instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
Does a guilty plea bar a criminal defendant from later appealing his conviction on the ground that the statute of conviction violates the Constitution? In our view, a guilty plea by itself does not bar that appeal.
I
In September 2013, a federal grand jury indicted petitioner, Rodney Class, for possessing firearms in his locked jeep, which was parked in a lot on the grounds of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. See 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(1) ("An individual... may not carry... on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings a firearm"). Soon thereafter, Class, appearing pro se, asked the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the indictment. As relevant here, Class alleged that the statute, § 5104(e), violates the Second Amendment. App. in No. 15-3015 (CADC), pp. 32-33. He also raised a due process claim, arguing that he was denied fair notice that weapons were banned in the parking lot. Id., at 39. Following a hearing, the District Court denied both claims. App. to Pet. for Cert. 9a.
Several months later, Class pleaded guilty to "Possession of a Firearm on U.S. Capitol Grounds, in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)." App. 30. The Government agreed to drop related charges. Id., at 31.
A written plea agreement set forth the terms of Class' guilty plea, including several categories of rights that he expressly agreed to waive. Those express waivers included: (1) all defenses based upon the statute of limitations; (2) several specified trial rights; (3) the right to appeal a sentence at or below the judicially determined, maximum sentencing guideline range; (4) most collateral attacks on the conviction and sentence; and (5) various rights to request or receive information concerning the investigation and prosecution of his criminal case. Id., at 38-42. At the same time, the plea agreement expressly enumerated categories of claims that Class could raise on appeal, including claims based upon (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) certain statutes providing for sentence reductions. Id., at 41. Finally, the plea agreement stated under the heading "Complete Agreement":
"No agreements, promises, understandings, or representations have been made by the parties or their counsel other than those contained in writing herein, nor will any such agreements... be made unless committed to writing and signed...." Id., at 45.
The agreement said nothing about the right to raise on direct appeal a claim that the statute of conviction was unconstitutional.
The District Court held a plea hearing during which it reviewed the terms of the plea agreement (with Class present and under oath) to ensure the validity of the plea. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11(b) ; United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002) (defendant's guilty plea must be " 'voluntary' " and "related waivers" must be made " 'knowing[ly], intelligent[ly], [and] with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences' "). After providing Class with the required information and warnings, the District Court accepted his guilty plea. Class was sentenced to 24 days imprisonment followed by 12 months of supervised release.
Several days later, Class appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Class was appointed an amicus to aid him in presenting his arguments. He repeated his constitutional claims, namely, that the statute violates the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause because it fails to give fair notice of which areas fall within the Capitol Grounds where firearms are banned. The Court of Appeals held that Class could not raise his constitutional claims because, by pleading guilty, he had waived them. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a-5a. Class filed a petition for certiorari in this Court asking us to decide whether in pleading guilty a criminal defendant inherently waives the right to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction. We agreed to do so.
II
The question is whether a guilty plea by itself bars a federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction on direct appeal. We hold that it does not. Class did not relinquish his right to appeal the District Court's constitutional determinations simply by pleading guilty. As we shall explain, this holding flows directly from this Court's prior decisions.
Fifty years ago this Court directly addressed a similar claim (a claim that the statute of conviction was unconstitutional). And the Court stated that a defendant's "plea of guilty did not... waive his previous [constitutional] claim." Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 87, n. 2, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968). Though Justice Harlan's opinion for the Court in Haynes offered little explanation for this statement, subsequent decisions offered a rationale that applies here.
In Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974), North Carolina indicted and convicted Jimmy Seth Perry on a misdemeanor assault charge. When Perry exercised his right under a North Carolina statute to a de novo trial in a higher court, the State reindicted him, but this time the State charged a felony, which carried a heavier penalty, for the same conduct. Perry pleaded guilty. He then sought habeas relief on the grounds that the reindictment amounted to an unconstitutional vindictive prosecution. The State argued that Perry's guilty plea barred him from raising his constitutional challenge. But this Court held that it did not.
The Court noted that a guilty plea bars appeal of many claims, including some " 'antecedent constitutional violations' " related to events (say, grand jury proceedings) that had " 'occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.' " Id., at 30, 94 S.Ct. 2098 (quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266-267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) ). While Tollett claims were "of constitutional dimension," the Court explained that "the nature of the underlying constitutional infirmity is markedly different" from a claim of vindictive prosecution, which implicates "the very power of the State" to prosecute the defendant. Blackledge, 417 U.S., at 30, 94 S.Ct. 2098. Accordingly, the Court wrote that "the right" Perry "asserts and that we today accept is the right not to be haled into court at all upon the felony charge" since "[t]he very initiation of the proceedings" against Perry "operated to deprive him due process of law." Id., at 30-31, 94 S.Ct. 2098.
A year and a half later, in Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 96 S.Ct. 241, 46 L.Ed.2d 195 (1975) (per curiam ), this Court repeated what it had said and held in Blackledge. After Menna served a 30-day jail term for refusing to testify before the grand jury on November 7, 1968, the State of New York charged him once again for (what Menna argued was) the same crime. Menna pleaded guilty, but subsequently appealed arguing that the new charge violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. U.S. Const., Amdt. 5. The lower courts held that Menna's constitutional claim had been "waived" by his guilty plea.
This Court reversed. Citing Blackledge, supra, at 30, 94 S.Ct. 2098 the Court held that "a plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that-judged on its face-the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute." Menna, 423 U.S., at 63, and n. 2, 96 S.Ct. 241. Menna's claim amounted to a claim that "the State may not convict" him "no matter how validly his factual guilt is established." Ibid. Menna's "guilty plea, therefore, [did] not bar the claim." Ibid.
These holdings reflect an understanding of the nature of guilty pleas which, in broad outline, stretches back nearly 150 years. In 1869 Justice Ames wrote for the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts:
"The plea of guilty is, of course, a confession of all the facts charged in the indictment, and also of the evil intent imputed to the defendant. It is a waiver also of all merely technical and formal objections of which the defendant could have availed himself by any other plea or motion. But if the facts alleged and admitted do not constitute a crime against the laws of the Commonwealth, the defendant is entitled to be discharged." Commonwealth v. Hinds, 101 Mass. 209, 210.
Decisions of federal and state courts throughout the 19th and 20th centuries reflect a similar view of the nature of a guilty plea. See United States v. Ury, 106 F.2d 28 (C.A.2 1939) (holding the "plea of guilty did not foreclose the appellant," who argued that a statute was unconstitutional, "from the review he now seeks" (citing earlier cases)); Hocking Valley R. Co. v. United States, 210 F. 735 (C.A.6 1914) (holding that a defendant may raise the claim that, because the indictment did not charge an offense no crime has been committed, for it is "the settled rule that," despite a guilty plea, a defendant "may urge" such a contention "in the reviewing court"); Carper v. State, 27 Ohio St. 572, 575 (1875) (same). We refer to these cases because it was against this background that Justice Harlan in his opinion for the Court made the statement to which we originally referred, namely, that a defendant's "plea of guilty did not, of course, waive his previous [constitutional] claim." Haynes, 390 U.S., at 87, n. 2, 88 S.Ct. 722 (citing Ury, supra, at 28).
