Whether Younger abstention is applicable and the district court may decline jurisdiction when there is a state administrative proceeding brought under a civil statute, where only civil remedies are sought and where no criminal or quasi-criminal provisions or remedies are involved

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Federal courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation” to hear and decide cases within their jurisdiction. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), this Court recognized a narrow exception to that duty. Under Younger, a federal court should abstain when there is a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding. This Court has extended Younger, permitting courts to abstain when there are pending state proceedings that are civil, but “only [in] exceptional circumstances” when the action is “akin to a criminal prosecution.” Sprint Commce'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 77-78, 82 (2013) (quoting New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans (NOPSD), 491 U.S. 350, 368 (1989)). Here, the New Jersey Department of Labor (“NJDOL’) audited Petitioner regarding unemployment insurance contributions, with no pending quasicriminal proceedings, and Petitioner requested a hearing with the state administrative courts. When Petitioner also filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the definition of “employment,” the district court below and the Third Circuit on appeal declined to exercise jurisdiction, finding Younger abstention appropriate. The question presented is: Whether Younger abstention is applicable and the district court may decline jurisdiction when there is a state administrative proceeding brought under a civil statute, where only civil remedies are sought and where no criminal or quasi-criminal provisions or remedies are involved.