I.          Questions Presented For Review

A.      Does Younger abstention doctrine apply to require federal courts to abstain from a 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint that state court contempt proceedings to enforce child support orders violate the Antipeonage Act, 42 U.S.C. §1994, if state court judges are incompetent to hear such a claim based upon substantial personal interest in the outcome of such question due to 18 U.S.C. §1581, the criminal provision of the Antipeonage Act?

B.      Does the Antipeonage Act, 42 U.S.C. §1994, cover child support as a “debt or obligation, or otherwise”?

C.      Does practice by the courts of appeals of not treating their unpublished decisions as setting precedent exceed the grant of judicial power in Article III of the Constitution?  Anastasoff v. United States, (8th Cir. 2000) 223 F. 3d. 898, found that it does.

If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page.  Click 00-35625 to get to the main page for this case.  Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.