481 U.S. 1 (1987)

PENNZOIL CO.
v.
TEXACO INC.

No. 85-1798.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued January 12, 1987 Decided April 6, 1987 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

*3 Laurence H. Tribe argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were John L. Jeffers, G. Irvin Terrell, Paul M. Bator, Douglas A. Poe, Kenneth S. Geller, W. James Kronzer, Joseph D. Jamail, Harry M. Reasoner, Simon H. Rifkind, Arthur L. Liman, and Mark A. Belnick.

David Boies argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Thomas D. Barr, Francis P. Barron, Paul J. Curran, Milton J. Schubin, Randolph S. Sherman, Ira S. Sacks, Charles Alan Wright, and William F. Baxter.^[*]

JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

The principal issue in this case is whether a federal district court lawfully may enjoin a plaintiff who has prevailed in a trial in state court from executing the judgment in its favor pending appeal of that judgment to a state appellate court.

*4 I

Getty Oil Co. and appellant Pennzoil Co. negotiated an agreement under which Pennzoil was to purchase about three-sevenths of Getty's outstanding shares for $110 a share. Appellee Texaco Inc. eventually purchased the shares for $128 a share. On February 8, 1984, Pennzoil filed a complaint against Texaco in the Harris County District Court, a state court located in Houston, Texas, the site of Pennzoil's corporate headquarters. The complaint alleged that Texaco tortiously had induced Getty to breach a contract to sell its shares to Pennzoil; Pennzoil sought actual damages of $7.53 billion and punitive damages in the same amount. On November 19, 1985, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Pennzoil, finding actual damages of $7.53 billion and punitive damages of $3 billion. The parties anticipated that the judgment, including prejudgment interest, would exceed $11 billion.

Although the parties disagree about the details, it was clear that the expected judgment would give Pennzoil significant right under Texas law. By recording an abstract of a judgment in the real property records of any of the 254 counties in Texas, a judgment creditor can secure a lien on all of a judgment debtor's real property located in that county. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 52.001-52.006 (1984). If a judgment creditor wishes to have the judgment enforced by state officials so that it can take possession of any of the debtor's assets, it may secure a writ of execution from the clerk of the court that issued the judgment. See Tex. Rule Civ. Proc. 627.^[1] Rule 627 provides that such a writ usually can be obtained "after the expiration of thirty days from the time a *5 final judgment is signed."^[2] But the judgment debtor "may suspend the execution of the judgment by filing a good and sufficient bond to be approved by the clerk." Rule 364(a). See Rule 368.^[3] For a money judgment, "the amount of the bond . . . shall be at least the amount of the judgment, interest, and costs." Rule 364(b).^[4]

Even before the trial court entered judgment, the jury's verdict cast a serious cloud on Texaco's financial situation. The amount of the bond required by Rule 364(b) would have been more than $13 billion. It is clear that Texaco would not have been able to post such a bond. Accordingly, "the business and financial community concluded that Pennzoil would be able, under the lien and bond provisions of Texas law, to commence enforcement of any judgment entered on the verdict before Texaco's appeals had been resolved." App. to Juris. Statement A87 (District Court's Supplemental Finding of Fact 40, Jan. 10, 1986). The effects on Texaco were substantial: the price of its stock dropped markedly; it had difficulty obtaining credit; the rating of its bonds was lowered; and its trade creditors refused to sell it crude oil on customary terms. Id., at A90-A98 (District Court's Supplemental Findings of Fact 49-70).

*6 Texaco did not argue to the trial court that the judgment, or execution of the judgment, conflicted with federal law. Rather, on December 10, 1985 — before the Texas court entered judgment^[5] — Texaco filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in White Plains, New York, the site of Texaco's corporate headquarters. Texaco alleged that the Texas proceedings violated rights secured to Texaco by the Constitution and various federal statutes.^[6] It asked the District Court to enjoin Pennzoil from taking any action to enforce the judgment. Pennzoil's response, and basic position, was that the District Court could not hear the case. First, it argued that the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2283, barred issuance of an injunction. It further contended that the court should abstain *7 under the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). Third, it argued that the suit was in effect an appeal from the Texas trial court and that the District Court had no jurisdiction under the principles of Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462 (1983).

