opinion: Mr. Justice Brennan
  delivered the opinion of the Court.
  When a state criminal proceeding under a disputed state criminal statute is pending against a federal plaintiff at the time his federal complaint is filed, Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66 (1971), held, respectively, that, unless bad-faith enforcement or other special circumstances are demonstrated, principles of equity, comity, and federalism preclude issuance of a federal injunction restraining enforcement of the criminal statute and, in all but unusual circumstances, a declaratory judgment upon the constitutionality of the statute. This case presents the important question reserved in Samuels v. Mackell, id., at 73-74, whether declaratory relief is precluded when a state prosecution has been threatened, but is not pending, and a showing of bad-faith enforcement or other special circumstances has not been made.
  Petitioner, and others, filed a complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, invoking the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and its jurisdictional implementation, 28 U. S. C. § 1343. The complaint requested a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§2201-2202, that Ga. Code Ann. §26-1503 (1972) was being applied in violation of petitioner's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and an injunction restraining respondents — the solicitor of the Civil and Criminal Court of DeKalb County, the chief of the DeKalb County Police, the owner of the North DeKalb Shopping Center, and the manager of that shopping center — from enforcing the statute so as to interfere with petitioner’s constitutionally protected activities.
  The parties stipulated to the relevant facts: On October 8, 1970, while petitioner and other individuals were distributing handbills protesting American involvement in Vietnam on an exterior sidewalk of the North DeKalb Shopping Center, shopping center employees asked them to stop handbilling and leave. They declined to do so, and police officers were summoned. The officers told them that they would be arrested if they did not stop handbilling. The group then left to avoid arrest. Two days later petitioner and a companion returned to the shopping center and again began handbilling. The manager of the center called the police, and petitioner and his companion were once again told that failure to stop their handbilling would result in their arrests. Petitioner left to avoid arrest. His companion stayed, however, continued handbilling, and was arrested and subsequently arraigned on a charge of criminal trespass in violation of § 26-1503. Petitioner alleged in his complaint that, although he desired to return to the shopping center to distribute handbills, he had not done so because of his concern that he, too, would be arrested for violation of §26-1503; the parties stipulated that, if petitioner returned and refused upon request to stop handbilling, a warrant would be sworn out and he might be arrested and charged with a violation of the Georgia statute.
  After hearing, the District Court denied all relief and dismissed the action, finding that “no meaningful contention can be made that the state has [acted] or will in the future act in bad faith,” and therefore “the rudiments of an active controversy between the parties . . . [are] lacking.” 334 F. Supp. 1386, 1389-1390 (1971). Petitioner appealed only from the denial of declaratory relief. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, one judge concurring in the result, affirmed the District Court’s judgment refusing declaratory relief. Becker v. Thompson, 459 F. 2d 919 (1972). The court recognized that the holdings of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66 (1971), were expressly limited to situations where state prosecutions were pending when the federal action commenced, but was of the view that Younger v. Harris “made it clear beyond peradventure that irreparable injury must be measured by bad faith harassment and such test must be applied to a request for injunctive relief against threatened state court criminal prosecution” as well as against a pending prosecution ; and, furthermore, since the opinion in Samuels v. Mackell reasoned that declaratory relief would normally disrupt the state criminal justice system in the manner of injunctive relief, it followed that “the same test of bad faith harassment is prerequisite ... for declaratory relief in a threatened prosecution.” 459 F. 2d, at 922. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied, three judges dissenting. 463 F. 2d 1338 (1972).
  We granted certiorari, 410 U. S. 953 (1973), and now reverse.
  I
  At the threshold we must consider whether petitioner presents an “actual controversy,” a requirement imposed by Art. Ill of the Constitution and the express terms of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201.
  Unlike three of the appellees in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S., at 41, petitioner has alleged threats of prosecution that cannot be characterized as “imaginary or speculative,” id., at 42. He has been twice warned to stop hand-billing that he claims is constitutionally protected and has been told by the police that if he again handbills at the shopping center and disobeys a warning to stop he will likely be prosecuted. The prosecution of petitioner's handbilling companion is ample demonstration that petitioner's concern with arrest has not been “chimerical,” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 508 (1961). In these circumstances, it is not necessary that petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a. statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights. See, e. g., Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97 (1968). Moreover, petitioner's challenge is to those specific provisions of state law which have provided the basis for threats of criminal prosecution against him. Cf. Boyle v. Landry, 401 U. S. 77, 81 (1971); Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S. 387, 399-400 (1941).
