"Burford" Abstention in Actions for Damages

Abstract

Federal court adjudication can disrupt state efforts to develop regulatory pol? icy concerning important matters of primarily local interest. When this occurs, a federal court will invoke the Burford doctrine and abstain from exercising its jurisdiction, in deference to state court adjudication. Although the Burford doctrine derives from the federal courts' equitable powers, in 1996 the Supreme Court held that Burford abstention might be appropriate in actions for damages. This Note argues against such an extension of the doctrine. A close examination of Burford and its progeny demonstrates that the doctrine does not apply to damages actions. This Note argues further that, depending on the preclusive effect given to the state court proceedings commenced as a result of federal abstention, Burford abstention in damages actions will either violate the separation of powers or will undermine the very principle of federalism that informs the Burford doctrine.