This case established what is often called the "Pullman abstention" doctrine, under which a federal court may decline to hear a constitutional claim involving a state law. The Supreme Court held that when a state statute, unclear on its face and not yet having been interpreted by the state's highest court, is challenged in federal court on constitutional grounds, the federal court may elect not to issue a constitutional ruling until the state's highest court has interpreted the statute. The concept of abstention is rooted in federalism, or the limitation of federal involvement in state affairs.

Learn more about this case