  Nonetheless, there remains a question as to the continuing existence of a live and acute controversy that must be resolved on the remand we order today. In Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103 (1969), the appellee sought a declaratory judgment that a state criminal statute prohibiting the distribution of anonymous election-campaign literature was unconstitutional. The appellee’s complaint had expressed a desire to distribute handbills during the forthcoming re-election campaign of a Congressman, but it was later learned that the Congressman had retired from the House of Representatives to become a New York Supreme Court Justice. In that circumstance, we found no extant controversy, since the record revealed that appellee's sole target of distribution had been the Congressman and there was no immediate prospect of the Congressman’s again becoming a candidate for public office. Here, petitioner’s complaint indicates that his handbilling activities were directed “against the War in Vietnam and the United States’ foreign policy in Southeast Asia.” Since we cannot ignore the recent developments reducing the Nation’s involvement in that part of the world, it will be for the District Court on remand to determine if subsequent events have so altered petitioner’s desire to engage in handbilling at the shopping center that it can no longer be said that this case presents “a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941); see Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 244 n. 3 (1967).
  II
  We now turn to the question of whether the District Court and the Court of Appeals correctly found petitioner’s request for declaratory relief inappropriate.
  Sensitive to principles of equity, comity, and federalism, we recognized in Younger v. Harris, supra, that federal courts should ordinarily refrain from enjoining ongoing state criminal prosecutions. We were cognizant that a pending state proceeding, in all but unusual cases, would provide the federal plaintiff with the necessary vehicle for vindicating his constitutional rights, and, in that circumstance, the restraining of an ongoing prosecution would entail an unseemly failure to give effect to the principle that state courts have the solemn responsibility, equally with the federal courts “to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States . . . Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624, 637 (1884). In Samuels v. Mackell, supra, the Court also found that the same principles ordinarily would be flouted by issuance of a federal declaratory judgment when a state proceeding was pending, since the intrusive effect of declaratory relief “will result in precisely the same interference with and disruption of state proceedings that the long-standing policy limiting injunctions was designed to avoid.” 401 U. S., at 72. We therefore held in Samuels that, “in cases where the state criminal prosecution was begun prior to the federal suit, the same equitable principles relevant to the propriety of an injunction must be taken into consideration by federal district courts in determining whether to issue a declaratory judgment...Id., at 73.
  Neither Younger nor Samuels, however, decided the question whether federal intervention might be permissible in the absence of a pending state prosecution. In Younger, the Court said:
  “We express no view about the circumstances under which federal courts may act when there is no prosecution pending in state courts at the time the federal proceeding is begun.” 401 U. S., at 41.
  See also id., at 55 (Stewart and Harlan, J J., concurring) ; id., at 57 (Brennan, White, and Marshall, JJ., concurring). Similarly, in Samuels v. Mackell, the Court stated:
  “We, of course, express no views on the propriety of declaratory relief when no state proceeding is pending at the time the federal suit is begun.” 401 U. S., at 73-74.
  See also id., at 55 (Stewart and Harlan, JJ., concurring) ; id., at 75-76 (Brennan, White, and Marshall, JJ., concurring).
  These reservations anticipated the Court's recognition that the relevant principles of equity, comity, and federalism “have little force in the absence of a pending state proceeding.” Lake Carriers’ Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U. S. 498, 509 (1972). When no state criminal proceeding is pending at the time the federal complaint is filed, federal intervention does not result in duplicative legal proceedings or disruption of the state criminal justice system; nor can federal intervention, in that circumstance, be interpreted as reflecting negatively upon the state court’s ability to enforce constitutional principles. In addition, while a pending state prosecution provides the federal plaintiff with a concrete opportunity to vindicate his constitutional rights, a refusal on the part of the federal courts to intervene when no state proceeding is pending may place the hapless plaintiff between the Scylla of intentionally flouting state law and the Charybdis of forgoing what he believes to be constitutionally protected activity in order to avoid becoming enmeshed in a criminal proceeding. Cf. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 490 (1965).
  When no state proceeding is pending and thus considerations of equity, comity, and federalism have little vitality, the propriety of granting federal declaratory relief may properly be considered independently of a request for injunctive relief. Here, the Court of Appeals held that, because injunctive relief would not be appropriate since petitioner failed to demonstrate irreparable injury — a traditional prerequisite to injunctive relief, e. g., Dombrowski v. Pfister, supra— it followed that- declaratory relief was also inappropriate. Even if the Court of Appeals correctly viewed injunctive relief as inappropriate — a question we need not reach today since petitioner has abandoned his request for that remedy, see n. 6 supra — the court erred in treating the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief as a single issue. “[Wjhen no state prosecution is pending and the only question is whether declaratory relief is appropriate [,] . . . the congressional scheme that makes the federal courts the primary guardians of constitutional rights, and the express congressional authorization of declaratory relief, afforded because it is a less harsh and abrasive remedy than the injunction, become the factors of primary significance.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 104 (1971) (separate opinion of Brennan, J.).
