The plaintiffs noted that a case refining Pullman called Government and Civil Employees Organizing Committee, CIO v. Windsor, 353 U.S. 364 (1957) had held that the judgment of the state court was meaningless unless the state court was aware that constitutional questions had also been raised as to the validity of the statute.

The plaintiffs therefore brought both claims in the Louisiana state court (as they believed Pullman and Windsor required).

The defendant then sought a dismissal on res judicata grounds, contending that the decision of the state court was binding as to the constitutional issue.

Can the federal court hear the case once the state has ruled on the merits of the constitutional issue?

Because the plaintiffs in this case believed that they were just following the law as required, they would not be barred from continuing in the federal court.