This action involves Section 2283 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2283 restricting the power of federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings. The subject matter of the action, compensation to a waterfront worker, is a sore spot in federal-state relations. The question for decision is whether a federal court may enjoin compensation proceedings brought by a longshoreman against his employer in a state court under a state act when, as federal courts see it, the longshoreman's remedy is exclusively under the federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S. C.A. § 901 et seq. We hold that no injunction may issue.

In 1917, in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 S. Ct. 524, 525, 61 L. Ed. 1086, the United States Supreme Court reversed an award under the New York State Workmen's Compensation Act, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 67, § 1 et seq., to the widow of a longshoreman killed while loading and unloading cargo in New York Harbor. The court held that the plaintiff's remedy was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government; application of state compensation laws to a longshoreman would "prejudice * * * the proper harmony or uniformity" of the general maritime law. The Jensen doctrine, depriving thousands of waterfront workers of the protection of state compensation laws, proved to be somewhat less than impregnable to a variety of attacks. In a series of cases the Supreme Court held that where employment, although maritime in character, pertains to local matters having only an incidental relation to navigation and commerce, it may be regulated by local rules which do not work a material prejudice to general maritime law.1 Next came two attempts by Congress to overcome Jensen directly by legislation preserving to claimants "the rights and remedies under the Workmen's Compensation law of any state". These attempts failed.2 Congress then enacted the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, providing compensation coverage under federal law for workers who could not be covered under state compensation laws. 44 Stat. 1424 (1927); 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq.

In Davis v. Department of Labor, 1942, 317 U.S. 249, 63 S. Ct. 225, 87 L. Ed. 246, the Supreme Court curtailed further the effectiveness of Jensen. The Court adopted the "twilight zone" rule: borderline employees are entitled to have their rights settled case by case in a trial, to determine whether the injury occurred in maritime activities or in activities sufficiently local to allow the valid application of state laws; some amphibious waterfront workers are entitled to the protection of state compensation acts.

The blur at the limits of the twilight zone and the application of the Davis doctrine in certain cases3 has raised a doubt as to whether there is life in old Jensen yet.4 But whenever a mirror is brought to see if Jensen is still breathing, Jensen revives, seemingly as vital and vigorous as ever;5 well, almost as vital and vigorous. In two recent cases this Court, relying on Jensen, held that the compensation claims of a welder, injured while making repairs on a floating dry dock (Flowers v. Travelers Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 220, certiorari denied 1959, 359 U.S. 920, 79 S. Ct. 591, 3 L. Ed. 2d 582) and a longshoreman injured while loading a ship (Noah v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 218, on rehearing reversing 5 Cir., 265 F.2d 547) are exclusively under the federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act.

The lack of definition inherent in twilight zones and the difficulty in reconciling Davis, Moore, and Baskin6 with Jensen, Flowers, and Noah have produced a serious conflict between Louisiana state courts and federal courts. In a carefully considered opinion, Judge Tate, for the Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the First Circuit, reviewed the jurisprudence and, on the authority of Davis, Moore, and Baskin, held that a longshoreman injured while working in the hold of an ocean-going steamer on navigable waters was entitled to recover under the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act.7 Richard v. Lake Charles Stevedores Inc., La.App., 1 Cir., 1957, 95 So. 2d 830, 834; certiorari denied 355 U.S. 952, 78 S. Ct. 535, 2 L. Ed. 2d 529; 19 La.L.Rev. 737 (1959). In both Jensen and Noah the injured worker was a longshoreman.8 But Louisiana courts follow Richard — Jensen, Flowers, and Noah to the contrary notwithstanding. Throughout the state, Louisiana district courts uniformly accept jurisdiction of compensation suits by longshoremen under the Louisiana Act and uniformly dismiss the employer's exceptions to the jurisdiction and of no right or cause of action.9 In Louisiana, therefore, and perhaps in other states,10 whether a waterfront worker (even a longshoreman) has a choice of remedies depends on whether he sues in a state court or in a federal court.

An injured waterfront worker has a problem in deciding which law gives him the most benefits. But the man in the middle, caught between the state and federal acts, is the employer, unconcerned about a dent in the prized uniformity of the general maritime law but properly concerned because he may be subject to two attacks, under different laws, for what would seem to be one claim.11 In this action the plight of the employer is urged as a compelling equitable consideration for issuance of the injunction.