In more recent years, we have reaffirmed the Menna -Blackledge doctrine and refined its scope. In United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989), the defendants pleaded guilty to two separate indictments in a single proceeding which "on their face" described two separate bid-rigging conspiracies. Id., at 576, 109 S.Ct. 757. They later sought to challenge their convictions on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that they had only admitted to one conspiracy. Citing Blackledge and Menna, this Court repeated that a guilty plea does not bar a claim on appeal "where on the face of the record the court had no power to enter the conviction or impose the sentence." 488 U.S., at 569, 109 S.Ct. 757. However, because the defendants could not "prove their claim by relying on those indictments and the existing record" and "without contradicting those indictments," this Court held that their claims were "foreclosed by the admissions inherent in their guilty pleas." Id., at 576, 109 S.Ct. 757.
Unlike the claims in Broce, Class' constitutional claims here, as we understand them, do not contradict the terms of the indictment or the written plea agreement. They are consistent with Class' knowing, voluntary, and intelligent admission that he did what the indictment alleged. Those claims can be "resolved without any need to venture beyond that record." Id., at 575, 109 S.Ct. 757.
Nor do Class' claims focus upon case-related constitutional defects that " 'occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.' " Blackledge, 417 U.S., at 30, 94 S.Ct. 2098. They could not, for example, "have been 'cured' through a new indictment by a properly selected grand jury." Ibid. (citing Tollett, 411 U.S., at 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602 ). Because the defendant has admitted the charges against him, a guilty plea makes the latter kind of constitutional claim "irrelevant to the constitutional validity of the conviction." Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 321, 103 S.Ct. 2368, 76 L.Ed.2d 595 (1983). But the cases to which we have referred make clear that a defendant's guilty plea does not make irrelevant the kind of constitutional claim Class seeks to make.
In sum, the claims at issue here do not fall within any of the categories of claims that Class' plea agreement forbids him to raise on direct appeal. They challenge the Government's power to criminalize Class' (admitted) conduct. They thereby call into question the Government's power to " 'constitutionally prosecute' " him. Broce, supra, at 575, 109 S.Ct. 757 (quoting Menna, supra, at 61-62, n. 2, 96 S.Ct. 241 ). A guilty plea does not bar a direct appeal in these circumstances.
III
We are not convinced by the three basic arguments that the Government and the dissent make in reply.
First, the Government contends that by entering a guilty plea, Class inherently relinquished his constitutional claims. The Government is correct that a guilty plea does implicitly waive some claims, including some constitutional claims. However, as we explained in Part II, supra, Class' valid guilty plea does not, by itself, bar direct appeal of his constitutional claims in these circumstances.
As an initial matter, a valid guilty plea "forgoes not only a fair trial, but also other accompanying constitutional guarantees." Ruiz, 536 U.S., at 628-629, 122 S.Ct. 2450. While those "simultaneously" relinquished rights include the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the jury trial right, and the right to confront accusers, McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), they do not include "a waiver of the privileges which exist beyond the confines of the trial." Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 324, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999). Here, Class' statutory right directly to appeal his conviction "cannot in any way be characterized as part of the trial." Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 165, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012).
A valid guilty plea also renders irrelevant-and thereby prevents the defendant from appealing-the constitutionality of case-related government conduct that takes place before the plea is entered. See, e.g., Haring, supra, at 320, 103 S.Ct. 2368 (holding a valid guilty plea "results in the defendant's loss of any meaningful opportunity he might otherwise have had to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment"). Neither can the defendant later complain that the indicting grand jury was unconstitutionally selected. Tollett, supra, at 266, 93 S.Ct. 1602. But, as we have said, those kinds of claims are not at issue here.
Finally, a valid guilty plea relinquishes any claim that would contradict the "admissions necessarily made upon entry of a voluntary plea of guilty." Broce, supra, at 573-574, 109 S.Ct. 757. But the constitutional claim at issue here is consistent with Class' admission that he engaged in the conduct alleged in the indictment. Unlike the defendants in Broce, Class' challenge does not in any way deny that he engaged in the conduct to which he admitted.
Instead, like the defendants in Blackledge and Menna, he seeks to raise a claim which, " 'judged on its face' " based upon the existing record, would extinguish the government's power to " 'constitutionally prosecute' " the defendant if the claim were successful. Broce, supra, at 575, 109 S.Ct. 757 (quoting Menna, 423 U.S., at 62-63, and n. 2, 96 S.Ct. 241 ).
Second, the Government and the dissent point to Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs "conditional" guilty pleas. The Rule states:
"Conditional Plea. With the consent of the court and the government, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion. A defendant who prevails on appeal may then withdraw the plea."
The Government and the dissent argue that Rule 11(a)(2) means that "a defendant who pleads guilty cannot challenge his conviction on appeal on a forfeitable or waivable ground that he either failed to present to the district court or failed to reserve in writing." Brief for United States 23; see also post, at 808 - 809, 816 (opinion of ALITO, J.). They support this argument by pointing to the notes of the Advisory Committee that drafted the text of Rule 11(a)(2). See Advisory Committee's Notes on 1983 Amendments to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11, 18 U.S.C.App., p. 911 (hereinafter Advisory Committee's Notes). In particular, the dissent points to the suggestion that an unconditional guilty plea constitutes a waiver of "nonjurisdictional defects," while the Government points to the drafters' statement that they intended the Rule's "conditional plea procedure... to conserve prosecutorial and judicial resources and advance speedy trial objectives," while ensuring "much needed uniformity in the federal system on this matter." Ibid. ; see United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 64, n. 6, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002) (approving of Advisory Committee's Notes as relevant evidence of the drafters' intent). The Government adds that its interpretation of the Rule furthers these basic purposes. And, the argument goes, just as defendants must use Rule 11(a)(2)'s procedures to preserve, for instance, Fourth Amendment unlawful search-and-seizure claims, so must they use it to preserve the constitutional claims at issue here.
The problem with this argument is that, by its own terms, the Rule itself does not say whether it sets forth the exclusive procedure for a defendant to preserve a constitutional claim following a guilty plea. At the same time, the drafters' notes acknowledge that the "Supreme Court has held that certain kinds of constitutional objections may be raised after a plea of guilty." Advisory Committee's Notes, at 912. The notes then specifically refer to the "Menna-Blackledge doctrine." Ibid. They add that the Rule "should not be interpreted as either broadening or narrowing [that] doctrine or as establishing procedures for its application." Ibid. And the notes state that Rule 11(a)(2)"has no application" to the "kinds of constitutional objections" that may be raised under that doctrine. Ibid. The applicability of the Menna-Blackledge doctrine is at issue in this case. Cf. Broce, 488 U.S., at 569, 109 S.Ct. 757 (acknowledging Menna and Blackledge as covering claims "where on the face of the record the court had no power to enter the conviction or impose the sentence"). We therefore hold that Rule 11(a)(2) cannot resolve this case.
Third, the Government argues that Class "expressly waived" his right to appeal his constitutional claim. Brief for United States 15. The Government concedes that the written plea agreement, which sets forth the "Complete Agreement" between Class and the Government, see App. 45-46, does not contain this waiver. Id., at 48-49. Rather, the Government relies on the fact that during the Rule 11 plea colloquy, the District Court Judge stated that, under the written plea agreement, Class was "giving up [his] right to appeal [his] conviction." Id., at 76. And Class agreed.
