practical format that supports the development of well-structured, point-rich analyses in a timed exam.
The template features (1) headers identifying the overall issue, analysis, and conclusion. If the analysis begins with an umbrella rule that identifies elements, factors, or steps of the analysis, it will be followed by subheaders that signpost the analysis of each component.
The template also features (2) IRAC labels at the beginning of each paragraph. These headers and labels are included for educational purposes, offering guidance on structuring your analysis. Your usage of the headers is optional but can be helpful to readers. We advise against including the IRAC labels in submitted work.
The templates serve as a general guide for writing and should be adapted to align with (1) your specific factual circumstances and (2) your professor’s preferences, particularly if your professor provides explicit formulations of rules or analyses. For example, you may add or subtract an element or modify its language. Regardless of whether your professor provides explicit formulations, (3) this template will assist you in crafting point-rich analyses.
Please note that these templates are writing aids and not finished products. They are efficiently designed for exam essays to demonstrate conceptual understanding; thus, they are not comprehensive outlines with historical context or dicta.
Questions or comments? Reach out at [email protected].