These are the pertinent facts. Frank Williams, a longshoreman working for T. Smith and Son, Inc., a stevedoring firm, was injured March 1, 1956, while loading barrels of asphalt on a vessel docked at the Mississippi River wharves of the port of New Orleans. As required by federal law, his employer notified the Deputy Commissioner of Labor at New Orleans, charged with administering the Federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, and began paying compensation benefits. Sometime in May 1958 the employer discontinued payments on the ground that the doctors had discharged Williams as able to return to work. In addition to payments for medical attention, Williams received compensation benefits of $3,896. Williams filed no claim for additional benefits under the federal act with the Deputy Commissioner of Labor at New Orleans. On November 26, 1958, however, Williams filed suit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana, seeking compensation benefits under the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation law, LSA-R.S. 23:1021 et seq., and asking for a judgment in the sum of $12,000, plus interest, penalties, and costs. On February 27, 1959, the Deputy Commissioner of Labor made a "determination"^11a that "jurisdiction in this case properly rests with the Deputy Commissioner * * * in the administration of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act". At that point the employer brought this action to enjoin Williams from going forward with his proceedings in the state courts. The employer alleged that the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction; that the employee had been paid all the compensation to which he was entitled; that an injunction was "necessary in aid of [the federal court's] jurisdiction or [to] protect or effectuate its judgments" under Section 2283.

Section 2283, the anti-injunction statute, reads as follows:

"A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."

Section 2283 is the 1948 revised version of Section 265 of the Judicial Code of 1911, former 28 U.S.C.A. § 379.12 Both go back to Section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1793 providing that: "* * * Nor shall a writ of injunction be granted to stay proceedings in any court of a state."

It has been suggested that the prohibition of federal injunctions against state proceedings was included in the Act of 1793 as a result of the opposition, intensified at that time by Chisholm v. State of Georgia, 1793, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed. 440, to extending the scope of federal jurisdiction at the expense of the states.13 Mr. Justice Frankfurter14 and others15 have questioned the significance of special contemporary factors, except the prevailing prejudices against equity jurisdiction. But: "the purpose and direction underlying the provision is manifest from its terms: proceedings in the state court should be free from interference by federal injunction. The provision expresses on its face the duty of `hands off' by the federal courts in the use of the injunction to stay litigation in a state court. * * * The Act of 1793 expresses the desire of Congress to avoid friction between the federal government and the states resulting from the intrusion of federal authority into the orderly functioning of a state's judicial process".16

In early cases involving federal injunctions to stay state court proceedings the courts managed to deny the injunctions without mentioning the Act of 1793, apparently assuming that federal courts had no control over state courts, except by established appellate jurisdiction.17 Later, the courts expressly applied the statutory limitation.18 Cutting across the hands-off principle, Congress enacted statutory exceptions19 and federal courts began to create judicial exceptions.20 These exceptions reshaped the rule into a flexible but uncertain guide for avoiding friction between federal and state courts.

Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 1941, 314 U.S. 118, 62 S. Ct. 139, 86 L. Ed. 100, was a turning point. Toucey held that a federal court could not enjoin a state court on the ground of relitigation, giving notice that the Supreme Court disapproved of judge-made exceptions to the hands-off policy and that Section 265 of the Judicial Code should be given a literal interpretation. The Court expressly overruled the relitigation cases. It recognized only two exceptions to the exclusive language of Section 265: (1) express exceptions created by statutes subsequently enacted and (2) in rem proceedings when a federal court has gained jurisdiction over the res before the state court asserts control.21

Toucey involved an action for a breach of contract, where the state had concurrent jurisdiction over the proceedings. In Bowles v. Willingham, 1944, 321 U.S. 503, 64 S. Ct. 641, 645, 88 L. Ed. 892, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction against state court action challenging the constitutionality of the Emergency Price Control Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 901 et seq. The court found authority for a federal injunction in the Act, but it also stated that Congress had placed exclusive jurisdiction in the Emergency Court of Appeals, so that "the rule expressed in § 265 which is designed to avoid collisions between state and federal authorities * * * thus does not come into play". The dissenting opinion took this holding to mean that Section 265 did not apply when federal jurisdiction was exclusive.