We do not see why the District Court Judge's statement should bar Class' constitutional claims. It was made to ensure Class understood "the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence." Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11(b)(1)(N). It does not expressly refer to a waiver of the appeal right here at issue. And if it is interpreted as expressly including that appeal right, it was wrong, as the Government acknowledged at oral argument. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 35-36. Under these circumstances, Class' acquiescence neither expressly nor implicitly waived his right to appeal his constitutional claims.
* * *
For these reasons, we hold that Rodney Class may pursue his constitutional claims on direct appeal. The contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Roughly 95% of felony cases in the federal and state courts are resolved by guilty pleas. Therefore it is critically important that defendants, prosecutors, and judges understand the consequences of these pleas. In this case, the parties have asked us to identify the claims that a defendant can raise on appeal after entering an unconditional guilty plea. Regrettably, the Court provides no clear answer.
By my count, the Court identifies no fewer than five rules for ascertaining the issues that can be raised. According to the Court, a defendant who pleads guilty may assert on appeal (1) a claim that "implicates 'the very power of the State' to prosecute [him]," ante, at 808, (2) a claim that does not contradict the facts alleged in the charging document, ante, at 809 - 810, (3) a claim that " 'the facts alleged and admitted do not constitute a crime,' " ante, at 814, and (4) claims other than "case-related constitutional defects that 'occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea,' " ante, at 809 - 810 (some internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, the Court suggests (5) that such a defendant may not be able to assert a claim that "contradict[s] the terms of... [a] written plea agreement," ante, at 809, but whether this rule applies when the claim falls into one of the prior four categories is left unclear. How these rules fit together is anybody's guess. And to make matters worse, the Court also fails to make clear whether its holding is based on the Constitution or some other ground.
I
There is no justification for the muddle left by today's decision. The question at issue is not conceptually complex. In determining whether a plea of guilty prevents a defendant in federal or state court from raising a particular issue on appeal, the first question is whether the Federal Constitution precludes waiver. If the Federal Constitution permits waiver, the next question is whether some other law nevertheless bars waiver. And if no law prevents waiver, the final question is whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to raise the claim on appeal. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 766, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970).
Petitioner Rodney Class was charged with violating a federal statute that forbids the carrying of firearms on the grounds of the United States Capitol. See 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(1). After entering an unconditional guilty plea, he appealed his conviction, asserting that his conduct was protected by the Second Amendment and that the statute he violated is unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, holding that Class had relinquished his right to litigate these claims when he entered his unconditional plea.
Analyzing this case under the framework set out above, I think the Court of Appeals was clearly correct. First, the Federal Constitution does not prohibit the waiver of the rights Class asserts. We have held that most personal constitutional rights may be waived, see, e.g., Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 936-937, 111 S.Ct. 2661, 115 L.Ed.2d 808 (1991), and Class concedes that this is so with respect to the rights he is asserting, Tr. of Oral Arg. 5, 18.
Second, no federal statute or rule bars waiver. On the contrary, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that, with one exception that I will discuss below, a defendant who enters an unconditional plea waives all nonjurisdictional claims. Although the Rule does not say this expressly, that is the unmistakable implication of subdivision (a)(2), which allows a defendant, "[w]ith the consent of the court and the government," to "enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion." "Where [a law] explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of evidence of a contrary... intent." Andrus v. Glover Constr. Co., 446 U.S. 608, 616-617, 100 S.Ct. 1905, 64 L.Ed.2d 548 (1980). And here, there is strong evidence confirming that other exceptions were ruled out.
The Advisory Committee's Notes on Rule 11 make this clear, stating that an unconditional plea (with the previously mentioned exception) "constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects." Notes on 1983 Amendments, 18 U.S.C.App., p. 911. Advisory Committee's Notes on a federal rule of procedure "provide a reliable source of insight into the meaning of a rule, especially when, as here, the rule was enacted precisely as the Advisory Committee proposed." United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 64, n. 6, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). Subdivision (a)(2) was adopted against the backdrop of decisions of this Court holding that a guilty plea generally relinquishes all defenses to conviction, see, e.g., Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973), and Rule 11(a)(2) creates a limited exception to that general principle. Far from prohibiting the waiver of nonjurisdictional claims, Rule 11 actually bars the raising of such claims (once again, with the previously mentioned exception).
For now, I will skip over that exception and proceed to the final question-whether Class voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to raise his Second Amendment and due process claims on appeal. It is not clear that he raised this question in the Court of Appeals, and in any event, this fact-specific inquiry is not within the scope of the question of law on which we granted review: "Whether a guilty plea inherently waives a defendant's right to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction." Pet. for Cert. i. The Court does not decide the case on that ground. Nor would I.
II
A
I now turn to the one exception mentioned in the Advisory Committee's Notes on Rule 11 -what the Notes, rather grandly, term the "Menna-Blackledge doctrine." Advisory Committee's Notes, 18 U.S.C. App., at 912. This "doctrine" consists of Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974), a thinly reasoned decision handed down 44 years ago, and Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 96 S.Ct. 241, 46 L.Ed.2d 195 (1975) (per curiam ), a per curiam decision issued the next year. These cases hold that a defendant has the right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to contest certain issues on appeal even if the defendant entered an unconditional guilty plea. Since a rule of procedure cannot abrogate a constitutional right, the Advisory Committee's Notes on Rule 11 specify that Rule 11(a)(2)"has no application" to the "Menna-Blackledge doctrine" and "should not be interpreted as either broadening or narrowing [that] doctrine or as establishing procedures for its application." Advisory Committee's Notes, 18 U.S.C. App., at 912.
Because this doctrine is the only exception recognized in Rule 11 and because the doctrine figures prominently in the opinion of the Court, it is important to examine its foundation and meaning.
B
Blackledge and Menna represented marked departures from our prior decisions. Before they were handed down, our precedents were clear: When a defendant pleaded guilty to a crime, he relinquished his right to litigate all nonjurisdictional challenges to his conviction (except for the claim that his plea was not voluntary and intelligent), and the prosecution could assert this forfeiture to defeat a subsequent appeal. The theory was easy to understand. As we explained in Tollett, our view was that "a guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process." 411 U.S., at 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602. The defendant's decision to plead guilty extinguished his right to litigate whatever "possible defenses" or "constitutional plea[s] in abatement" he might have pursued at trial or on appeal. Id., at 267-268, 93 S.Ct. 1602. Guilty pleas were understood to have this effect because a guilty plea comprises both factual and legal concessions. Hence, we said in Tollett, a defendant who pleads guilty is barred from contesting not only the "historical facts" but also the "constitutional significance " of those facts, even if he failed to "correctly apprais[e]" that significance at the time of his plea. Id., at 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602 (emphasis added).
When Tollett declared that a guilty plea encompasses all legal and factual concessions necessary to authorize the conviction, it was simply reiterating a principle we had enunciated many times before, most recently in the so-called "Brady trilogy." See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) ("[T]he plea is more than an admission of past conduct; it is the defendant's consent that judgment of conviction may be entered"); McMann, 397 U.S., at 774, 90 S.Ct. 1441 (a defendant who pleads guilty "assumes the risk of ordinary error in either his or his attorney's assessment of the law and facts"); Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790, 797, 90 S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785 (1970) (similar). As we put it in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), "[a] plea of guilty is more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts; it is itself a conviction; nothing remains but to give judgment and determine punishment."
