as here, the statute's challenger wanted to use the "short cut" Congress has authorized. As here, the "short cut" was to convene a three-judge federal district court which held the Alaska statute invalid. Notwithstanding that the license applicants presented a sound claim, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, speaking for a unanimous Court, said:

"We are advised that the provisions of the Alaska Constitution at issue have never been interpreted by an Alaska court. The District Court, feeling sure of its grounds on the merits, held, however, that this was not a proper case for abstention, saying that if the question had been presented to an Alaska court, it would have shared our conviction that the challenged gear licensing scheme is not supportable.' 297 F. Supp., at 304. The three-judge panel was a distinguished one, two being former Alaska lawyers. And they felt that prompt decision was necessary to avoid the 'grave and irreparable' injury to the 'economic livelihood' of the appellees which would result, if they could not engage in their occupation 'during this year's forthcoming fishing season.' Ibid.

"It is, of course, true that abstention is not necessary whenever a federal court is faced with a question of local law, the classic case being Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U. S. 228, where federal jurisdiction was based on diversity only. Abstention certainly involves duplication of effort and expense and an attendant delay. See England v. Louisiana State Board, 375 U. S. 411. That is why we have said that this judicially created rule which stems from Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, should be applied only where 'the issue of state law is uncertain.' Harman v. Forssenius, 350 U. S. 528, 534." Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. S2, S6 (1970).

This very wise doctrine is an essential one of policy and is a keystone of federalism. Previously this Court had underscored this concept, saying:

"Proper exercise of federal jurisdiction requires that controversies involving unsettled questions of state law be decided in the state tribunals preliminary to a federal court's consideration of the underlying federal constitutional questions. . . . In such a case, when the state court's interpretation of the statute or evaluation of its validity under the state constitution may obviate any need to consider its validity under the Federal Constitution, the federal court should hold its hand, lest it render a constitutional decision unnecessarily." City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U. S. 639, 640641 (1959).

See also Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., ante, p. 41 (1970).

It is no answer to contend that there is no ambiguity in the Wisconsin statute and hence no need to abstain; in Reetz the Alaska statute could not have been more plain, or less susceptible of a limiting construction. Yet, in furtherance of this Court's firm policy to stcer around head-on collisions with the States by avoiding unnecessary constitutional decisions, we reversed the District Court and remanded with instructions to stay its hand while the litigants exhausted state court remedies for resolution of their challenge to the statute. See also Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., supra. Reetz cannot be distinguished and I see no reason to depart from the principles it reaffirmed."

Here there is not the urgency presented by Reetz where our action in remanding for state court consideration effectively precluded appellées from securing a commercial fishing license for at least one more season. No such urgency is presented by the instant

case.

I quite agree that there is no absolute duty to abstain— to stay our hand-until the state courts have at least been asked to construe their own statute, but for me it is the negation of sound judicial administration—and an unwarranted use of a limited judicial resource-to impose this kind of case on a three-judge federal district court, and then, by direct appeal, on this Court. Indeed, in my view, a three-judge district court would be well advised in cases such as this, involving no urgency or question of large import, to decline to act.

This Court has an abundance of important work to do, which, if it is to be done well, should not be subject to the added pressures of non-urgent state cases which the state courts have never been called on to resolve. Neither the historic role of this Court nor any reasonable duty placed on us, calls for our direct intervention when no reason for expedited review is shown. Here we have an example of an unwise statute making direct review prima facie available, and an unwillingness by the Court to follow its own precedents by declining to pass on the Wisconsin statute before Wisconsin courts do so. We should remand this case with directions to the three-judge court to refrain from acting until the Wisconsin courts have acted.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE BlackMUN joins, dissenting.

I agree substantially with the dissent of THE CHIEF JUSTICE. I would vacate the District Court's judgment and remand with directions to withhold its proceedings to enable appellee to file a declaratory judgment or other state court action challenging the police chief's posting of notices in all Hartford retail liquor outlets forbidding sales or gifts of liquors to appellee for one year. As the Court's opinion, the cases there cited, and THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S dissent point out, such a course of action is justified "where the issue of state law is uncertain" and where the state court might confine the state law's

meaning so "as not to have any constitutional infirmity." The Wisconsin Act appears on its face to grant authority to a man's wife, a mayor, a town's supervisors, the county superintendent of the poor, a sheriff, or a district attorney to post notices forbidding liquor establishments from giving or selling any alcoholic beverages to the person so posted. The effect of such sweeping powers, if there is nothing else in the State's law to limit them, is practically the same as that of an old common law bill of attainder, against which our forebears had such an abhorrence that they forbade it in Art. I, § 9, of the Constitution. See, e. g., United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303 (1946). And here the Wisconsin law purports on its face to place such arbitrary and tyrannical power in the hands of minor officers and others that these modern bills of attain.der can be issued ex parte, without notice or hearing of any kind or character. It is impossible for me to believe that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin would uphold any such boundless power over the lives and liberties of its citizens. It seems to me therefore wholly uncertain that the state law has the meaning it purports to have, and I believe it is unfair to Wisconsin to permit its courts. to be denied the opportunity of confining this law within its proper limits if it could be shown that there are other state law provisions that could provide such boundaries. For example, notice and hearing might be provided by principles of state administrative procedure law similer to the federal Administrative Procedure Act.

I realize that there are many cases where federal cov.ts should not stay their hands to permit state courts to interpret state law. Compare Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, 363 U. S. 207, 213-227 (1960) (BLACK, J., dissenting), with Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315 (1943). Here, however, no state court appears to have passed on this Act at all, and a state decision might well apply the body of other state law to require notice, hearing, and other necessary provisions to render the challenged Act constitutional.

No. 6106. TARVER V. SMITH, SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES OF WASHINGTON. Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Reported below: Wash. 2d, 470 P. 2d 172. [For earlier order herein, see 401 U. S. 906.]

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.

1

The ability of the Government and private agencies to gather, retain, and catalogue information on anyone for their unfettered use raises problems concerning the privacy and dignity of individuals. Public and private agencies are storing more and more data. "If your name is not in the records of at least one credit bureau, it doesn't mean that you don't rate. What it does mean is that you are either under twenty-one or dead." "

2

A file may show that an individual was arrested. But will it show the arrest was unconstitutional because it was solely for purposes of investigation? Or that the charges were dropped? Or that a jury acquitted him?

Other "facts" may be in a file. Did he vote for Henry Wallace? Was he cited by HUAC? Is he subversive? Did he ever belong to any subversive organizations?

Private files amass similar irrelevancies and subjective information. Is he well regarded in his neighborhood as to character and habits? Does he have domestic difficulties? Is he "slow" in paying his bills?

1 Law reviews have been devoting increasing attention to the problem. Recently two total issues have been devoted to the legal problems. See 15 U. C. L. A. L. Rev. 1374 and 31 Law & Contemp. Prob. 251. See also Symposium: Computers, Data Banks, and Individual Privacy, 53 Minn. L. Rev. 211; Note, Privacy and Efficient Government: Proposals for a National Data Center, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 400; Freed, A Legal Structure for a National Medical Data Center, 49 B. U. L. Rev. 79; Miller, Personal Privacy in the Computer Age, 67 Mich. L. Rev. 1091.

2 H. Black, Buy Now, Pay Later 37 (1961).