  The subject matter jurisdiction of the lower federal courts was greatly expanded in the wake of the Civil War. A pervasive sense of nationalism led to enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, empowering the lower federal courts to determine the constitutionality of actions, taken by persons under color of state law, allegedly depriving other individuals of rights guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law, see 42 U. S. C. § 1983, 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3). Four years later, in the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, Congress conferred upon the lower federal courts, for but the second time in their nearly century-old history, general federal-question jurisdiction subject only to a jurisdictional-amount requirement, see 28 U. S. C. § 1331. With this latter enactment, the lower federal courts “ceased to be restricted tribunals of fair dealing between citizens of different states and became the primary and powerful reliances for vindicating every right given by the Constitution, the laws, and treaties of the United States.” F. Frankfurter & J. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court 65 (1928) (emphasis added). These two statutes, together with the Court’s decision in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908) — holding that state officials who threaten to enforce an unconstitutional state statute may be enjoined by a federal court of equity and that a federal court may, in appropriate circumstances, enjoin future state criminal prosecutions under the unconstitutional Act — have “established the modern framework for federal protection of constitutional rights from state interference.” Perez v. Ledesma, supra, at 107 (separate opinion of Brennan, J.).
  A “storm of controversy” raged in the wake of Ex parte Young, focusing principally on the power of a single federal judge to grant ex parte interlocutory injunctions against the enforcement of state statutes, H. Hart & H. Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 967 (2d ed. 1973); see generally Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U. S. 471 (1970); Hutcheson, A Case for Three Judges, 47 Harv. L. Rev. 795, 804-805 (1934). This uproar was only partially quelled by Congress' passage of legislation, 36 Stat. 557, requiring the convening of a three-judge district court before a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a state statute could issue, and providing for direct appeal to this Court from a decision granting or denying such relief. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 1253. From a State’s viewpoint the granting of injunctive relief- — -even by these courts of special dignity — “rather clumsily” crippled state enforcement of its statutes pending further review, see H. R. Rep. No. 288, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1928); H. R. Rep. No. 94, 71st Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1929); H. R. Rep. No. 627, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1932). Furthermore, plaintiffs were dissatisfied with this method of testing the constitutionality of state statutes, since it placed upon them the burden of demonstrating the traditional prerequisites to equitable relief — most importantly, irreparable injury. See, e. g., Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240, 243 (1926).
  To dispel these difficulties, Congress in 1934 enacted the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2201-2202. That Congress plainly intended declaratory relief to act as an alternative to the strong medicine of the injunction and to be utilized to test the constitutionality of state criminal statutes in cases where injunctive relief would be unavailable is amply evidenced by the legislative history of the Act, traced in full detail in Perez v. Ledesma, supra, at 111-115 (separate opinion of Brennan, J.). The highlights of that history, particularly pertinent to our inquiry today, emphasize that:
  “[I]n 1934, without expanding or reducing the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, or in any way diminishing the continuing vitality of Ex parte Young with respect to federal injunctions, Congress empowered the federal courts to grant a new remedy, the declaratory judgment. . . .
  “The express purpose of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act was to provide a milder alternative to the injunction remedy. ... Of particular significance on the question before us, the Senate report [S. Rep. No. 1005, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934)] makes it even clearer that the declaratory judgment was designed to be available to test state criminal statutes in circumstances where an injunction would not be appropriate. , . .
  “Much of the hostility to federal injunctions referred to in the Senate report was hostility to their use against state officials seeking to enforce state regulatory statutes carrying criminal sanctions; this was the strong feeling that produced the Three-Judge Court Act in 1910, the Johnson Act of 1934, 28 U. S. C. § 1342, and the Tax Injunction Act of 1937, 28 U. S. C. § 1341. The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act was intended to provide an alternative to injunctions against state officials, except where there was a federal policy against federal adjudication of the class of litigation altogether. . . . Moreover, the Senate report’s clear implication that declaratory relief would have been appropriate in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), and Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 (1926), both cases involving federal,adjudication of the constitutionality of a state statute carrying criminal penalties, and the report’s quotation from Terrace v. Thompson, which also involved anticipatory federal adjudication of the constitutionality of a state criminal statute, make it plain that Congress anticipated that the declaratory judgment procedure would be used by the federal courts to test the constitutionality of state criminal statutes.” 401 U. S., at 111-112, 115.
  It was this history that formed the backdrop to our decision in Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241 (1967), where a state criminal statute was attacked on grounds of unconstitutional overbreadth and no state prosecution was pending against the federal plaintiff. There, we found error in a three-judge district court’s considering, as a single question, the propriety of granting injunctive and declaratory relief. Although we noted that injunc-tive relief might well be unavailable under principles of equity jurisprudence canvassed in Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157 (1943), we held that “a federal district court has the duty to decide the appropriateness and the merits of the declaratory request irrespective of its conclusion as to the propriety of the issuance of the injunction.” 389 U. S., at 254. Only one year ago, we reaffirmed the Zwickler v. Koota holding in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973). In those two cases, we declined to decide whether the District Courts had properly denied to the federal plaintiffs, against whom no prosecutions were pending, injunctive relief restraining enforcement of the Texas and Georgia criminal abortion statutes; instead, we affirmed the issuance of declaratory judgments of unconstitutionality, anticipating that these would be given effect by state authorities. We said:
  “The Court has recognized that different considerations enter into a federal court’s decision as to declaratory relief, on the one hand, and injunctive relief, on the other. Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 252-255 (1967); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479 (1965).” Roe v. Wade, supra, at 166 (emphasis added).