On the strength of that rule, we held that defendants who pleaded guilty forfeited a variety of important constitutional claims. For instance, a defendant who pleaded guilty could not attack his conviction on the ground that the prosecution violated the Equal Protection Clause by systematically excluding African-Americans from grand juries in the county where he was indicted. Tollett, supra, at 266, 93 S.Ct. 1602. Nor could he argue that the prosecution unlawfully coerced his confession-even if the confession was the only evidence supporting the conviction. McMann, supra, at 768, 90 S.Ct. 1441 ; Parker, supra, at 796-797, 90 S.Ct. 1458. Nor could he assert that his statute of conviction employed an unconstitutional penalty provision; his consent to be punished under the statute precluded this defense. Brady, supra, at 756-757, 90 S.Ct. 1463. Reflecting our general thinking, then-Judge Burger explained: "[I]f voluntarily and understandingly made, even a layman should expect a plea of guilty to be treated as an honest confession of guilt and a waiver of all defenses known and unknown. And such is the law." Edwards v. United States, 256 F.2d 707, 709 (C.A.D.C.1958) (footnote omitted); see also A. Bishop, Waivers in Pleas of Guilty, 60 F.R.D. 513, 525-526 (1974) (summarizing the state of the law on the eve of Blackledge : "All the bulwarks of the fortress of defense are abandoned by the plea of guilty.... The plea of guilty surrenders all defenses whatever and all nonjurisdictional defects" (collecting cases)).
III
Blackledge and Menna diverged from these prior precedents, but neither case provided a clear or coherent explanation for the departure.
A
In Blackledge, the Court held that a defendant who pleaded guilty could nevertheless challenge his conviction on the ground that his right to due process was violated by a vindictive prosecution. 417 U.S., at 30-31, 94 S.Ct. 2098. The Court asserted that this right was "markedly different" from the equal protection and Fifth Amendment rights at stake in Tollett and the Brady trilogy because it "went to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him." 417 U.S., at 30, 94 S.Ct. 2098. The meaning of this distinction, however, is hard to grasp.
The most natural way to understand Blackledge's reference to "the very power of the State" would be to say that an argument survives a guilty plea if it attacks the court's jurisdiction. After all, that is usually what we mean when we refer to the power to adjudicate. See, e.g., Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) ; United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) ; Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). But that cannot be what Blackledge meant.
First, the defendant in Blackledge had been tried in state court in North Carolina for a state-law offense, and the jurisdiction of state courts to entertain such prosecutions is purely a matter of state law (unless Congress validly and affirmatively ousts their jurisdiction-something that had not happened in that case).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petitioner sought relief from an order directing his deportation on the ground that as an alien he had become, after entering the United States, a ihember of the Communist Party within the meaning of the Act of October 16, 1918, as amended by § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987, 1006. The District Court, after hearing, denied the petition, 148 F. Supp. 106, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 241 F. 2d 938. Invoking Rowoldt v. Perfetto, 355 U. S. 115, decided after the order for his deportation, petitioner sought an administrative reconsideration of his status. Upon its denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals he began the judicial proceeding immediately before us for review. After a hearing, the District Court again denied his petition for relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the District Court. 265 F. 2d .825. The ultimate question is whether petitioner is subject to deportation under Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S. 522, or is saved from it under Rowoldt v. Perfetto, supra. The determination of this issue turns on evaluation of the testimony before the District Court, in light of Galvan v. Press, supra, and Rowoldt v. Perfetto, supra. Such assessment largely depends on the credibility of the testimony on which the district judge based his judgment, particularly that of the petitioner himself, whom the judge saw and heard. An able judge found that petitioner in denying membership in the Communist Party, unlike Rowoldt who admitted membership, see 355 U. S., at 116-117, but accounted for its innocence, “perjured himself before, and I believe that he perjured himself today.” We cannot say that his findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were clearly erroneous and do not support the conclusion of both the lower courts.
Judgment affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants, welfare recipients residing in the State of Connecticut, brought this action in the Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, challenging, as applied to them, certain state procedures for the commencement of litigation, including requirements for payment of court fees and costs for service of process, that restrict their access to the courts in their effort to bring an action for divorce.
It appears from the briefs and oral argument that the average cost to a litigant for bringing an action for divorce is $60. Section 52-259 of the Connecticut General Statutes provides: “There shall be paid to the clerks of the supreme court or the superior court, for entering each civil cause, forty-five dollars An additional $15 is usually required for the service of process by the sheriff, although as much as $40 or $50 may be necessary where notice must be accomplished by publication.
There is no dispute as to the inability of the named appellants in the present case to pay either the court fees required by statute or the cost incurred for the service of process. The affidavits .in the record establish that appellants’ welfare income in each instance barely suffices to meet the costs of the daily essentials of life and includes no allotment that could be budgeted for the expense to gain access to the courts in order to obtain a divorce. Also undisputed is appellants’ “good faith” in seeking a divorce.
Assuming, as we must on this motion to dismiss the complaint, the truth of the undisputed allegations made by the appellants, it appears that they were unsuccessful in their attempt to bring their divorce actions in the Connecticut courts, simply by reason of their indigency. The clerk of the Superior Court returned their papers “on the ground that he could not accept them until an entry fee had been paid.” App. 8-9. Subsequent efforts to obtain a judicial waiver of the fee requirement and to have the court effect service of process were to no avail. Id., at 9.
Appellants thereafter commenced this action in the Federal District Court seeking a judgment declaring that Connecticut’s statute and service of process provisions, “requiring payment of court fees and expenses as a condition precedent to obtaining court relief [are] unconstitutional [as] applied to these indigent [appellants] and all other members of the class which they represent.” As further relief, appellants requested the entry of an injunction ordering the appropriate officials to permit them “to proceed with their divorce actions without payment of fees and costs.” A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281, and on July 16, 1968, that court concluded that “a state [may] limit access to its civil courts and particularly in this instance, to its divorce courts, by the requirement of a filing fee or other fees which effectively bar persons on relief from commencing actions therein.” 286 F. Supp. 968, 972.
We noted probable jurisdiction, 395 U. S. 974 (1969). The case was heard at the 1969 Term and thereafter was set for reargument at the present Term. 399 U. S. 922 (1970). We now reverse. Our conclusion is that, given the basic position of the marriage relationship in this society’s hierarchy of values and the concomitant state monopolization of the means for legally dissolving this relationship, due process does prohibit a State from denying, solely because of inability to pay, access to its courts to individuals who seek judicial dissolution of their marriages.
I
At its core, the right to due process reflects a fundamental value in our American constitutional system. Our understanding of that value is the basis upon which we have resolved this case.
Perhaps no characteristic of an organized and cohesive society is more fundamental than its erection and enforcement of a system of rules defining the various rights and duties of its members, enabling them to govern their affairs and definitively settle their differences in an orderly, predictable manner. Without such a “legal system,” social organization and cohesion are virtually impossible; with the ability to seek regularized resolution of conflicts individuals are capable of interdependent action that enables them to strive for achievements without the anxieties that would beset them in a disorganized society. Put more succinctly, it is this injection of the rule of law that allows society to reap the benefits of rejecting what political theorists call the “state of nature.”
