[woodb01]

So the State statute/school policy in question are actually a form of fraud because they violate the civil right of free speech, and this puts it in the original jurisdiction of the federal court.

Yes, kind of on the fraud part. On your definition of comity, it is incomplete because there are certain types of civil cases, and civil rights cases where comity also applies (which First Amendment rights are sorta, kinda, considered "civil rights").

One way that the courts preserve "judicial economy" is by requiring legal actions to be brought only when there is some kind of "actual not conjectural injury." Even a liberal federal judge won't ignore that one when there is an actual injury. And that despire the fact that with speech, you don't normally need that actual injury.

[MamaTexan]

On your definition of comity, it is incomplete because there are certain types of civil cases, and civil rights cases where comity also applies (which First Amendment rights are sorta, kinda, considered "civil rights").

Curses on law.com...sorta, kinda. LOL!

-----

One way that the courts preserve "judicial economy" is by requiring legal actions to be brought only when there is some kind of "actual not conjectural injury." Even a liberal federal judge won't ignore that one when there is an actual injury.

So an actual injury would be the right of free speech WAS suppressed (like the case of the thread) because the arrest itself constitutes an 'injury' in the legal sense.

-----

Thanks so very much for your replies. I'm not trying to be dense, just trying to get a better idea about how this law thingy works. :-)