  See Doe v. Bolton, supra, at 201.
  The “different considerations” entering into a decision whether to grant declaratory relief have their origins in the preceding historical summary. First, as Congress recognized in 1934, a declaratory judgment will have a less intrusive effect on the administration of state criminal laws. As was observed in Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S., at 124-126 (separate opinion of Brennan, J.):
  “Of course, a favorable declaratory judgment may nevertheless be valuable to the plaintiff though it cannot make even an unconstitutional statute disappear. A state statute may be declared unconstitutional in toto — that is, incapable of having constitutional applications; or it may be declared unconstitutionally vague or overbroad — that is, incapable of being constitutionally applied to the full extent of its purport. In either case, a federal declaration of unconstitutionality reflects the opinion of the federal court that the statute cannot be fully enforced. If a declaration of total unconstitutionality is affirmed by this Court, it follows that this Court stands ready to reverse any conviction under the statute. If a declaration of partial unconstitutionality is affirmed by this Court, the implication is that this Court will overturn particular applications of the statute, but that if the statute is narrowly construed by the state courts it will not be incapable of constitutional applications. Accordingly, the declaration does not necessarily bar prosecutions under the statute, as a broad injunction would. Thus, where the highest court of a State has had an opportunity to give a statute regulating expression a narrowing or clarifying construction but has failed to do so, and later a federal court declares the statute unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, it may well be open to a state prosecutor, after the federal court decision, to bring a prosecution under the statute if he reasonably believes that the defendant’s conduct is not constitutionally protected and that the state courts may give the statute a construction so as to yield a constitutionally valid conviction. Even where a declaration of unconstitutionality is not reviewed by this Court, the declaration may still be able to cut down the deterrent effect of an unconstitutional state statute. The persuasive force of the court’s opinion and judgment may lead state prosecutors, courts, and legislators to reconsider their respective responsibilities toward the statute. Enforcement policies or judicial construction may be changed, or the legislature may repeal the statute and start anew. Finally, the federal court judgment may have some res judicata effect, though this point is not free from difficulty and the governing rules remain to be developed with a view to the proper workings of a federal system. What is clear, however, is that even though a declaratory judgment has ‘the force and effect of a final judgment,’ 28 U. S. C. § 2201, it is a much milder form of relief than an injunction. Though it may be persuasive, it is not ultimately coercive; noncompliance with it may be inappropriate, but is not contempt.” (Footnote omitted.)
  Second, engrafting upon the Declaratory Judgment Act a requirement that all of the traditional equitable prerequisites to the issuance of an injunction be satisfied before the issuance of a declaratory judgment is considered would defy Congress’ intent to make declaratory relief available in cases where an injunction would be inappropriate.
  “Were the law to be that a plaintiff could not obtain a declaratory judgment that a local ordinance was unconstitutional when no state prosecution is pending unless he could allege and prove circumstances justifying a federal injunction of an existing state prosecution, the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act would have been pro tanto repealed.” Wulp v. Corcoran, 454 F. 2d 826, 832 (CA1 1972) (Coffin, J.).
  See Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S., at 116 (separate opinion of Brennan, J.). Thus, the Court of Appeals was in error when it ruled that a failure to demonstrate irreparable injury- — a traditional prerequisite to injunctive relief, having no equivalent in the law of declaratory judgments, see Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 241 (1937); Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U. S. 249, 264 (1933) — precluded the granting of declaratory relief.
  The only occasions where this Court has disregarded these “different considerations” and found that a preclusion of injunctive relief inevitably led to a denial of declaratory relief have been cases in which principles of federalism militated altogether against federal intervention in a class of adjudications. See Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293 (1943) (federal policy against interfering with the enforcement of state tax laws); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66 (1971). In the instant case, principles of federalism not only do not preclude federal intervention, they compel it. Requiring the federal courts totally to step aside when no state criminal prosecution is pending against the federal plaintiff would turn federalism on its head. When federal claims are premised on 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3) — as they are here — we have not required exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies, recognizing the paramount role Congress has assigned to the federal courts to protect constitutional rights. See, e. g., McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668 (1963); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961). But exhaustion of state remedies is precisely what would be required if both federal injunctive and declaratory relief were unavailable in a case where no state prosecution had been commenced.
  Ill
  Respondents, however, relying principally upon our decision in Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611 (1968), argue that, although it may be appropriate to issue a declaratory judgment when no state criminal proceeding is pending and the attack is upon the facial validity of a state criminal statute, such a step would be improper where, as here, the attack is merely upon the constitutionality of the statute as applied, since the State's interest in unencumbered enforcement of its laws outweighs the minimal federal interest in protecting the constitutional rights of only a single individual. We reject the argument.
