First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport · ¶54

Second, Reisman and Claire Furnace concerned equity practice, not Article III standing. And the “adequate remedy at law” we found sufficient to divest us of equitable authority in those cases involved litigation in federal court when the federal government would sue to enforce the subpoenas at issue. See Reisman, 375 U. S., at 446–450; Claire Furnace, 274 U. S., at 174. Here, by contrast, the district court sought to force First Choice to litigate in state court before coming to federal court. That difference matters because, even as a matter of equity practice, “[i]t is settled that no adequate remedy at law exists, so as to deprive federal courts of equity jurisdiction, unless it is available in the federal courts.” Petroleum Exploration, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 304 U. S. 209, 217 (1938).

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