Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from a decision of a three-judge District Court (356 F. Supp. 1101) declining to intervene in a pending state civil proceeding and holding that such intervention was barred by our decision in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37. The state proceeding, brought against appellants by the Solicitor General of Fulton County, Georgia, sought an injunction against the operation of appellant Speight’s bookstore, and confiscation and destruction of all merchandise on the store’s premises, on the grounds that the store was being used for the “advertising, storage, sale, and exhibition for sale of materials obscene within the meaning of Section 26-2101 of the Criminal Code of Georgia.” The basis for the State’s action was § 26-2103 of the Code under which the use of any premises for the violation of § 26-2101 constitutes a “public nuisance,” thereby triggering the application of state statutory provisions for the abatement of public nuisances, c. 72-2 of the Code of Georgia. The case is here on appeal. 28 U. S. C. §§ 1253, 2101 (b). We noted probable jurisdiction to decide whether under these circumstances federal intervention in the pending state proceedings was barred by our holding in Younger v. Harris, supra.
Since oral argument of this case the Georgia Supreme Court has struck down the application of § 26-2103 in another case involving similar facts. Sanders v. State, 231 Ga. 608, 203 S. E. 2d 153 (1974). In Sanders the State had brought an action to enjoin the operation of a bookstore on the ground that certain publications sold by the store were obscene under § 26-2101. The supreme court held that this application of § 26-2103 “represents an unconstitutional prior restraint when construed and applied to authorize the permanent closure of the book store as a public nuisance upon a finding that a single publication, obscene under the standards of Code Ann. § 26-2101 (b), was sold on its premises.” Id., at 611, 203 S. E. 2d, at 155. As we understand the Georgia court’s decision, the operation of a bookstore could not be enjoined merely because some of its merchandise had been judicially determined to be obscene. The Georgia court cited both the Federal and Georgia Constitutions in its decision, although it was not explicit as to whether each provided, in its view, an independent ground for its holding.
It would appear that this Georgia Supreme Court decision would probably foreclose the state action against which federal injunctive relief was sought by appellants in this case. In that event appellants could obtain full relief in the state court proceeding merely by moving to dismiss the state action, in accord with state procedural rules, in light of Sanders v. State. If that is the case, appellants could not now make any showing of irreparable injury by reason of the state court proceeding, and such a showing is of course required before the federal court could grant the equitable relief, apart from any special considerations involved in Younger v. Harris, supra, at 46.
We therefore vacate the judgment below and remand to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the decision of the Georgia Supreme Court in Sanders v. State, supra.
It is so ordered.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.