The District Court rejected all of these arguments. 626 F. Supp. 250 (1986). It found the Anti-Injunction Act inapplicable because Texaco's complaint rested on 42 U. S. C. § 1983. See Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225 (1972) (holding that § 1983 falls within the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act). It found Younger abstention unwarranted because it did not believe issuance of an injunction would "interfere with a state official's pursuit of a fundamental state interest." 626 F. Supp., at 260. As to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the court noted only that it was not "attempting to sit as a final or intermediate appellate state court as to the merits of the Texas action. . . . Our only intention is to assure Texaco its constitutional right to raise claims that we view as having a good chance of success." Id., at 254 (citation and footnote omitted).

The District Court justified its decision to grant injunctive relief by evaluating the prospects of Texaco's succeeding in its appeal in the Texas state courts. It considered the merits of the various challenges Texaco had made before the Texas Court of Appeals and concluded that these challenges "present generally fair grounds for litigation." Ibid. It then evaluated the constitutionality of the Texas lien and bond requirements by applying the test articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976). It concluded that application of the lien and bond provisions effectively would deny Texaco a right to appeal. It thought that the private interests and the State's interests favored protecting Texaco's right to appeal. Relying on its view of the merits of the state-court appeal, the court found the risk of erroneous deprivation "quite severe." 626 F. Supp., at 257. Finally, *8 it viewed the administrative burden on the State as "slight." Ibid. In light of these factors, the District Court concluded that Texaco's constitutional claims had "a very clear probability of success." Id., at 258. Accordingly, the court issued a preliminary injunction.^[7]

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 784 F. 2d 1133 (1986). It first addressed the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and rejected the portion of the District Court's opinion that evaluated the merits of the state-court judgment. It held, however, that the doctrine did not completely bar the District Court's jurisdiction. It concluded that the due process and equal protection claims, not presented by Texaco to the Texas courts, were within the District Court's jurisdiction because they were not " `inextricably intertwined' " with the state-court action. Id., at 1144 (quoting District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, supra, at 483, n. 16).

Next, the court considered whether Texaco had stated a claim under § 1983. The question was whether Texaco's complaint sought to redress action taken "under color of" state law, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The court noted that "Pennzoil *9 would have to act jointly with state agents by calling on state officials to attach and seize Texaco's assets." 784 F. 2d, at 1145. Relying on its reading of Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U. S. 922 (1982), the court concluded that the enjoined action would have been taken under color of state law, and thus that Texaco had stated a claim under § 1983. 784 F. 2d, at 1145-1147. Because § 1983 is an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, see Mitchum v. Foster, supra, the court also found that the Anti-Injunction Act did not prevent the District Court from granting the relief sought by Texaco.

Finally, the court held that abstention was unnecessary. First, it addressed Pullman abstention, see Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496 (1941). It rejected that ground of abstention, holding that "the mere possibility that the Texas courts would find Rule 364 [concerning the supersedeas bond requirements] unconstitutional as applied does not call for Pullman abstention." 784 F. 2d, at 1149. Next, it rejected Younger abstention. It thought that "[t]he state interests at stake in this proceeding differ in both kind and degree from those present in the six cases in which the Supreme Court held that Younger applied." Ibid. Moreover, it thought that Texas had failed to "provide adequate procedures for adjudication of Texaco's federal claims." Id., at 1150. Turning to the merits, it agreed with the District Court that Texaco had established a likelihood of success on its constitutional claims and that the balance of hardships favored Texaco. Accordingly, it affirmed the grant of injunctive relief.^[8]

Pennzoil filed a jurisdictional statement in this Court. We noted probable jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2). 477 U. S. 903 (1986). We reverse.

*10 II

The courts below should have abstained under the principles of federalism enunciated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals failed to recognize the significant interests harmed by their unprecedented intrusion into the Texas judicial system. Similarly, neither of those courts applied the appropriate standard in determining whether adequate relief was available in the Texas courts.