American society, of course, bottoms its systematic definition of individual rights and duties, as well as its machinery for dispute settlement, not on custom or the will of strategically placed individuals, but on the common-law model. It is to courts, or other quasi-judicial official bodies, that we ultimately look for the implementation of a regularized, orderly process of dispute settlement. Within this framework, those who wrote our original Constitution, in the Fifth Amendment, and later those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, recognized the centrality of the concept of due process in the operation of this system. Without this guarantee that one may not be deprived of his rights, neither liberty nor property, without due process of law, the State’s monopoly over techniques for binding conflict resolution could hardly be said to be acceptable under our scheme of things. Only by providing that the social enforcement mechanism must function strictly within these bounds can we hope to maintain an ordered society that is also just. It is upon this premise that this Court has through years of adjudication put flesh upon the due process principle.
Such litigation has, however, typically involved rights of defendants — not, as here, persons seeking access to the judicial process in the first instance. This is because our society has been so structured that resort to the courts is not usually the only available, legitimate means of resolving private disputes. Indeed, private structuring of individual relationships and repair of their breach is largely encouraged in American life, subject only to the caveat that the formal judicial process, if resorted to, is paramount. Thus, this Court has seldom been asked to view access to the courts as an element of due process. The legitimacy of the State’s monopoly over techniques of final dispute settlement, even where some are denied access to its use, stands unimpaired where recognized, effective alternatives for the adjustment of differences remain. But the successful invocation of this governmental power by plaintiffs has often created serious problems for defendants' rights. For at that point, the judicial proceeding becomes the only effective means of resolving the dispute at hand and denial of a defendant's full access to that process raises grave problems for its legitimacy.
Recognition of this theoretical framework illuminates the precise issue presented in this case. As this Court on more than one occasion has recognized, marriage involves interests of basic importance in our society. See, e. g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535 (1942); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923). It is not surprising, then, that the States have seen fit to oversee many aspects of that institution. Without a prior judicial imprimatur, individuals may freely enter into and rescind commercial contracts, for example, but we are unaware of any jurisdiction where private citizens may covenant for or dissolve marriages without state approval. Even where all substantive requirements are concededly met, we know of no instance where two consenting adults may divorce and mutually liberate themselves from the constraints of legal obligations that go with marriage, and more fundamentally the prohibition against remarriage, without invoking the State’s judicial machinery.
Thus, although they assert here due process rights as would-be plaintiffs, we think appellants’ plight, because resort to the state courts is the only avenue to dissolution of their marriages, is akin to that of defendants faced with exclusion from the only forum effectively empowered to settle their disputes. Resort to the judicial process by these plaintiffs is no more voluntary in a realistic sense than that of the defendant called upon to defend his interests in court. For both groups this process is not only the paramount dispute-settlement technique, but, in fact, the only available one. In this posture we think that this appeal is properly to be resolved in light of the principles enunciated in our due process decisions that delimit rights of defendants compelled to litigate their differences in the judicial forum.
II
These due process decisions, representing over a hundred years of effort by this Court to give concrete embodiment to this concept, provide, we think, complete vindication for appellants’ contentions. In particular, precedent has firmly embedded in our due process jurisprudence two important principles upon whose application we rest our decision in the case before us.
A
Prior cases establish, first, that due process requires, at a minimum, that absent a countervailing state interest of overriding significance, persons forced to settle their claims of right and duty through the judicial process must be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Early in our jurisprudence, this Court voiced the doctrine that “[wjherever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend,” Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274, 277 (1876). See Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223 (1864); Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409 (1897). The theme that “due process of law signifies a right to be heard in one’s defence,” Hovey v. Elliott, supra, at 417, has continually recurred in the years since Baldwin, Windsor, and Hovey. Although “[mjany controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process Clause,” as Mr. Justice Jackson wrote for the Court in Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., 339 U. S. 306 (1950), “there can be no doubt that at a minimum they require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” Id., at 313.
Due process does not, of course, require that the defendant in every civil case actually have a hearing on the merits. A State, can, for example, enter a default judgment against a defendant who, after adequate notice, fails to make a timely appearance, see Windsor, supra, at 278, or who, without justifiable excuse, violates a procedural rule requiring the production of evidence necessary for orderly adjudication, Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U. S. 322, 351 (1909). What the Constitution does require is “an opportunity . . . granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,’’Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 552 (1965) (emphasis added), “for [a] hearing appropriate to the nature of the case,” Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., supra, at 313. The formality and procedural requisites for the hearing can vary, depending upon the importance of the interests involved and the nature of the subsequent proceedings. That the hearing required by due process is subject to waiver, and is not fixed in form does not affect its root requirement that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest, except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after-the event. In short, “within the limits of practicability,” id., at 318, a State must afford to all individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard if it is to fulfill the promise of the Due Process Clause.
B
Our cases further establish that a statute or a rule may be held constitutionally invalid as applied when it operates to deprive an individual of a protected right although its general validity as a measure enacted in the legitimate exercise of state power is beyond question. Thus, in cases involving religious freedom, free speech or assembly, this Court has often held that a valid statute was unconstitutionally applied in particular circumstances because it interfered with an individual’s exercise of those rights.
No less than these rights, the right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard within the limits of practicality, must be protected against denial by particular laws that operate to jeopardize it for particular individuals. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., supra; Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U. S. 141 (1956).
In Mullane this Court held that the statutory provision for notice by publication in a local newspaper, although sufficient as to beneficiaries of a trust whose interests or addresses were unknown to the trustee, was not sufficient notice under the Due Process Clause for known beneficiaries. Similarly, Covey held that notice by publication in a foreclosure action, even though sufficient to provide a normal person with an opportunity for a hearing, was not sufficient where the defendant was a known incompetent. The Court expressly rejected an argument that “the Fourteenth Amendment does not require the State to take measures in giving notice to an incompetent beyond those deemed sufficient in the case of the ordinary taxpayer.” Id., at 146.
Just as a generally valid notice procedure may fail to satisfy due process because of the circumstances of the defendant, so too a cost requirement, valid on its face, may offend due process because it operates to foreclose a particular party's opportunity to be heard. The State’s obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment are not simply generalized ones; rather, the State owes to each individual that process which, in light of the values of a free society, can be characterized as due.
Ill
Drawing upon the principles established by the cases just canvassed, we conclude that the State’s refusal to admit these appellants to its courts, the sole means in Connecticut for obtaining a divorce, must be regarded as the equivalent of denying them an opportunity to be heard upon their claimed right to a dissolution of their marriages, and, in the absence of a sufficient countervailing justification for the State’s action, a denial of due process.
The arguments for this kind of fee and cost requirement are that the State’s interest in the prevention of frivolous litigation is substantial, its use of court fees and process costs to allocate scarce resources is rational, and its balance between the defendant’s right to notice and the plaintiff’s right to access is reasonable.
In our opinion, none of these considerations is sufficient to override the interest of these plaintiff-appellants in having access to the only avenue open for dissolving their allegedly untenable marriages. Not only is there no necessary connection between a litigant’s assets and the seriousness of his motives in bringing suit, but it is here beyond present dispute that appellants bring these actions in good faith. Moreover, other alternatives exist to fees and cost requirements as a means for conserving the time of courts and protecting parties from frivolous litigation, such as penalties for false pleadings or affidavits, and actions for malicious prosecution or abuse of process, to mention only a few. In the same vein we think that reliable alternatives exist to service of process by a state-paid sheriff if the State is unwilling to assume the cost of official service. This is perforce true of service by publication which is the method of notice least calculated to bring to a potential defendant’s attention the pendency of judicial proceedings. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., supra. We think in this case service at defendant’s last known address by mail and posted notice is equally effective as publication in a newspaper.