  In Cameron v. Johnson, the appellants sought a declaratory judgment that a Mississippi anti-picketing law was an overly broad and vague regulation of protected expression and an injunction restraining pending prosecutions against them for violations of the statute. We agreed with the District Court that the statute was not overly broad or vague and that nothing in the record supported appellants’ assertion that they were being prosecuted in bad faith. In that circumstance, we held that “[t]he mere possibility of erroneous application of the statute does not amount 'to the irreparable injury necessary to justify a disruption of orderly state proceedings.’ . . . The issue of guilt or innocence is for the state court at the criminal trial; the State was not required to prove appellants guilty in the federal proceeding to escape the finding that the State had no expectation of securing valid convictions.” Id., at 621. Our holding in Cameron was thus that the state courts in which prosecutions were already pending would have to be given the first opportunity to correct any misapplication of the state criminal laws; Cameron is plainly not authority for the proposition that, in the absence of a pending state proceeding, a federal plaintiff may not seek a declaratory judgment that the state statute is being applied in violation of his constitutional rights.
  Indeed, the State's concern with potential interference in the administration of its criminal laws is of lesser dimension when an attack is made upon the constitutionality of a state statute as applied. A declaratory judgment of a lower federal court that a state statute is invalid in toto — and therefore incapable of any valid application — or is overbroad or vague — and therefore no person can properly be convicted under the statute until it is given a narrowing or clarifying construction, see, e. g., United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U. S. 363, 369 (1971); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 520 (1972) — will likely have a more significant potential for disruption of state enforcement policies than a declaration specifying a limited number of impermissible applications of the statute. While the federal interest may be greater when a state statute is attacked on its face, since there exists the potential for eliminating any broad-ranging deterrent effect on would-be actors, see Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479 (1965), we do not find this consideration controlling. The solitary individual who suffers a deprivation of his constitutional rights is no less deserving of redress than one who suffers together with others.
  We therefore hold that, regardless of whether injunc-tive relief may be appropriate, federal declaratory relief is not precluded when no state prosecution is pending and a federal plaintiff demonstrates a genuine threat of enforcement of a disputed state criminal statute, whether an attack is made on the constitutionality of the statute on its face or as applied. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
  It is so ordered.
  This statute provides:
  “(a) A person commits criminal trespass when he intentionally damages any property of another without his consent and the damage thereto is $100 or less, or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without his consent.
  “(b) A person commits criminal trespass when he knowingly and without authority:
  “(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person, or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person, for an unlawful purpose; or
  “ (2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person, or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person, after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or
  “(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person, or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person, after receiving notice from the owner or rightful occupant to depart.
  “(c) A person convicted of criminal trespass shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.”
  At a hearing in the District Court, petitioner testified that on another occasion, prior to June 1970, he had also been threatened with arrest for handbilling at the shopping center. At that time, the police had shown him the statute they intended to enforce, presumably § 26-1503. R. 140-141.
  We were advised at oral argument that the trial of petitioner’s companion, Sandra Lee Becker, has been stayed pending decision of this case. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 31.
  At the District Court hearing, counsel for the police officers indicated that arrests in fact would be made if warrants sworn out by shopping center personnel were facially proper. R. 134.
  The complaint was initially styled as a class action. Named as plaintiffs were petitioner, a minor suing through his father; Sandra Lee Becker, petitioner’s handbilling companion against whom a prosecution was pending under the Georgia statute, see n. 3, supra, also a minor suing through her father; and the Atlanta Mobilization Committee. The complaint had also sought to enjoin plaintiff Becker’s pending prosecution. Only petitioner appealed from the District Court’s decision denying all relief.
  Petitioner’s notice of appeal challenged the denial of both injunctive and declaratory relief. However, in his appellate brief, he abandoned his appeal from denial of injunctive relief. Becker v. Thompson, 459 F. 2d 919, 921 (CA5 1972).
  Since the complaint had originally sought to enjoin enforcement of the state statute on grounds of unconstitutionality, a three-judge district court should have been convened. See 28 U. S. C. § 2281; Goosby v. Osser, 409 U. S. 512 (1973); Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713, 715 (1962). A three-judge court is required even if the constitutional attack — as here — is upon the statute as applied, see Department of Employment v. United States, 385 U. S. 355 (1966); Query v. United States, 316 U. S. 486 (1942); Ex parte Bransford, 310 U. S. 354, 361 (1940); see generally Currie, The Three-Judge District Court in Constitutional Litigation, 32 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, 37-50 (1964); and is normally required even if the decision is to dismiss under Younger-Samuels principles, since an exercise of discretion will usually be necessary, see Jones v. Wade, 479 F. 2d 1176, 1180 (CA5 1973); Abele v. Markle, 452 F. 2d 1121, 1125 (CA2 1971); see generally Note, The Three-Judge District Court: Scope and Procedure Under Section 2281, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 299, 309 (1963). But since petitioner’s request for injunctive relief was abandoned on appeal, see n. 6, supra, and only a request for declaratory relief remained, the Court of Appeals did not err in exercising jurisdiction over the appeal. Cf. Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 123 (1973) ; Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U. S. 427 (1970); Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 152-155 (1963); Stratton v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 282 U. S. 10, 16 (1930).