A

The first ground for the Younger decision was "the basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act, and particularly should not act to restrain a criminal prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law." Id., at 43. The Court also offered a second explanation for its decision:

"This underlying reason . . . is reinforced by an even more vital consideration, the notion of `comity,' that is, a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. . . . The concept does not mean blind deference to `States' Rights' any more than it means centralization of control over every important issue in our National Government and its courts. The Framers rejected both these courses. What the concept does represent is a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States." Id., at 44.

*11 This concern mandates application of Younger abstention not only when the pending state proceedings are criminal, but also when certain civil proceedings are pending, if the State's interests in the proceeding are so important that exercise of the federal judicial power would disregard the comity between the States and the National Government. E. g., Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592, 603-605 (1975).

Another important reason for abstention is to avoid unwarranted determination of federal constitutional questions. When federal courts interpret state statutes in a way that raises federal constitutional questions, "a constitutional determination is predicated on a reading of the statute that is not binding on state courts and may be discredited at any time — thus essentially rendering the federal-court decision advisory and the litigation underlying it meaningless." Moore v. Sims, 442 U. S. 415, 428 (1979). See Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U. S. 434, 445 (1977).^[9] This concern has special significance in this case. Because Texaco chose not to present to the Texas courts the constitutional claims asserted in this case, it is impossible to be certain that the governing Texas statutes and procedural rules actually raise these claims. Moreover, the Texas Constitution contains an *12 "open courts" provision, Art. I, § 13,^[10] that appears to address Texaco's claims more specifically than the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, when this case was filed in federal court, it was entirely possible that the Texas courts would have resolved this case on state statutory or constitutional grounds, without reaching the federal constitutional questions Texaco raises in this case.^[11] As we have noted, Younger abstention in situations like this "offers the opportunity for narrowing constructions that might obviate the constitutional problem and intelligently mediate federal constitutional concerns and state interests." Moore v. Sims, supra, at 429-430.

Texaco's principal argument against Younger abstention is that exercise of the District Court's power did not implicate a "vital" or "important" state interest. Brief for Appellee 24-32. This argument reflects a misreading of our precedents. This Court repeatedly has recognized that the States have important interests in administering certain aspects of *13 their judicial systems. E. g., Trainor v. Hernandez, supra, at 441; Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U. S. 423, 432 (1982). In Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S. 327 (1977), we held that a federal court should have abstained from adjudicating a challenge to a State's contempt process. The Court's reasoning in that case informs our decision today:

"A State's interest in the contempt process, through which it vindicates the regular operation of its judicial system, so long as that system itself affords the opportunity to pursue federal claims within it, is surely an important interest. Perhaps it is not quite as important as is the State's interest in the enforcement of its criminal laws, Younger, supra, or even its interest in the maintenance of a quasi-criminal proceeding such as was involved in Huffman, supra. But we think it is of sufficiently great import to require application of the principles of those cases." Id., at 335.

Our comments on why the contempt power was sufficiently important to justify abstention also are illuminating: "Contempt in these cases, serves, of course, to vindicate and preserve the private interests of competing litigants, . . . but its purpose is by no means spent upon purely private concerns. It stands in aid of the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are not rendered nugatory." Id., at 336, n. 12 (citations omitted).

The reasoning of Juidice controls here. That case rests on the importance to the States of enforcing the orders and judgments of their courts. There is little difference between the State's interest in forcing persons to transfer property in response to a court's judgment and in forcing persons to respond to the court's process on pain of contempt. Both Juidice and this case involve challenges to the processes by which the State compels compliance with the judgments of its *14 courts.^[12] Not only would federal injunctions in such cases interfere with the execution of state judgments, but they would do so on grounds that challenge the very process by which those judgments were obtained. So long as those challenges relate to pending state proceedings, proper respect for the ability of state courts to resolve federal questions presented in state-court litigation mandates that the federal court stay its hand.^[13]

B

Texaco also argues that Younger abstention was inappropriate because no Texas court could have heard Texaco's constitutional claims within the limited time available to Texaco. But the burden on this point rests on the federal plaintiff to show "that state procedural law barred presentation of [its] claims." Moore v. Sims, 442 U. S., at 432. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S., at 45 (" `The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts, even though this involves a challenge of the validity of some statute, unless it plainly appears that this course would not afford *15 adequate protection' ") (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240, 244 (1926)).

