Whether the Court should abrogate or clarify the Colorado River abstention doctrine

Under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States , 424 U.S. 800 (1976), a district court can abstain from a federal case in deference to a parallel state-court action only in “exceptional circumstances” and with “the clearest of justifications.” But the lower courts’ application of the doctrine has been a story of confusion and unpredictability. The doctrine has even been described as “dangerous, unprincipled, and unfair,” and in tension with the separation of powers,1 because lower courts have too-easily abdicated their “virtually unflagging obligation” to “exercise the jurisdiction given them” based on the weighing of vague and subjective factors that differ across circuits. Id. at 817. The Ninth Circuit’s published decision in this case exemplifies the problems with Colorado River . The court here dismissed Petitioner’s federal-preemption claims based on a later-filed state-court action, after weighing factors that other circuit courts either don’t weigh or weigh very differently. Petitioner’s claims would have survived in those circuits. The circuit conflict over Colorado River , which evidences the doctrine’s growing unworkability, cries out for review. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Court should abrogate Colorado River’s abstention doctrine. 1 Linda S. Mullenix, A Branch Too Far: Pruning the Abstention Doctrine , 75 Geo. L.J. 99, 103 (1986). ii 2. Whether the Court alternatively should revisit Colorado River to cabin and clarify which factors a district court must weigh, and how to weigh them, while reaffirming the strong presumption favoring the exercise of jurisdiction and the rule that Colorado River abstention can occur only in the most exceptional circumstances and with the clearest of justifications.