Where a state administrative hearing officer is prohibited from hearing a party's federal claim, may a federal court abstain from hearing that claim on the grounds that the party might be able to raise it later if judicial review is granted by a state court? In other words, is a remote possibility of state court judicial review sufficient for purposes of Younger abstention?

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. The Younger abstention doctrine “naturally : presupposes the opportunity to raise and have timely decided by a competent state tribunal the federal issues involved.” Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 441, 97 S.Ct. 1911, 1917, 52 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1977), quoting Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 US. 564, 577, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 1697, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973). Although California ; : flatly prohibits its administrative hearing officers from considering federal claims, the Ninth Circuit has held that Younger applies anyway because parties might have a subsequent chance to present constitutional issues in “wholly discretionary” review by the California Supreme Court. See, e.g., Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d 1106, 1 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Although judicial review is wholly discretionary, its mere availability provides the requisite opportunity to litigate”). In California, no such review has been granted in the 19 years since judicial review became “wholly discre: tionary.” . QUESTION: Where a state administrative hearing officer is prohibited from hearing a party’s federal claim, may a federal court abstain from hearing that claim on the grounds that the party might be able to raise it later if ; _judicial review is granted by a state court? In other words, is a remote possibility of state ; court judicial review sufficient for purposes of Younger abstention? ; ii ; QUESTION PRESENTED Continued 2. Several circuits permit staff attorneys to perform adjudicatory functions traditionally reserved for Article III judges, and that has prompted considerable criticism from legal academics, practitioners, and even . some judges. The Ninth Circuit is perhaps the most extreme, as its General Order 6.5 permits judges to re~golve cases without reading the briefs or the record. , Instead, a staff attorney summarizes the arguments and recommends a decision in a fiveto ten-minute oral presentation conducted behind closed doors. , QUESTION: Does a federal appellate court . deny due process when it requires litigants to present their arguments to staff attorneys rather than Article III judges? ; , ~ . ili