In the case of Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs (2013), the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sprint Communications, reversing a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court that had abstained from hearing a dispute between Sprint and the Iowa Utilities Board under what is known as Younger Abstention Doctrine. The doctrine typically applies to federal courts deferring to state court proceedings in order to avoid conflicts on matters of important state interest or ongoing judicial processes. However, this case involved an administrative proceeding rather than a criminal one which was not considered within Younger's purview according to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who delivered the opinion for unanimous court ruling 9-0 in favor of Sprint Communication Inc., stating that such abstentions should be an exceptional rather than standard practice.

In the case of Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs (2013), there was no dissenting opinion recorded as the decision was unanimous with all justices agreeing on the outcome. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sprint Communications, stating that federal courts should not automatically abstain from deciding a case just because a similar issue is being addressed in state court proceedings. This ruling clarified and limited the circumstances under which federal courts can decline to exercise their jurisdiction due to concurrent state proceedings.