  Other federal courts have entertained applications for injunctive and declaratory relief in the absence of a pending state prosecution. See, e. g., Thoms v. Heffernan, 473 F. 2d 478 (CA2 1973), aff'g 334 F. Supp. 1203 (Conn. 1971) (three-judge court); Wulp v. Corcoran, 454 F. 2d 826 (CA1 1972); Crossen v. Breckenridge, 446 F. 2d 833 (CA6 1971); Lewis v. Kugler, 446 F. 2d 1343 (CA3 1971); Anderson v. Vaughn, 327 F. Supp. 101 (Conn. 1971) (three-judge court). Even the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has limited the scope of the instant decision by entertaining an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in the absence of a state prosecution when the federal suit attacked the facial validity of a state statute rather than the validity of the statute as applied. See Jones v. Wade, supra (Wisdom, J.).
  Section 2201 provides:
  “In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.”
  Section 2202 further provides:
  “Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment.”
  The rule in federal eases is that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed. See, e. g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S., at 125; SEC v. Medical Comm. for Human Rights, 404 U. S. 403 (1972); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).
  The Court noted that under 28 U. S. C. §2202 a declaratory judgment might serve as the basis for issuance of a later injunction to give effect to the declaratory judgment, see n. 9, supra, and that a declaratory judgment might have a res judicata effect on the pending state proceeding. 401 U. S., at 72.
  We note that, in those cases where injunctive relief has been sought to restrain an imminent, but not yet pending, prosecution for past conduct, sufficient injury has not been found to warrant injunctive relief, see Beal v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 312 U. S. 45 (1941); Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89 (1935); Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240 (1926). There is some question, however, whether a showing of irreparable injury might be made in a case where, although no prosecution is pending or impending, an individual demonstrates that he will be required to forgo constitutionally protected activity in order to avoid arrest. Compare Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479 (1965); Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S. 497 (1925); and Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 214, 216 (1923), with Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157 (1943); see generally Note, Implications of the Younger Cases for the Availability of Federal Equitable Relief When No State Prosecution is Pending, 72 Col. L. Rev. 874 (1972).
  "Sensitiveness to ‘states’ rights’, fear of rivalry with state courts and respect for state sentiment, were swept aside by the great impulse of national feeling born of the Civil War. Nationalism was triumphant; in national administration was sought its vindication. The new exertions of federal power were no longer trusted to the enforcement of state agencies.” F. Frankfurter & J. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court 64 (1928).
  In the last days of the John Adams administration, general federal-question jurisdiction had been granted to the federal courts by § 11 of the Midnight Judges Act, 2 Stat. 92 (1801). The Act was repealed only one year later by § 1 of the Act of Mar. 8, 1802, 2 Stat. 132.
  The histories of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Judiciary Act of 1875 are detailed in Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 245-247 (1967).
  The three-judge-court procedure, with expedited review, was modeled after the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, now 15 U. S. C. §§ 28-29; 49 U. S. C. §§ 44-45, requiring that for certain antitrust cases certified by the Attorney General to be of particular public importance a three-judge court be convened with direct appeal to the Supreme Court, as well as a 1906 Act, 34 Stat. 584, 592, applying the same procedure to suits brought to restrain, annul, or set aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission. See Hutcheson, A Case for Three Judges, 47 Harv. L. Rev. 795, 810 (1934).
  The three-judge-court provision was amended in 1913 to apply also to interlocutory injunctions restraining enforcement of state administrative or commission orders. C. 160, 37 Stat. 1013. It was further amended in 1925 to extend the three-judge requirement and the direct-appeal provisions to the final hearing on a permanent injunction, thereby ending the anomalous situation in which a single judge, at the final hearing, could overrule the decision of three judges granting an interlocutory injunction. 43 Stat. 936, 938. When the statute was codified in 1948, it was made applicable to all actions seeking either a preliminary or permanent injunction, Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U. S. 471, 478 n. 3 (1970). See generally H. Hart & H. Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 967-968 (2d ed. 1973); C. Wright, Federal Courts § 50, pp. 188-189 (2d ed. 1970).
  As Professor Borchard, a principal proponent and author of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, said in a written statement introduced at the hearings on the Act:
  “It often happens that courts are unwilling to grant injunctions to restrain the enforcement of penal statutes or ordinances, and relegate the plaintiff to his option, either to violate the statute and take his chances in testing constitutionality on a criminal prosecution, or else to [forgo], in the fear of prosecution, the exercise of his claimed rights. Into this dilemma no civilized legal system operating under a constitution should force any person. The court, in effect, by refusing an injunction informs the prospective victim that the only way to determine whether the suspect is a mushroom or a toadstool, is to eat it. Assuming that the plaintiff has a vital interest in the enforcement of the challenged statute or ordinance, there is no reason why a declaratory judgment should not be issued, instead of compelling a violation of the statute as a condition precedent to challenging its constitutionality.” Hearings on H. R. 5623 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 75-76 (1928). See E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments x-xi (2d ed. 1941).
