clear -from the face of the order that such an opportunity would exist. When the “administrator” making a decision is a state supreme court and that state supreme court presents a litigant with an opportunity to present arguments to the court, it is reasonable for a party to expect that such a body will entertain constitutional challenges to its actions and to expect litigants to be on notice of this possibility, even if the state court seems to be acting in an administrative capacity. When a litigant fails to attempt to raise such claims, it is appropriate to presume that the state court would have been willing to decide his constitutional claims subject to rebuttal by clear evidence to the contrary. Cf. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, 481 U.S. 1, 15, 107 S.Ct. 1519, 1528, 95 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987) (<HOLDING>) Judge Guarino’s uncertainty as to whether the
holding that because the federal plaintiffs claims were essentially derivative of the state defendants younger abstention applied holding that the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court holding that while younger abstention is only justified if the pending state proceeding has the authority to adjudicate a litigants federal claims when a litigant has not attempted to present his federal claims in related statecourt proceedings a federal court should assume that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary holding that to avoid younger abstention plaintiffs must demonstrate that state law bars the effective consideration of their federal claims