There is of course something to be said for the argument that federal courts should be able to prevent state courts from trespassing on a subject matter that is exclusively within the federal system.22 But that is part of the problem that produced the Act of 1793, Section 265 of the 1911 Code, and Section 2283 of the 1948 Code. The argument would be stronger if there were more certainty as to the area of exclusive federal authority.23

The Reviser's Notes to Section 2283 show that the bankruptcy exception of Section 265 "was omitted and the general exception substituted to cover all exceptions". It is true that the notes show also that Congress intended to overrule Toucey and restore the basic law as it was generally understood before Toucey,24 and that this would contract the prohibition against injunctions, at least as to relitigation cases. On the other hand, the comprehensiveness of the language covering "all exceptions" would seem to preclude finding any express or implied exception for cases involving exclusive federal jurisdiction and certainly no inference can be drawn that the section is entirely inapplicable to a situation such as is presented in the instant case. This conclusion would seem to result a fortiori when there are no pre-Toucey cases clearly establishing an exception for exclusive federal jurisdiction cases or holding that Section 265 is inapplicable in such cases. "No such exception had been established by judicial decision under Section 265."25

In Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. Richman Brothers, 1955, 348 U.S. 511, 75 S. Ct. 452, 754, 99 L. Ed. 600, the Supreme Court had before it the meaning and applicability of Section 2283. The court reaffirmed the hands-off policy of Toucey and prescribed rules for construing Section 2283 hardly less inflexible than the rules Toucey prescribed for Section 265. An employer had filed suit in a state court to enjoin peaceful picketing by a union. The union, to avoid delays incident to opposing a permanent injunction and to appealing through the state courts, brought suit in a federal district court to restrain the employer from pursuing state court action.26 The Supreme Court assumed that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the union's picketing. The union argued that Section 2283 was not intended to apply when the subject matter is exclusively within the federal system; exclusive jurisdiction was vested with the National Labor Relations Board. The union argued also that if Section 2283 were applicable, the action would fall within the statutory exceptions. The Court rejected both contentions. Mr. Justice Frankfurter, for the majority, stated: "[In the enactment of Section 2283] Congress made clear beyond cavil that the prohibition is not to be whittled away by judicial improvisation. * * * We cannot accept the argument * * * that § 2283 does not apply whenever the moving party in the District Court alleges that the state court is `wholly without jurisdiction over the subject matter, having invaded a field pre-empted by Congress.' No such exception had been established by judicial decision under former § 265. In any event, Congress has left no justification for its recognition now. This is not a statute conveying a broad general policy for * * * ad hoc application. Legislative policy is here expressed in a clear-cut prohibition qualified only by specifically defined exceptions."

This Court considered Section 2283 in Jacksonville Blow Pipe Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 5 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 394, 396, Judge Tuttle, for the Court, pointed out that this was a "somewhat troubled * * * area in which the effect of several crucial and divided Supreme Court decisions and [the effect] of the 1948 revision of the Judicial Code have as yet been insufficiently explored".27 The Court approved the issuance of an injunction prohibiting a creditor from prosecuting a state court action to replevy certain property sold by the trustee in bankruptcy under an order of the federal court approving the sale to the highest bidder. The Court, rejecting an interpretation of the statute "in the abstract", found an implied exception for relitigation cases in the legislative intent to reverse Toucey. The Court then based its holding primarily on the pre-Toucey cases of Julian v. Central Trust Co., 1904, 193 U.S. 93, 24 S. Ct. 399, 48 L. Ed. 629 and Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Alabama & Georgia Mfg. Co., 1905, 198 U.S. 188, 25 S. Ct. 629, 49 L. Ed. 1008.

This Court again considered the meaning and applicability of Section 2283 in the recent case of Southern California Petroleum Corp. v. Harper, 5 Cir., 1960, 273 F.2d 715. In that case the plaintiffs filed suit in the federal court asking for an injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with a suit in the state courts, on the ground that the defendants were relitigating issues decided between the same parties in earlier litigation in the federal court. We affirmed the district court's denial of the injunction. Conceding an implied exception to Section 2283 for relitigation cases,28 under Jacksonville Blow Pipe, we observed:

"Section 2283 is essentially a rule of comity, and the demand here that a federal court interfere with state court proceedings is directed to the discretion of the federal court. This discretion should be exercised in the light of the historical reluctance of federal courts to interfere with state judicial proceedings. This Court has often demonstrated such reluctance. `[I]nterference with the orderly and comprehensive disposition of a state court litigation should be avoided', the Supreme Court admonishes us. Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 1942, 316 U.S. 491, 62 S. Ct. 1173, 86 L. Ed. 1620, rehearing denied, 317 U.S. 704, 63 S. Ct. 23, 87 L. Ed. 562." Southern California Petroleum Corporation v. Harper, 5 Cir., 1960, 273 F.2d 718.

