Olivier v. City of Brandon · ¶16

This Court rejected New Hampshire's argument on the ground that Maynard's suit sought only to prevent “further prosecution” under the New Hampshire statute. Wooley, 430 U. S., at 711. The suit, the Court explained, was “in no way designed to annul the results of a state trial” (as indeed would have been troubling under Younger doctrine). 430 U. S., at 711. Maynard had “already sustained [his] convictions” and “served [his] sentence[s].” Ibid. And he did “not seek to have his record expunged, or to annul any collateral effects” his convictions might have—for example, “upon his driving privileges.” Ibid. Rather, Maynard sought “wholly prospective” relief: He wanted “only to be free from prosecutions for future violations of the same” (allegedly unconstitutional) statute. Ibid. Because that was so, the Court held, § 1983 provided an avenue to bring his claim. See id., at 710. Were it…

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