Moreover, denigrations of the procedural protections afforded by Texas law hardly come from Texaco with good grace, as it apparently made no effort under Texas law to secure the relief sought in this case. Cf. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., supra, at 435 (rejecting on similar grounds an assertion about the inhospitability of state procedures to federal claims). Article VI of the United States Constitution declares that "the Judges in every State shall be bound" by the Federal Constitution, laws, and treaties. We cannot assume that state judges will interpret ambiguities in state procedural law to bar presentation of federal claims. Cf. Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U. S. 619, 629 (1986) (assuming that a state administrative commission would "construe its own statutory mandate in the light of federal constitutional principles"). Accordingly, when a litigant has not attempted to present his federal claims in related state-court proceedings, a federal court should assume that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary.

The "open courts" provision of the Texas Constitution, Article I, § 13, see nn. 10, 11, supra, has considerable relevance here. This provision has appeared in each of Texas' six Constitutions, dating back to the Constitution of the Republic of Texas in 1836. See LeCroy v. Hanlon, 713 S. W. 2d 335, 339, and n. 4 (Tex. 1986). According to the Texas Supreme Court, the provision "guarantees all litigants . . . the right to their day in court." Id., at 341. "The common thread of [the Texas Supreme Court's] decisions construing the open courts provision is that the legislature has no power to make a remedy by due course of law contingent on an impossible condition." Nelson v. Krusen, 678 S. W. 2d 918, 921 (Tex. 1984). In light of this demonstrable and longstanding commitment of the Texas Supreme Court to provide *16 access to the state courts, we are reluctant to conclude that Texas courts would have construed state procedural rules to deny Texaco an effective opportunity to raise its constitutional claims.

Against this background, Texaco's submission that the Texas courts were incapable of hearing its constitutional claims is plainly insufficient. Both of the courts below found that the Texas trial court had the power to consider constitutional challenges to the enforcement provisions.^[14] The Texas Attorney General filed a brief in the proceedings below, arguing that such relief was available in the Texas courts. See Brief for Intervenor-Appellant in Nos. 86-7046, 86-7052 (CA2), pp. 32-33. Texaco has cited no statute or case clearly indicating that Texas courts lack such power.^[15] Accordingly, Texaco has failed to meet its burden on this point.^[16]

*17 In sum, the lower courts should have deferred on principles of comity to the pending state proceedings. They erred in accepting Texaco's assertions as to the inadequacies of Texas procedure to provide effective relief. It is true that this case presents an unusual fact situation, never before addressed by the Texas courts, and that Texaco urgently desired prompt relief. But we cannot say that those courts, when this suit was filed, would have been any less inclined than a federal court to address and decide the federal constitutional claims. Because Texaco apparently did not give the Texas courts an opportunity to adjudicate its constitutional claims, and because Texaco cannot demonstrate that the Texas courts were not then open to adjudicate its claims, there is no basis for concluding that the Texas law and procedures were so deficient that Younger abstention is inappropriate. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court should have abstained.

III

In this opinion, we have addressed the situation that existed on the morning of December 10, 1985, when this case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. We recognize that much has transpired in the Texas courts since then. Later that day, the Texas trial court entered judgment. See n. 5, supra. On February 12 of this year, the Texas Court of Appeals substantially affirmed the judgment. See ibid. We are not unmindful of the unique importance to Texaco of having its challenges to that judgment authoritatively considered and resolved. We of course express no opinion on the merits of *18 those challenges. Similarly, we express no opinion on the claims Texaco has raised in this case against the Texas bond and lien provisions, nor on the possibility that Texaco now could raise these claims in the Texas courts, see n. 16, supra. Today we decide only that it was inappropriate for the District Court to entertain these claims. If, and when, the Texas courts render a final decision on any federal issue presented by this litigation, review may be sought in this Court in the customary manner.

IV

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to vacate its order and dismiss the complaint. The judgment of this Court shall issue forthwith.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE O'CONNOR joins, concurring.

