Reaffirmation of Younger Abstention and the Narrow Scope of the Bad Faith Exception in Federal Pre‐Trial Injunctions

Introduction

Frost v. Nessel, No. 24-1132 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025), is a Sixth Circuit decision affirming the district court’s dismissal under the Younger abstention doctrine of Clifford Frost’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to enjoin his Michigan state‐court criminal prosecution for alleged “false elector” activities in the 2020 presidential election. Frost, a former Republican elector candidate, claimed that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel was pursuing his prosecution in bad faith and that no cognizable state law offense existed. The Sixth Circuit rejected those arguments, reaffirmed the three Younger prerequisites, and explained why the bad faith exception did not apply. This commentary analyzes the background, procedural posture, and legal reasoning of the ruling, and explains its significance for federal–state comity and future challenges to state prosecutions.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit held, by a 3–0 vote, that:

All three Younger abstention requirements were satisfied: (1) Frost’s state prosecution was pending when he filed his federal complaint; (2) Michigan’s interest in criminal enforcement is “important”; and (3) state courts provide an adequate forum to raise constitutional defenses.
The narrow “bad faith” exception to Younger abstention did not apply because allegations that Michigan’s charges were legally insubstantial or politically motivated do not, by themselves, show “no reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.”
Federal court intervention would force the State to prove Frost’s guilt in the § 1983 case—an outcome inconsistent with the dual sovereignty of state and federal criminal justice systems.
The district court’s refusal to grant injunctive relief was affirmed, and Frost’s case was dismissed without prejudice under Younger.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971): Established that federal courts should refrain from enjoining pending state criminal prosecutions except under extraordinary circumstances.
Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117 (1975): Defined the narrow “bad faith” exception to Younger—applicable only when the prosecution is “brought without a reasonable expectation of securing a valid conviction.”
Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965): Rejected the notion that any risk of erroneous criminal enforcement alone qualifies for pre-trial federal relief.
Dane County Circuit Court (Mich.): Michigan practice of preliminary examinations under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157a and related statutes.
Other shaping authorities include Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Chiafalo v. Washington (2020) for federal election law context, though they did not drive the Younger analysis.

Legal Reasoning

The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning rested on two pillars:

Strict Application of the Younger Framework.
The court reaffirmed that federal courts must abstain if:
- (a) a parallel state proceeding is ongoing;
- (b) the state has an important interest—in this case, criminal law enforcement;
- (c) the federal plaintiff can raise his federal claims in the state forum.
Frost conceded those points, making Younger abstention mandatory absent an exception.
Narrow “Bad Faith” Exception Does Not Aid the Appellant.
Frost argued that Michigan’s prosecution was legally frivolous (the charges could not stand under the Michigan forgery statutes) and politically motivated. The Sixth Circuit stressed that allegations of legal weakness or bias do not suffice. To invoke the bad faith exception, a plaintiff must show:
- No objectively reasonable chance of conviction; and
- Evidence of a prosecutorial scheme intended solely to harass or punish the defendant.
The court found no such proof. On the contrary, Michigan’s statutes arguably cover the “false elector” conduct, and Michigan’s Criminal Division is presumed to act in good faith absent strong evidence to the contrary.

Impact

This decision has several important ramifications:

Reaffirmation of Federal Deference. Federal courts will continue to step aside from pre‐trial injunction requests in ordinary criminal cases, even when defendants challenge the underlying statutes as legally invalid or politically charged.
High Burden for Bad Faith Claims. Challengers to state prosecutions must present clear evidence that a prosecutor has no reasonable basis and is acting solely with malicious intent—an exacting standard designed to preserve the autonomy of state courts.
Guidance for Election‐Related Litigation. In the aftermath of the 2020 election and “false elector” controversies, litigants seeking to preemptively block state prosecutions will face an uphill fight under Younger and its exceptions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Younger Abstention: A principle that federal courts should not interfere with ongoing state prosecutions unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
Bad Faith Exception: A very narrow carve‐out allowing federal intervention only when a state prosecution is patently frivolous and intended solely to harass the defendant.
Section 1983 Injunction: A lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that seeks a federal court order (injunction) to stop state officials from violating federal rights.
Preliminary Examination (Michigan): A state‐court procedure akin to a grand jury review, where a judge determines if there is probable cause to proceed with criminal charges.

Conclusion

In Frost v. Nessel, the Sixth Circuit reaffirmed that Younger abstention remains a potent safeguard of state–federal comity in criminal matters. The court underscored that the only pathway to federal intervention is through the exceedingly narrow bad faith exception, which requires proof that a prosecution is both legally baseless and motivated solely by malice. Frost’s challenge to the Michigan “false elector” charges, though rooted in significant public controversy, did not satisfy that demanding standard. Going forward, defendants seeking pre‐trial federal relief against state prosecutions must marshal clear and compelling evidence of prosecutorial abuse—mere allegations of legal or political bias will not suffice.