Legal Definitions - England procedure

The England procedure is a specific legal mechanism that allows a party to return a case to federal court after it has been temporarily sent to a state court for clarification of state law issues. This process is invoked when a federal court initially pauses its proceedings and refers a case to a state court under a principle known as Pullman abstention.

Pullman abstention occurs when a federal court determines that a case involves unclear or ambiguous state law issues. If these state law issues were clarified by a state court, it might resolve or significantly alter the federal constitutional questions involved, potentially making it unnecessary for the federal court to rule on the federal claims. Once the state court has interpreted or clarified those specific state law issues, the England procedure enables the litigant to bring the remaining federal claims back to the federal court for a final decision.

Here are some examples illustrating the England procedure:

• Property Rights and Land Use:

  Imagine a property owner sues a city in federal court, claiming a newly enacted local zoning ordinance violates their federal constitutional right to due process because it severely restricts their ability to develop their land. The federal court, recognizing that the precise meaning and application of the zoning ordinance under state land-use law are unclear, decides to apply Pullman abstention. It temporarily pauses the federal case and sends the specific state law questions about the zoning ordinance to the state courts for an authoritative interpretation. After the state court clarifies the ordinance's scope and how it applies under state law, the property owner then uses the England procedure to bring their federal constitutional claims (due process) back to the federal court. The federal court can now decide these federal claims with the benefit of the state court's definitive interpretation of the state zoning law.

• Professional Licensing and Free Speech:

  Consider a scenario where a doctor challenges a state medical board's new advertising regulations in federal court, arguing they violate their federal First Amendment right to free speech. The federal court observes that the state regulations are new and their exact interpretation under state administrative law is uncertain. A state court's interpretation might narrow the regulations, potentially resolving or altering the free speech claim. Therefore, the federal court invokes Pullman abstention, sending the questions about the state regulations' meaning and application under state law to the state courts. Once the state court clarifies the scope and interpretation of the medical board's advertising regulations under state law, the doctor then uses the England procedure to return to the federal court. The federal court can now proceed to adjudicate whether the regulations, as interpreted by the state court, violate the doctor's federal First Amendment rights.

• Environmental Regulations and Interstate Commerce:

  Suppose a manufacturing company sues a state environmental agency in federal court, alleging that a new state environmental protection statute, which restricts the import of certain materials, violates the federal Commerce Clause by unduly burdening interstate commerce. The federal court determines that the state statute's specific requirements and exemptions are ambiguous under state environmental law. A state court's interpretation could potentially narrow the statute's application, thereby impacting the federal Commerce Clause argument. The federal court therefore applies Pullman abstention, referring the questions concerning the state statute's interpretation and scope under state law to the state courts. Following the state court's definitive interpretation of the state law, the manufacturing company utilizes the England procedure to bring its federal Commerce Clause claim back to the federal court. The federal court can now evaluate the federal constitutional challenge based on the state court's authoritative understanding of the state environmental statute.