I join the opinion of the Court. I write separately only to indicate that I do not believe that the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives the Court of jurisdiction to decide Texaco's challenge to the constitutionality of the Texas stay and lien provisions. In resolving that challenge, the Court need not decide any issue either actually litigated in the Texas courts or inextricably intertwined with issues so litigated. Under these circumstances, I see no jurisdictional bar to the Court's decision in this case.

JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, concurring in the judgment.

Texaco's claim that the Texas bond and lien provisions violate the Fourteenth Amendment is without merit. While Texaco cannot, consistent with due process and equal protection, be arbitrarily denied the right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard on appeal, this right can be adequately vindicated even if Texaco were forced to file for bankruptcy.

*19 I believe that the Court should have confronted the merits of this case. I wholeheartedly concur with JUSTICE STEVENS' conclusion that a creditor's invocation of a State's postjudgment collection procedures constitutes action under color of state law within the meaning of 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Post, at 30, n. 1.

I also agree with his conclusion that the District Court was not required to abstain under the principles enunciated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). Post, at 30, n. 2. I adhere to my view that Younger is, in general, inapplicable to civil proceedings, especially when a plaintiff brings a § 1983 action alleging violation of federal constitutional rights. See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592, 613 (1975) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting) (Younger held "that federal courts should not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings, except under extraordinary circumstances" (emphasis in original)); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S. 327, 342 (1977) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting) ("In congressional contemplation, the pendency of state civil proceedings was to be wholly irrelevant. `The very purpose of § 1983 was to interpose the federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people's federal rights' ") (quoting Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 242 (1972)).

The State's interest in this case is negligible. The State of Texas — not a party in this appeal — expressly represented to the Court of Appeals that it "has no interest in the outcome of the state-court adjudication underlying this cause," except in its fair adjudication. 784 F. 2d 1133, 1150 (CA2 1986); Brief for Intervenor-Appellant in Nos. 86-7046, 86-7052, p. 2. The Court identifies the State's interest as enforcing " `the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are not rendered nugatory.' " Ante, at 13 (quoting Juidice v. Vail, supra, at 336, n. 12). Yet, the District Court found that "Pennzoil has publicly admitted that Texaco's assets are sufficient to satisfy the Judgment even without liens or a bond." App. to Juris. Statement A116 *20 (supplemental findings of fact by District Court). "Thus Pennzoil's interest in protecting the full amount of its judgment during the appellate process is reasonably secured by the substantial excess of Texaco's net worth over the amount of Pennzoil's judgment." 784 F. 2d, at 1155.

Indeed, the interest in enforcing the bond and lien requirement is privately held by Pennzoil, not by the State of Texas. The Court of Appeals correctly stated that this "is a suit between two private parties stemming from the defendant's alleged tortious interference with the plaintiff's contract with a third private party." 784 F. 2d, at 1150. Pennzoil was free to waive the bond and lien requirements under Texas law, without asking the State of Texas for permission. See Yandell v. Tarrant State Bank, 538 S. W. 2d 684, 687 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976); United Benefit Fire Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Plumbing Co., 363 S. W. 2d 843, 847 (Tex. Civ. App. 1962). "Since Texas law directs state officials to do Pennzoil's bidding in executing the judgment, it is the decision of Pennzoil, not that of the state judiciary, to utilize state agents to undertake the collection process, and the state officials can act only upon Pennzoil's unilateral determination." 784 F. 2d, at 1147. The State's decision to grant private parties unilateral power to invoke, or not invoke, the State's bond and lien provisions demonstrates that the State has no independent interest in the enforcement of those provisions.

