Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240 (1926). · Go Syfert
Search
Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240 (1926). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

Federal injunctions against state judicial proceedings are granted only in extraordinary circumstances.

Appellants, facing potential prosecution under a Georgia statute regulating commodity agreements, sought a federal injunction to prevent state officials from enforcing the law, alleging it interfered with interstate commerce. The court considers whether federal courts should enjoin state officers from initiating criminal proceedings to protect constitutional rights. The court holds that such interference is permitted only under extraordinary circumstances where the danger of irreparable loss is both great and immediate. Because the accused should generally raise defenses in state courts unless such proceedings fail to provide adequate protection, the request for a preliminary injunction is denied.

1,066 citation events (155 in the last 25 years) across 83 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Daves v. Dallas Cnty., 64 F.4th 616 (5th Cir. 2023)
Treatment trajectory · 1927 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1927 1976 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 243 Enjoining state action requires great and immediate irreparable injury72 citing cases“both great and immediate”3 citing courts quote it · 47 listed here
Show 37 more citing cases
  • Fabian Marieus Formosa v. William Byron Lee, No. 23-5296 (6th Cir. Jan. 10, 2024).unpublished
    But “even irreparable injury is insufficient unless it is ‘both great and immediate.’” Id. (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243 (1926)). “[T]he cost, anxiety, and inconvenience 5 No. 23-5296, Formosa v. Lee of having to defend agai…
  • Adams v. Baker, No. 6:23-cv-00032 (D. Mont. June 21, 2023).
    Id. at 46 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243 (1926) (cleaned up)).
  • Mascarena v. Off. of State Pub. Def., No. 2:23-cv-00010 (D. Mont. May 18, 2023).
    Moreover, “even irreparable injury is insufficient [to permit interference with the proceeding] unless it is ‘both great and immediate.’” Id. at 46 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243 (1926)).
  • Smith v. Milwaukee Cnty. Jail, No. 2:23-cv-00267 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 28, 2023).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Whigum v. Milwaukee Cnty. Jail, No. 2:23-cv-00093 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 28, 2023).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • (PC) Bennett v. Monroe Det. Ctr., No. 2:22-cv-02157 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2023).
    Further, “even irreparable injury is insufficient 24 [to allow interference] unless it is ‘both great and immediate.’” Id. at 46 (quoting Fenner v. 25 Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Pickens v. Milwaukee Cnty. Jail, No. 2:22-cv-00536 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 30, 2023).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Hughes-Canal v. Lewis & Clark Cnty. Pub. Def.'s Off., No. 6:22-cv-00098 (D. Mont. Jan. 3, 2023).
    Irreparable injury does not exist in such situations if the threat to a plaintiff’s federally protected rights may be eliminated by his defense of the criminal case. “[E]ven irreparable injury is insufficient [to permit interference with t…
  • Griffin v. West Allis Police Dep't, No. 2:21-cv-00686 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2022).
    The accused should first set up and rely u[p]on his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • (HC) Fultz v. State of California, No. 2:21-cv-01254 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2022).
    “both great and immediate”
  • Griffin v. Shoiab, No. 2:21-cv-00722 (E.D. Wis. July 11, 2022).
    The accused should first set up and rely u[p]on his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Ricardo Lara, 37 F.4th 579 (9th Cir. 2022).published
    Standing in contrast to the abstention doctrines, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), and its progeny explicitly permit injunctions against state officials preventing them from prosecuting criminal actions “where the danger of irreparable…
  • Jones v. Lucas, No. 2:21-cv-01352 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 25, 2022).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Vaccaro v. Lucas, No. 2:21-cv-01468 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 21, 2022).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • (HC) Craig v. Adams, No. 2:21-cv-01308 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022).
    Moreover, “even 10 irreparable injury is insufficient [to permit interference with the proceeding] unless it is ‘both 11 great and immediate.’” Id. at 46 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)). 12 “The Younger doctrine was…
  • Laracuente v. State of Wisconsin, No. 2:21-cv-01327 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 31, 2021).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Mitchell v. Lucus, No. 2:20-cv-01707 (E.D. Wis. June 29, 2021).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts ....” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Minor v. Lucas, No. 2:20-cv-01652 (E.D. Wis. June 29, 2021).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Jahnke v. Kenosha Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, No. 2:20-cv-01693 (E.D. Wis. June 29, 2021).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Townsend v. Lucas, No. 2:21-cv-00103 (E.D. Wis. June 29, 2021).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • McGhee v. Lucas, No. 2:21-cv-00621 (E.D. Wis. June 21, 2021).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Hildebrandt v. Schmidt, No. 2:20-cv-00705 (E.D. Wis. May 20, 2021).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts ....” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Hall v. State of Tennessee, No. 2:20-cv-02951 (W.D. Tenn. May 14, 2021).
    See, e.g., Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971) (deciding not to enjoin pending state prosecution); Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243 (1926); Ballard v. Stanton, 833 F.2d 593, 594 (6th Cir. 1987); Zalman v. Armstrong, 802 F.2d 199,…
  • Brooks v. Lucas, No. 2:20-cv-00727 (E.D. Wis. May 11, 2021).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • T v. Milwaukee Police Dep't, No. 2:20-cv-00170 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 26, 2021).
    The accused should first set up and rely u[p]on his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Townsend v. State of Wisconsin Courts, No. 2:20-cv-00465 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 15, 2021).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • (HC) Johnson v. Anglea, No. 2:20-cv-01830, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16654 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021).
    Moreover, “even irreparable injury is insufficient [to permit 22 interference with the proceeding] unless it is ‘both great and immediate.’” Younger, 401 U.S. at 23 46 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Tolliver v. State of Tennessee, No. 2:20-cv-02556 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 14, 2021).
    See, e.g., Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971) (deciding not to enjoin pending state prosecution); Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243 (1926); Foster v. Kassulke, 898 F.3d 1144 , 1146–47 (6th Cir. 1990); Ballard v. Stanton, 833 F.2d…
  • Bey v. Lucas, No. 2:20-cv-01584 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 28, 2020).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Jackson v. Lucas, No. 2:20-cv-01217 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 14, 2020).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • Jackson v. Lucas, No. 2:20-cv-01514 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 14, 2020).
    The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . .” Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • (PC) Ramirez v. Lopez, No. 2:20-cv-00411 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2020).
    Further, “even irreparable injury is insufficient 21 [to allow interference] unless it is ‘both great and immediate.’” Id. at 46 (quoting Fenner v. 22 Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • (PC) Ramirez v. Kauffman, No. 2:20-cv-01177 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2020).
    Further, “even irreparable injury is insufficient 18 [to allow interference] unless it is ‘both great and immediate.’” Id. at 46 (quoting Fenner v. 19 Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • (PC) Ramirez v. Kauffman, No. 2:20-cv-01177 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2020).
    Further, “even irreparable injury is insufficient 16 [to allow interference] unless it is ‘both great and immediate.’” Id. at 46 (quoting Fenner v. 17 Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
  • In Re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016).published 2 cites
    “The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . unless it plainly appears that this course would not afford adequate protection”
  • Nivens v. Gilchrist, 319 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 2003).published
    The accused should first set up and rely on 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 adequate protection.” Younger,…
  • Ramsden, Mark A. v. Agribank, FCB, No. 99-3617 (7th Cir. June 2, 2000).published
    Co., 398 U.S. at 293 . /2 In considering the types of "unusual circumstances" that satisfy this standard, the Court also noted that "even irreparable injury is insufficient unless it is ’both great and immediate.’" Id. at 46 (citing Fenner…
At page 244 “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 adequate protection.”1 citing case4 citing courts quote it
  • Daves v. Dallas Cnty., 64 F.4th 616 (5th Cir. 2023).published 4 cites
    “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 adequate…”
46 S. Ct. at 493 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 adequate protection.1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Daves v. Dallas Cnty., 64 F.4th 616 (5th Cir. 2023).published 4 cites
    (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 adequate…)
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
  • Garrison v. Hawkins, No. 2:24-cv-02832 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2025). 3 cites
  • Cole, No. 2:25-cv-04086 (D. Ariz. Feb. 27, 2026).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FENNER Et Al.
v.
BOYKIN Et Al.
308.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 24, 1926.
Published opinion
271 U.S. 240
1926 U.S. LEXIS 622
Messrs. Arthur G. Powell and Thomas W. Hardwick, \\yith whom Messrs. John D. Little, Marion Smith, and Max F. Goldstein were on the brief, for appellants., Mr. Hooper Alexander, with whom Mr. James W. Austin was on the brief, for appellees.
McReynolds.
Cited by 388 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 91%
Citer courts: S.D. Ohio (3) · Fifth Circuit (1)
Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This, appeal is without merit, and the interlocutory decree below must be affirmed.

