First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport · ¶44

He does not defend the lower courts' views for good reason. First Choice brought this suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Congress enacted that provision with the express goal of ensuring a federal forum to citizens who claim that state actors have violated their constitutional rights. See Enforcement Act of Apr. 20, 1871, § 1, 17 Stat. 13; U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 5; Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U. S. 180, 185 (2019). And federal courts have a “virtually unfagging” obligation to exercise the jurisdiction given them. Sprint Communi cations, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U. S. 69, 77 (2013) (internal quota- tion marks omitted); see also Knick, 588 U. S., at 194. Of course, certain “abstention” doctrines supply narrow exceptions to that rule when state proceedings are ongoing. See, e. g., Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). But the lower courts did not find, and Mr. Platkin does not argue, that…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.