We are thus left to evaluate the State’s asserted interest in its fee and cost requirements as a mechanism of resource allocation or cost recoupment. Such a justification was offered and rejected in Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956). In Griffin it was the requirement of a transcript beyond the means of the indigent that blocked access to the judicial process. While in Griffin the transcript could be waived as a convenient but not necessary predicate to court access, here the State invariably imposes the costs as a measure of allocating its judicial resources. Surely, then, the rationale of Griffin covers this case.
IV
In concluding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that these appellants be afforded an opportunity to go into court to obtain a divorce, we wish to re-emphasize that we go no further than necessary to dispose of the case before us, a case where the bona fides of both appellants’ indigency and desire for divorce are here beyond dispute. We do not decide that access for all individuals to the courts is a right that is, in all circumstances, guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so that its exercise may not be placed beyond the reach of any individual, for, as we have already noted, in the case before us this right is the exclusive precondition to the adjustment of a fundamental human relationship. The requirement that these appellants resort to the judicial process is entirely a state-created matter. Thus we hold only that a State may not, consistent with the obligations imposed on it by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, pre-empt the right to dissolve this legal relationship without affording all citizens access to the means it has prescribed for doing so.
Reversed.
App. 9. The dollar figures are averages taken from the undisputed allegations of the complaint. The particular fee the sheriff receives from the plaintiff for service of process in any one case depends on the distance he must travel to effectuate service of process. Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. § 52-261 (1968).
Following colloquy at the oral reargument as to the possible availability of public or private funds to enable plaintiffs-appellants to defray the expense requirements at issue in this case, the parties submitted further papers on this score. Nothing in these materials would justify our declining to adjudicate the constitutional question squarely presented by this record,
See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337 (1969); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545 (1965); Schroeder v. New York, 371 U. S. 208, 212 (1962); Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U. S. 334, 338 (1963); Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U. S. 141 (1956); Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., 339 U. S. 306 (1950); Anderson Nat. Bank v. Luckett, 321 U. S. 233, 246 (1944); Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, 312 U. S. 126, 152-153 (1941); Morgan v. United States, 304 U. S. 1 (1938); United States v. Illinois Central R. Co., 291 U. S. 457, 463 (1934); Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673 (1930); Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U. S. 413, 423 (1915); Londoner v. Denver, 210 U. S. 373, 385-386 (1908); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U. S. 230, 236 (1900).
Compare Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, with In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970). See also Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503, 520-521 (1944).
Goldberg v. Kelly, supra; Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., supra; Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, supra, at 152-153; United States v. Illinois Central R. Co., supra, at 463; Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, supra.
Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886 (1961); Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U. S. 594 (1950); Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U. S. 245 (1947); Bowles v. Willingham, supra; Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414 (1944).
E. g., Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (1940); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 527 (1960); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963).
At least one court has already recognized the special nature of the divorce action. Justice Sobel in a case like that before us took note of the State’s involvement in the marital relationship:
“Marriage is clearly, marked with the public interest. In this State, a marriage cannot be dissolved except by ‘due judicial proceedings. . . .’ We have erected by statute a money hurdle to such dissolution by requiring in many circumstances the service of a summons by publication .... This hurdle is an effective barrier to [plaintiff’s] access to the courts. The loss of access to the courts in an action for divorce is a right of substantial magnitude when only through the courts may redress or relief be obtained.” Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, 58 Misc. 2d 1045, 1056, 296 N. Y. S. 2d 74, 87 (1968).
See also Brown v. Chastain, 416 F. 2d 1012, 1014 (CA5 1969) (Rives, J., dissenting).
We think Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949), has no bearing on this case. Differences between divorce actions and derivative actions aside, unlike Cohen, where we considered merely a statute on its face, the application of this statute here operates to cut off entirely access to the courts.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2283 provides;
“A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”
The question is whether the National Labor Relations Board may, through proceedings in a federal court, enjoin a state court order which regulates peaceful picketing governed by the federal agency. The District Court rejected the Board's contention that it is within the exception to § 2283, recognized in Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. United States, 352 U. S. 220, as respects suits brought by the United States. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 434 F. 2d 971. The ease is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted, 402 U. S. 928.
When a union began organizing employees of certain stores in Grand Island, Nebraska, the union filed unfair labor practice charges against the company. The General Counsel issued a complaint. A hearing was held and a Trial Examiner sustained the complaint and recommended that the company cease and desist. Shortly thereafter and before the Board had acted, the union picketed the stores. The company thereupon petitioned the Nebraska state court for an injunction. The state court issued a restraining order, limiting the pickets to two at each store, enjoining them from blocking or picketing entrances or exits and from distributing literature pertaining to the dispute which would halt or slow trafile, from instigating conversations with customers in any manner relating to the dispute, from mass picketing, from acts of physical coercion against persons driving to work, and from doing any act in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-812, which makes unlawful “loitering about, picketing or patrolling the place of work . . . against the will of such person.” The injunction also bans anyone other than a bona fide union . member from picketing unless he becomes a defendant in the state proceedings. Finally, the injunction bars anyone, other than pickets and named defendants, from picketing, distributing handbills, or otherwise “caus[ing] to be published or broadcast any information pertaining to the dispute . . . between the parties.”
Later the Board entered its decision and order accepting in part the Trial Examiner’s recommendations and rejecting parts not material to the present controversy.
The Board then filed this suit in the Federal District Court seeking to restrain the enforcement of the state court injunction on the ground that it regulated conduct which was governed exclusively by the National Labor Relations Act. As noted, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals denied the Board relief. The Court of Appeals held that for the purposes of § 2283 the Board is “an administrative agency of the United States, and is not the United States.” 434 F. 2d, at 975. Congress from the beginning has restricted the authority of the federal judiciary to interfere with state court actions. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 43-44. The present § 2283 is a revision of earlier provisions of federal statutes which were construed to allow within limits such federal injunctions in favor of federal agencies. Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503, 510. Any exception in favor of federal agencies must, however, be “implied,” ibid., unless it comes within the exceptions stated in §2283.
It is suggested that this federal injunction was “in aid” of the jurisdiction of the federal court since the suit is in the District Court by reason of 28 U. S. C. § 1337 which grants jurisdiction over “any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce.” In Capital Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 347 U. S. 501, an employer invoked the aid both of a state court and of the federal Board against picketing. The Board sought a federal court injunction under § 10 (1) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (l), which specifically allows it wherever an unfair labor practice respecting a secondary boycott or picketing violative of § 8 (b) (4) or § 8 (b) (7) of the Act is involved. We ruled that the state injunction “restrains conduct which the District Court was asked to enjoin in the § 10 (1) proceeding.” Id., at 505. We held that under those circumstances an injunction by the federal court was “necessary in aid of its jurisdiction” over commerce, because the federal court to exercise its jurisdiction “freely and fully” must “first remove the state decree.” Id., at 506.
In the instant case the company did not file any charges with the Board which claimed that the union’s picketing violated §8 (b)(4) or §8 (b)(7) of the Act, 73 Stat. 542 and 544, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b) (4) and § 158 (b)(7).