'By an Act approved August 20, 1906, the Legislature .of Georgia declared unlawful certain agreements for the purchase or for future delivery, of designated commodities, and-lnade participation therein a misdemeanor. It also prohibited maintenance of an office where such agreements are offered, and specified what should constitute prima facie evidence of guilty connection therewith. Laws 1906, p. 95.

. Appellees, Boykin and Lowry, are the Solicitor General and Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, charged respectively with the. general duty of prosecuting and arresting • offenders.

[*243] Subsequent to the passage of the Act of 1906, appellants, citizens of States other than Georgia, established in Fulton. County a branch office, with the ordinary quotation board, where they solicited and received orders, accompanied by margins, to purchase or sell cotton for future delivery on- the New York and New Orleans exchanges. ' They were threatened with arrest and prosecution for violating the Act of 1906. By a bill in the Unitéd States District, Court for the Northern District of Georgia they challenged the'validity of that statute, upon the ground that it interfered with the free flow of commerce .between the States. They alleged that the threatened action would deprive them of rights guar-, anteed by the federal Constitution, and asked that appellees be enjoined from proceeding therewith.

The District Court, three judges sitting, having heard the matter, concluded that the statute condemned gambling transactigns only, did not affect interstate commerce, and that the proposed proceedings against appellants would not deprive them of any right. The request for preliminary injunction was accordingly refused, and this appeal followed. 3 Fed. (2d) 674.

‘ The trial court discovered no necessity - for the relief asked. The record discloses no adequate reason for a different conclusion here. There was no abuse of discretion.

Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, and following cases, have established; the doctrine that when absolutely necessary for protection of constitutional rights courts of the United States" have power to enjoin state officers from instituting criminal actions. But this may not ,be done .except under extraordinary circumstances where- the danger of irreparable loss is both great and immediate.. Ordinarily, there should be no interference with such officers; primarily, they are charged with the duty of prosecuting offenders against the laws of the State and[*244] must decide when and how this is to be done. 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 adequate protection. The Judicial Code provides ample opportunity for ultimate review here in respect of federal questions. An intolerable, condition would arise if, whenever about to be charged with violating a state law, one were permitted freely to contest its validity by an original proceeding in some federal court. Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S. 497, 500.

Affirmed.