The matter before the Court is the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6, a 'law' enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court without proper authority. The case does not involve state criminal prosecutions or civil enforcement proceedings akin to criminal prosecutions.
A state proceeding could not afford the opportunity to raise the federal constitutional claim. Pursuant to the challenged Rule 1.6, the state court is obligated to take no action which would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary, or that would self-incriminate.
Attorney General Kane correctly concurs in the Appellee Brief, page 16, that the District Court's application of Younger can no longer be justified in light of the recent Supreme Court Decision. Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S.Ct. 584 (2013)
No comments:
Post a Comment