In another recent case, Empire Pictures Distributing Co. v. City of Fort Worth et al., 5 Cir., 1960, 273 F.2d 529, 536, this Court relied in part on Section 2283, as interpreted in Richman, in applying the doctrine of judicial abstention to an action in which, on the ground of unconstitutionality, a motion picture distributing company sought to enjoin the city from enforcing a censorship ordinance. Judge Cameron, for the majority, stressing that the decision in Richman rests on a broad basis, quoted language from Richman appropriate in the instant case:

"The assumption upon which the argument proceeds is that federal rights will not be adequately protected in the state courts, and the `gap' complained of is impatience with the appellate process if state courts go wrong. But during more than half of our history Congress, in establishing the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, in the main relied on the adequacy of the state judicial systems to enforce federal rights, subject to review by this Court. With limited exceptions, it was not until 1875 that the lower federal courts were given general jurisdiction over federal questions. During that entire period, the vindication of federal rights depended upon the procedure which petitioner attacks as so grossly inadequate that it could not have been contemplated by Congress. The prohibition of § 2283 is but continuing evidence of confidence in the state courts reinforced by a desire to avoid direct conflicts between state and federal courts. * * *"

The same argument advanced in the instant case was advanced in H. J. Heinz v. Owens, 9 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 505, rehearing denied, 9 Cir., 191 F.2d 257, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 905, 72 S. Ct. 294, 96 L. Ed. 677, rehearing denied 342 U.S. 934, 72 S. Ct. 374, 96 L. Ed. 696. That case involved patent rights. The plaintiffs asked for an injunction restraining state court action, contending that the injunction was necessary "in aid of" the jurisdiction of the federal courts, under Section 2283. The argument was based upon a premise of exclusive jurisdiction in the federal court of the subject matter of the action. The Court affirmed denial of the injunction: "[T]his statute [Section 2283] and the policy underlying it afford a sound basis for a judicial conclusion that the granting of such declaratory relief would constitute an abuse of discretion. * * * We find no justification for prejudging the question or for assuming that the [state] tribunal will not respect any controlling limitations upon its power." [189 F.2d 509.] In an analogous situation before a district court, the court held: "[T]he phrase `in aid of its jurisdiction' does not permit interference by a federal court even when it is alleged there is exclusive jurisdiction in the federal court." International Union of Operating Engineers, Locals No. 542, 542-A, 542-B v. William D. Baker Co., D.C.E.D. Pa.1951, 100 F. Supp. 773, 777.

We cast no doubts on the correctness of Jacksonville Blow Pipe. Relitigation of issues previously decided between the same litigants is a narrow exception to the general ban against injunctions. It may be supported as encompassed in the third express exception of Section 2283.29 But, as we read Richman, Heinz v. Owens, Harper and Empire Pictures, the hands-off doctrine expressed in Section 2283 is to be considered in the light of the function of Section 2283 as a pillar of federalism. Like the doctrine of abstention, its "* * * justification * * * lies in regard for the respective competence of the state and federal court systems and for the maintenance of harmonious federal-state relations in a matter close to the political interests of a State". Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 1959, 360 U.S. 25, 79 S. Ct. 1070, 1073, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1058.

The phrase, "where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction", therefore, should be interpreted narrowly, in the direction of federal non-interference with orderly state proceedings. It is even questionable whether the phrase authorizes injunctions to protect jurisdiction of original actions; the Reviser's Notes indicate that the phrase was added "to make clear the recognized power of the Federal courts to stay proceedings in State cases removed to the district courts". In any event, it is not, as seems to be asserted here, a mandate to federal courts to hold the line against a possible state invasion of a theoretic concept of federal jurisdiction over a field of law supposedly the exclusive domain of federal courts. It is not to prevent a threatened trespass. Properly considered, Section 2283, as a whole, "does not go to the jurisdiction of a federal court, but is an affirmation of the rules of comity, and hence it should be read in conjunction with the judicial principles developed for our dual system of courts". Moore, Commentary on the Judicial Code, § .03(49), p. 407 (1949).

If, as Louisiana courts believe, waterfront workers, even longshoremen, are entitled to the protection of state compensation laws, there is an orderly system of appeal and review within the state court system, leading up to the United States Supreme Court, that provides a proper method for determining the issue within the established framework of our federal government. We too err. Flowers and Noah are not the last word on the subject, only the latest word. The twilight zone cases are close enough, the Supreme Court is divided enough, and there is uncertainty enough as to the choice of controlling policies in federal-state conflicts over compensation for waterfront workers, to justify resolution of the issue through the state court route. That is the view of Louisiana courts. Right or wrong, this view is entitled to deference by federal courts.

In short, giving full weight to the purpose and function of Section 2283 as an important instrument for making federalism work, we find that there is no express or implied exception in Section 2283 permitting an injunction in this case. Further, we think that the broad language of Section 2283 and the policy underlying it are against issuance of a federal injunction to stay state court proceedings even when the subject matter of an action, as federal courts see it, rests exclusively in federal courts under a federal statute.

Affirmed.