  The pending prosecution of petitioner’s handbilling companion does not affect petitioner’s action for declaratory relief. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), while the pending prosecution of Dr. Hallford under the Texas Abortion law was found to render his action for declaratory and injunctive relief impermissible, this did not prevent our granting plaintiff Roe, against whom no action was pending, a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional. Id., at 125-127, 166-167; see Lems v. Kugler, 446 F. 2d 1343, 1349 (CA3 1971).
  In Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman, employers sought a declaration that a state unemployment compensation scheme imposing a tax upon them was unconstitutional as applied. Although not relying on the precise terms of 28 U. S. C. § 41 (1) (1940 ed.), now 28 U. S. C. § 1341, which ousts the district courts of jurisdiction to “enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remed3<' may be had in the courts of such State,” the Court, recognizing the unique effects of anticipatory adjudication on tax administration, held that declaratory relief should be withheld when the taxpayer was provided an opportunity to maintain a refund suit after payment of the disputed tax. “In contrast, there is no statutory counterpart of 28 U. S. C. § 1341 applicable to intervention in state criminal prosecutions.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 128 (1971) (separate opinion of Brennan, J.).
  Abstention, a question "entirely separate from the question of granting declaratory or injunctive relief,” Lake Carriers’ Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U. S. 498, 509 n. 13 (1972), might be more appropriate when a challenge is made to the state statute as applied, rather than upon its face, since the reach of an uncertain state statute might, in that circumstance, be more susceptible of a limiting or clarifying construction that would avoid the federal constitutional question. Cf. Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S., at 249-252, 254; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 375-378 (1964).
  Some two years after petitioner attempted to handbill at the shopping center, respondent Hudgens, the owner of the center, commenced an action in the Superior Court of Fulton County seeking a declaration of his rights concerning the center's rules against hand-billing and related activities. We were advised at oral argument that the state action had been dismissed by the trial court but that an appeal is pending before the Georgia Supreme Court. Since we do not require petitioner first to seek vindication of his federal rights in a state declaratory judgment action, see Lake Carriers’ Assn. v. MacMullan, supra, at 510; Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433 (1971), consideration of abstention by the District Court would be inappropriate unless the action commenced by respondent Hudgens could be shown to present a substantial and immediate possibility of obviating petitioner’s federal claim by a decision on state law grounds. Cf. Askew v. Hargrave, 401 U. S. 476, 478 (1971); Reetz.v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. 82 (1970).
choices: attorney general of the United States, or his office specified state board or department of education city, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit state commission, board, committee, or authority county government or county governmental unit, except school district court or judicial district state department or agency governmental employee or job applicant female governmental employee or job applicant minority governmental employee or job applicant minority female governmental employee or job applicant not listed among agencies in the first Administrative Action variable retired or former governmental employee U.S. House of Representatives interstate compact judge state legislature, house, or committee local governmental unit other than a county, city, town, township, village, or borough governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact state or U.S. supreme court local school district or board of education U.S. Senate U.S. senator foreign nation or instrumentality state or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate of state college or university United States State person accused, indicted, or suspected of crime advertising business or agency agent, fiduciary, trustee, or executor airplane manufacturer, or manufacturer of parts of airplanes airline distributor, importer, or exporter of alcoholic beverages alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked American Medical Association National Railroad Passenger Corp. amusement establishment, or recreational facility arrested person, or pretrial detainee attorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association author, copyright holder bank, savings and loan, credit union, investment company bankrupt person or business, or business in reorganization establishment serving liquor by the glass, or package liquor store water transportation, stevedore bookstore, newsstand, printer, bindery, purveyor or distributor of books or magazines brewery, distillery broker, stock exchange, investment or securities firm construction industry bus or motorized passenger transportation vehicle business, corporation buyer, purchaser cable TV car dealer person convicted of crime tangible property, other than real estate, including contraband chemical company child, children, including adopted or illegitimate religious organization, institution, or person private club or facility coal company or coal mine operator computer business or manufacturer, hardware or software consumer, consumer organization creditor, including institution appearing as such; e.g., a finance company person allegedly criminally insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial defendant debtor real estate developer disabled person or disability benefit claimant distributor person subject to selective service, including conscientious objector drug manufacturer druggist, pharmacist, pharmacy employee, or job applicant, including beneficiaries of employer-employee trust agreement, employee health and welfare fund, or multi-employer pension plan electric equipment manufacturer electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company eleemosynary institution or person environmental organization employer. If employer's relations with employees are governed by the nature of the employer's business (e.g., railroad, boat), rather than labor law generally, the more specific designation is used in place of Employer. farmer, farm worker, or farm organization father female employee or job applicant female movie, play, pictorial representation, theatrical production, actor, or exhibitor or distributor of fisherman or fishing company food, meat packing, or processing company, stockyard foreign (non-American) nongovernmental entity franchiser franchisee lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization person who guarantees another's obligations handicapped individual, or organization of devoted to health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor heir, or beneficiary, or person so claiming to be hospital, medical center husband, or ex-husband involuntarily committed mental patient Indian, including Indian tribe or nation insurance company, or surety inventor, patent assigner, trademark owner or holder investor injured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related juvenile government contractor holder of a license or permit, or applicant therefor magazine male medical or Medicaid claimant medical supply or manufacturing co. racial or ethnic minority employee or job applicant minority female employee or job applicant manufacturer management, executive officer, or director, of business entity military personnel, or dependent of, including reservist mining company or miner, excluding coal, oil, or pipeline company mother auto manufacturer newspaper, newsletter, journal of opinion, news service radio and television network, except cable tv nonprofit organization or business nonresident nuclear power plant or facility owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels shareholders to whom a tender offer is made tender offer oil company, or natural gas producer elderly person, or organization dedicated to the elderly out of state noncriminal defendant political action committee parent or parents parking lot or service patient of a health professional telephone, telecommunications, or telegraph company physician, MD or DO, dentist, or medical society public interest organization physically injured person, including wrongful death, who is not an employee pipe line company package, luggage, container political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official indigent, needy, welfare recipient indigent defendant private person prisoner, inmate of penal institution professional organization, business, or person probationer, or parolee protester, demonstrator, picketer or pamphleteer (non-employment related), or non-indigent loiterer public utility publisher, publishing company radio station racial or ethnic minority person or organization protesting racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination racial or ethnic minority student or applicant for admission to an educational institution realtor journalist, columnist, member of the news media resident restaurant, food vendor retarded person, or mental incompetent retired or former employee railroad private school, college, or university seller or vendor shipper, including importer and exporter shopping center, mall spouse, or former spouse stockholder, shareholder, or bondholder retail business or outlet student, or applicant for admission to an educational institution taxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only tenant or lessee theater, studio forest products, lumber, or logging company person traveling or wishing to travel abroad, or overseas travel agent trucking company, or motor carrier television station union member unemployed person or unemployment compensation applicant or claimant union, labor organization, or official of veteran voter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL) wholesale trade wife, or ex-wife witness, or person under subpoena network slave slave-owner bank of the united states timber company u.s. job applicants or employees Army and Air Force Exchange Service Atomic Energy Commission Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force Department or Secretary of Agriculture Alien Property Custodian Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army Board of Immigration Appeals Bureau of Indian Affairs Bonneville Power Administration Benefits Review Board Civil Aeronautics Board Bureau of the Census Central Intelligence Agency Commodity Futures Trading Commission Department or Secretary of Commerce Comptroller of Currency Consumer Product Safety Commission Civil Rights Commission Civil Service Commission, U.S. Customs Service or Commissioner of Customs Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission Drug Enforcement Agency Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War) Department or Secretary of Energy Department or Secretary of the Interior Department of Justice or Attorney General Department or Secretary of State Department or Secretary of Transportation Department or Secretary of Education U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator Federal Aviation Agency or Administration Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director Federal Bureau of Prisons Farm Credit Administration Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission) Federal Credit Union Administration Food and Drug Administration Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Federal Energy Administration Federal Election Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Housing Administration Federal Home Loan Bank Board Federal Labor Relations Authority Federal Maritime Board Federal Maritime Commission Farmers Home Administration Federal Parole Board Federal Power Commission Federal Railroad Administration Federal Reserve Board of Governors Federal Reserve System Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation Federal Trade Commission Federal Works Administration, or Administrator General Accounting Office Comptroller General General Services Administration Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Interstate Commerce Commission Indian Claims Commission Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of Information Security Oversight Office Department or Secretary of Labor Loyalty Review Board Legal Services Corporation Merit Systems Protection Board Multistate Tax Commission National Aeronautics and Space Administration Secretary or administrative unit of the U.S. Navy National Credit Union Administration National Endowment for the Arts National Enforcement Commission National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer National Mediation Board National Railroad Adjustment Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission National Security Agency Office of Economic Opportunity Office of Management and Budget Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator Office of Personnel Management Occupational Safety and Health Administration Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970) Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation U.S. Public Health Service Postal Rate Commission Provider Reimbursement Review Board Renegotiation Board Railroad Adjustment Board Railroad Retirement Board Subversive Activities Control Board Small Business Administration Securities and Exchange Commission Social Security Administration or Commissioner Selective Service System Department or Secretary of the Treasury Tennessee Valley Authority United States Forest Service United States Parole Commission Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster United States Sentencing Commission Veterans' Administration War Production Board Wage Stabilization Board General Land Office of Commissioners Transportation Security Administration Surface Transportation Board U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. Reconstruction Finance Corp. Department or Secretary of Homeland Security Unidentifiable International Entity