As I have previously detailed, the battle over the election of a North Carolina supreme court justice has been proceeding in both state and federal court, but the Democrats’ effort to keep the case in federal court has always been legally dubious. Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed, ruling in an unpublished order under the Pullman abstention doctrine that the state courts should have the first opportunity to resolve the case:

Federal courts have discretion to refrain from resolving a case pending in federal court that involves state law claims and potential federal constitutional issues if the resolution of those unsettled questions of state law could obviate the need to address the federal issues . . . the state law issues involved in the case removed from the Superior Court of Wake County are unsettled. The parties advance diametrically opposed interpretations of the North Carolina statutes that are the subject of [Republican Jefferson] Griffin’s challenges. And neither provide authority from North Carolina appellate courts making the resolution of that conflict about those state law issues abundantly clear. What’s more, the resolution of those issues of North Carolina law could avoid the need to address the federal constitutional and other federal issues the [North Carolina] Board [of Elections] raised in removing the case. For example, if the Board prevails in Wake County on the state law issues, the resolution of the federal claims may not be necessary. . . . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision to abstain from exercising federal jurisdiction. However, because the district court did not retain jurisdiction of the federal issues as required by Pullman abstention, we remand with instructions directing the district court to modify its order to expressly retain jurisdiction of the federal issues identified in the Board’s notice of removal should those issues remain after the resolution of the state court proceedings, including any appeals.