28 U.S.C. § 2283
Stay of State court proceedings
A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,911
cases (579 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Younger v. Harris
Younger v. Harris (1971)
“In this Court the brief for the State of California, filed at our request, also argues that only Harris, who was indicted, has standing to challenge the State's law, and that issuance of the injunction was a violation of a longstanding judicial policy and of 28 U. S. C. § 2283 ,…”
Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp. (1988)
“We must determine whether this injunction is permissible under the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2283 , which generally bars federal courts from granting injunctions to stay proceedings in state courts.”
Tooele County v. United States (2016)
“” But the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283 generally prohibits federal courts from enjoining state-court suits.”
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden (2007)
“We also conclude that dismissal of Count I cannot be affirmed under either the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283 , or the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”
O'Shea v. Littleton (1974)
“§ 2283 , the Court expressly observed that it did not intend to "question or qualify in any way the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a federal court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding.”
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983)
“§ 1983 are exempt from the flat ban against the issuance of injunctions directed at state-court proceedings, 28 U. S. C. § 2283 . But this holding did not displace the normal principles of equity, comity, and federalism that should inform the judgment of federal courts when…”
Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp. (1977)
“" The court further found that collection efforts would eliminate two of the three plaintiffs and thus that the injunction was necessary to protect the jurisdiction of the court, within the meaning of that exception to § 2283.”
Wyly v. Weiss (2012)
“§ 1651 , 2 and the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283 , 3 we consider whether, following the approval of a federal class action settlement, the District Court properly enjoined a state court action for legal malpractice directed at counsel for the plaintiff class for…”
Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (1975)
“225, 233 (1972), that a federal court "may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court" with specified exceptions, see 28 U. S. C. § 2283 , the Court has consistently engrafted *615 exceptions upon the prohibition.”
Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (2006)
“Ford responded to the Bayshore Dealers’ motion on July 13, 2005, filing an application for injunctive relief pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283 , 19 asking the district court to enjoin (1) the named and unnamed members of the national class referred to in the…”
Gibson v. Berryhill (1973)
“That question was answered in the affirmative, the court holding that 28 U. S. C. § 2283 , the federal anti-injunction statute, was not applicable to state administrative proceedings even where those proceedings were adjudicatory in character.”
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (1970)
“" 28 U. S. C. § 2283 . Despite the existence of this longstanding prohibition, in this case a federal court did enjoin the petitioner, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.