Texaco filed this § 1983 suit claiming only violations of federal statutory and constitutional law. In enacting § 1983, Congress "created a specific and unique remedy, enforceable in a federal court of equity, that could be frustrated if the federal court were not empowered to enjoin a state court proceeding." Mitchum v. Foster, supra, at 237. Today the Court holds that this § 1983 suit should be filed instead in Texas courts, offering to Texaco the unsolicited advice to bring its claims under the "open courts" provision of the Texas Constitution. This " `blind deference to "States' Rights" ' " hardly shows " `sensitivity to the legitimate interests *21 of both State and National Governments.' " Ante, at 10 (quoting Younger v. Harris, supra, at 44) (emphasis added).^[*]

Furthermore, I reject Pennzoil's contention that District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462 (1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413 (1923), forbid collateral review in this instance. In Rooker and Feldman, the Court held that lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state-court determinations. In this case, however, Texaco filed the § 1983 action only to protect its federal constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity for appellate review, not to challenge the merits of the Texas suit. Texaco's federal action seeking a stay of judgment pending appeal is therefore an action " `separable from and collateral to' " the merits of the state-court judgment. National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43, 44 (1977) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp. 337 U. S. 541, 546 (1949)).

*22 While I agree with JUSTICE STEVENS that Texaco's claim is "plainly without merit," post, at 29, my reasons for so concluding are different. Since Texas has created an appeal as of right from the trial court's judgment, it cannot infringe on this right to appeal in a manner inconsistent with due process or equal protection. See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U. S. 387, 393 (1985). While "a cost requirement, valid on its face, may offend due process because it operates to foreclose a particular party's opportunity to be heard," Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 380 (1971), in this case, Texaco clearly could exercise its right to appeal in order to protect its corporate interests even if it were forced to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. 11 U. S. C. § 362. Texaco, or its successor in interest, could go forward with the appeal, and if it did prevail on its appeal in Texas courts, the bankruptcy proceedings could be terminated. § 1112. Texaco simply fails to show how the initiation of corporate reorganization activities would prevent it from obtaining meaningful appellate review.

I reach this conclusion on the narrow facts before us. Thus, this case is different from the more troublesome situation where a particular corporate litigant has such special attributes as an organization that a trustee in bankruptcy, in its stead, could not effectively advance the organization's interests on an appeal. Moreover, the underlying issues in this case — arising out of a commercial contract dispute — do not involve fundamental constitutional rights. See, e. g., Henry v. First National Bank of Clarksdale, 595 F. 2d 291, 299-300 (CA5 1979) (bankruptcy of NAACP would make state appellate review of First Amendment claims "so difficult" to obtain that federal injunction justified), cert. denied sub nom. Claiborne Hardware Co. v. Henry, 444 U. S. 1074 (1980).

Given the particular facts of this case, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

*23 JUSTICE MARSHALL, concurring in the judgment.

While I join in the Court's disposition of this case, I cannot join in its reasoning. The Court addresses the propriety of abstention under the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). There is no occasion to decide if abstention would have been proper unless the District Court had jurisdiction. Were I to reach the merits I would reverse for the reasons stated in the concurring opinions of JUSTICE BRENNAN and STEVENS, in which I join. But I can find no basis for the District Court's unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit, and upon that ground alone I would reverse the decision below.

Appellee Texaco, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, was sued in the Texas state courts by appellant Pennzoil, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. Because there was no diversity of citizenship, Texaco could not remove Pennzoil's action to Federal District Court, and the action was tried in the state court. After the adverse jury verdict, Texaco filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to enjoin the execution of the Texas judgment, which was not yet final at the time the federal complaint was filed. Texaco filed its federal action without seeking relief from the bonding requirement in any Texas court. The Federal District Court in which Texaco filed sits in another State, more than halfway across the country from the locale in which the case was tried, in which the appeal would take place, and in which the judgment would be executed. Even if Texaco had possessed the power of removal on diversity grounds, it still would not have been entitled to proceed in the forum to which it brought its request for post-trial relief.

Counsel for Texaco suggested at oral argument that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because Texaco's corporate headquarters is located in that District, and it was there that a Chapter 11 petition would be filed *24 should Texaco decide to take that step as a result of the adverse Texas judgment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 28, 29-30. Venue in actions not solely predicated upon diversity of citizenship is governed by 28 U. S. C. § 1391(b), which provides that venue is proper "only in the judicial district where all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose, except as otherwise provided by law." As we have said, "it is absolutely clear that Congress did not intend to provide for venue at the residence of the plaintiff or to give that party an unfettered choice among a host of different districts." Leroy v. Great Western United Corp.,