Section 10 (j) gives the District Court similar authority in respect of an unfair labor practice of the employer under § 8 (a)(1) of the Act which protects the right of employees to organize. But a resort to court action, the Board has held, does not violate § 8 (a)(1). See Clyde Taylor Co., 127 N. L. R. B. 103, 109.
The action in the instant case does not seek an injunction to restrain specific activities upon which the Board has issued a complaint but is based upon the general doctrine of pre-emption. We therefore do not believe this case falls within the narrow exception contained in § 2283 for matters “necessary in aid of its jurisdiction.” There is in the Act no express authority for the Board to seek injunctive relief against pre-empted state action. The question remains whether there is implied authority to do so.
It has long been held that the Board, though not granted express statutory remedies, may obtain appropriate and traditional ones to prevent frustration of the purposes of the Act. We held in In re National Labor Relations Board, 304 U. S. 486, 496, that even in the absence of an express statutory remedy, the Board might petition for writ of prohibition against premature invocation of the review jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. In Amalgamated Workers v. Edison Co., 309 U. S. 261, we held that the Board had implied authority to institute contempt proceedings for violation of court decrees enforcing orders of the Board. In Nathanson v. NLRB, 344 U. S. 25, we found an implied authority of the Board to file claims in bankruptcy covering the sums included in its back-pay awards. The claims were not given priority under § 64 (a) (5) of the Bankruptcy Act, but this was because “the United States [was] collecting for the benefit of a private party,” id., at 28, not as suggested, post, at 149, because the Board’s juridical status was something less than that of the United States.
We conclude that there is also an implied authority of the Board, in spite of the command of § 2283, to enjoin state action where its federal power pre-empts the field. Our starting point is contained in the observation of Mr. Chief Justice Hughes in Amalgamated Workers v. Edison Co., supra, at 265.
“The Board as a public agency acting in the public interest, not any private person or group, not any employee or group of employees, is chosen as the instrument to assure protection from the described unfair conduct in order to remove obstructions to interstate commerce.”
The purpose of the Act was to obtain “uniform application” of its substantive rules and to avoid the “diversities and conflicts likely to result from a variety of local procedures and attitudes toward labor controversies.” Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, 490. The federal regulatory scheme (1) protects some activities, though not violence (see United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715, 729-731), (2) prohibits some practices, and (3) leaves others to be controlled by the free play of economic forces. We said in Garner v. Teamsters Union, supra, at 500:
“For a state to impinge on the area of labor combat designed to be free is quite as much an obstruction of federal policy as if the state were to declare picketing free for purposes or by methods which the federal Act prohibits.”
In Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. United States, 352 U. S. 220, a state suit over mineral rights in public lands was pending, the parties being private persons. The United States brought suit in the federal court to quiet title to the mineral rights and sought and obtained a federal injunction against prosecution of the state proceedings. In holding that § 2283 impliedly allowed such an exception we said:
“The statute is designed to prevent conflict between federal and state courts. This policy is much more compelling when it is the litigation of private parties which threatens to draw the two judicial systems into conflict than when it is the United States which seeks a stay to prevent threatened irreparable injury to a national interest. The frustration of superior federal interests that would ensue from precluding the Federal Government from obtaining a stay of state court proceedings except under the severe restrictions of 28 U. S. C. § 2283 would be so great that we cannot reasonably impute such a purpose to Congress from the general language of 28 U. S. C. § 2283 alone.” Id., at 225-226.
In Leiter, the United States brought suit under the authority of the Attorney General. Here it is the Board that moved to prevent “irreparable injury to a national interest.” The Board is the sole protector of the “national interest” defined with particularity in the Act. Leiter, of course, was initiated by the Attorney General; but underlying the controversy were federal agencies in the Department of the Interior responsible for administration of the public lands. The fact that the moving party was a federal agency, not the Attorney General, was considered irrelevant in Bowles v. Willingham, supra, where the Administrator of the Emergency Price Control Act sued to enjoin a state court from interfering with orders of the federal agency. An exception from the general ban on federal injunctions against state court action was implied by reason of the fact that the method of review of the orders of the federal agency was in the Emergency Court of Appeals. But there was no suggestion that suit by or against the Administrator was not a suit of the United States. The purpose of § 2283 was to avoid unseemly conflict between the state and the federal courts where the litigants were private persons, not to hamstring the Federal Government and its agencies in the use of federal courts to protect federal rights. We can no more conclude here than in Leiter that a general statute, limiting the power of federal courts to issue injunctions, had as its purpose the frustration of federal systems of regulation. See Brown v. Wright, 137 F. 2d 484, 488. The frustration of superior federal interests by the general language of § 2283 cannot reasonably be imputed. See NLRB v. Sunshine Mining Co., 125 F. 2d 757, 762; NLRB v. New York State Board, 106 F. Supp. 749, 752; NLRB v. Industrial Commission, 84 F. Supp. 593, aff’d, 172 F. 2d 389.
The fact that the Board is given express authority to seek enforcement of its orders in some sections of the Act is not persuasive that the Act expresses a policy to bar the Board from enforcing the national interests on other matters. The instances where the Board is given explicit authority to seek the aid of federal courts are not exclusive examples, as we have already shown. They are only particularized instances of specific enforcement devices relating to specified orders, not a denial by implication that the Act and the Board would not be entitled to federal aid or protection in other instances, as illustrated by In re National Labor Relations Board, supra; Amalgamated Workers v. Edison Co., supra; and Nathanson v. NLRB, supra. The exclusiveness of the federal domain is clear; and where it is a public authority that seeks protection of that domain, the way seems clear. For the Federal Government and its agencies, the federal courts are the forum of choice. For them, as Leiter indicates, access to the federal courts is “preferable in the context of healthy federal-state relations.” 352 U. S., at 226.
Whether there are parts of the state court injunction that should survive our reversal of the judgment below is a question we do not reach. It will be open on the remand of the cause.
Reversed and remanded.
For the history of present § 2283 see H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A181.
The basis of our decision in Nathanson was that “[t]he priority granted by [§ 64 (a) (5), 11 U. S. C. § 104 (a) (5)] ... was designed ‘to secure an adequate revenue to sustain the public burthens and discharge the public debts.’ ” 344 U. S., at 27-28. Because there was “no function ... of assuring the public revenue” and “[t]he beneficiaries of the claims [were] private persons,” id., at 28, we found it inappropriate to apply the priority for claims owing the United States and, instead, gave the claims the same “treatment tha[t] other wage claims enjoy[ed].” Id., at 29. The suggestion that Nathanson is a stronger case for equating the status of the Board to that of the United States disregards both the policies of the Bankruptcy Act upon which we relied in that decision and the federal pre-emption which inheres in the present case.
Cases such as Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. J. G. Menihan Corp., 312 U. S. 81, do not support a miserly interpretation of the Board’s powers. There, we held that costs of litigation could be assessed against a corporation which Congress had launched into the commercial world with the power to “sue and be sued.” Contrary to the dissent’s assertion that the case turned on the failure of Congress to manifest an intent “to bestow the privileges and immunities of the United States on a federal agency,” post, at 150, our decision there was based upon the grant of “the unqualified authority to sue and be sued [which] placed petitioner upon an equal footing with private parties as to the usual incidents of suits in relation to the payment of costs and allowances.” 312 U. S., at 85-86.
Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. Co., 348 U. S. 511, held that a private party under the protection of the Board’s order could not obtain injunctive relief in a federal court against an anti-picketing order issued by a state court. And see Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281.
Actions against the National Labor Relations Board are dismissed on the ground that they are against a federal agency exercising a governmental regulatory function and so are suits against the United States, which cannot be sued without the consent of Congress. Clover Fork Coal Co. v. NLRB, 107 F. 2d 1009. The same holds for the Atomic Energy Commission, Cotter Corp. v. Seaborg, 370 F. 2d 686; the Civil Service Commission, Soderman v. U. S. Civil Service Commission, 313 F. 2d 694; the Veterans Administration, Evans v. U. S. Veterans Admin. Hospital, 391 F. 2d 261; and the Securities and Exchange Commission, Holmes v. Eddy, 341 F. 2d 477. Similarly, an action by the Director General of Railroads was held to be on behalf of the United States and thus was not barred by the relevant statute of limitations. Davis v. Corona Coal Co., 265 U. S. 219.
Congress has vested the Board with broad powers to seek in-junctive relief in the district courts. Section 10 (1), 29 U. S. C. § 160 (Z), for example, gives the Board power to obtain an injunction where an investigation produces reasonable cause to believe that a charge of secondary boycott or illegal picketing activity is true. Section 10 (j), 29 U. S. C. § 160 (j), provides a similar basis of power for other unfair labor practices. “In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena issued to any person” during “hearings and investigations, which, in the opinion of the Board, are necessary and proper for the exercise of [its] powers” under §§ 9 and 10, 29 U. S. C. §§ 159 and 160, the Board may seek injunctive relief from a district court requiring compliance. 29 U. S. C. §161 (2).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Clark concurred.
Review was sought in this case to determine whether there had been a violation by Texas of petitioner’s federal constitutional right to a fair and impartial grand jury. The federal question was raised by a motion to quash the indictment on the ground that petitioner, a Negro, suffered unconstitutional discrimination through the selection of white men only for the grand jury that indicted him. After full hearing, the trial court denied the motion, and this action was sustained by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas in affirming petitioner’s conviction. Cassell v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. R. -, 216 S. W. 2d 813.
The Court of Criminal Appeals accepted the federal rule that a Negro is denied the equal protection of the laws when he is indicted by a grand jury from which Negroes as a race have been intentionally excluded. Cassell v. State, supra, 154 Tex. Cr. R. at -, 216 S. W. 2d at 819; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 394; Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 130; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 404; Akins v. Texas, 325 U. S. 398, 403. It was from an examination of facts that the court deduced its conclusion that racial discrimination had not been practiced. Since the result reached may deny a federal right, we may reexamine the facts to determine whether petitioner has sustained by proof his allegation of discrimination. Certiorari was granted (336 U. S. 943) to consider petitioner’s claim that in this case Negroes were omitted from the list of grand jurymen either because of deliberate limitation by the Dallas County jury commissioners, or because of failure by the commissioners to acquaint themselves with available Negroes.
Acting under the Texas statutes, the Dallas County grand-jury commissioners chose a list of sixteen males for this September 1947 grand jury from citizens eligible under the statute. The judge chose twelve of these for the panel. No challenge is now made to the fairness of this statutory system. We have approved it.
Petitioner’s attack is upon the way the statutory method of grand-jury selection has been administered by the jury commissioners. One charge is that discrimination must have been practiced because the Negro proportion of grand jurors is less than the Negro proportion of the county’s population. Under the 1940 census the total population of Dallas County was 398,564, of whom 61,605 were Negroes. This is about 15.5%. In weighing this matter of custom, we limit ourselves, as do the parties, to the period between June 1, 1942, when Hill v. Texas, supra, was decided, and November 1947, when petitioner was indicted. There were 21 grand juries in this period; of the 252 members of the panels, 17, or 6.7%, were Negroes. But this apparent discrepancy may be explained by the fact that Texas grand jurors must possess certain statutory qualifications. Grand jurors must ordinarily be eligible to vote; eligibility requires payment of a poll tax; and the validity of the poll-tax requirement is not challenged. The record shows 5,500 current Negro poll-tax payers in Dallas County in 1947, and nothing indicates that this number varied substantially from year to year. The corresponding figure for all poll-tax payers, male and female, is 83,667. These figures would indicate that as a proportional matter 6.5% of grand jurors would be Negroes, a percentage approximating the ratio of Negroes actually sitting on the 21 grand jury panels. Without more it cannot be said that Negroes had been left off grand-jury panels to such a degree as to establish a prima jade case of discrimination.
A different question is presented by petitioner’s next charge that subsequent to the Hill case the Dallas County grand-jury commissioners for 21 consecutive lists had consistently limited Negroes selected for grand-jury service to not more than one on each grand jury. The contention is that the Akins case has been interpreted in Dallas County to allow a limitation of the number of Negroes on each grand jury, provided the limitation is approximately proportional to the number of Negroes eligible for grand-jury service. Since the Hill case the judges of the trial court have been careful to instruct their jury commissioners that discrimination on grounds of race or color is forbidden. The judge did so here. If, notwithstanding this caution by the trial court judges, commissioners should limit proportionally the number of Negroes selected for grand-jury service, such limitation would violate our Constitution. Jurymen should be selected as individuals, on the basis of individual qualifications, and not as members of a race.
We have recently written why proportional representation of races on a jury is not a constitutional requisite. Succinctly stated, our reason was that the Constitution requires only a fair jury selected without regard to race. Obviously the number of races and nationalities appearing in the ancestry of our citizens would make it impossible to meet a requirement of proportional representation. Similarly, since there can be no exclusion of Negroes as a race and no discrimination because of color, proportional limitation is not permissible. That conclusion is compelled by the United States Code, Title 18,' § 243, based on § 4 of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. While the language of the section directs attention to the right to serve as a juror, its command has long been recognized also to assure rights to an accused. Prohibiting racial disqualification of Negroes for jury service, this congressional enactment under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 5, has been consistently sustained and its violation held to deny a proper trial to a Negro accused. Proportional racial limitation is therefore forbidden. An accused is entitled to have charges against him considered by a jury in the selection of which there has been neither inclusion nor exclusion because of race.
Our holding that there was discrimination in the selection of grand jurors in this case, however, is based on another ground. In explaining the fact that no Negroes appeared on this grand-jury list, the commissioners said that they knew none available who qualified; at the same time they said they chose jurymen only from those people with whom they were personally acquainted. It may be assumed that in ordinary activities in Dallas County, acquaintanceship between the races is not on a sufficiently familiar basis to give citizens eligible for appointment as jury commissioners an opportunity to know the qualifications for grand-jury service of many members of another race. An individual’s qualifications for grand-jury service, however, are not hard to ascertain, and with no evidence to the contrary, we must assume that a large proportion of the Negroes of Dallas County met the statutory requirements for jury service. When the commissioners were appointed as judicial administrative officials, it was their duty to familiarize themselves fairly with the qualifications of the eligible jurors of the county without regard to race and color. They did not do so here, and the result has been racial discrimination. We repeat the recent statement of Chief Justice Stone in Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 404:
“Discrimination can arise from the action of commissioners who exclude all negroes whom they do not know to be qualified and who neither know nor seek to learn whether there are in fact any qualified to serve. In such a case, discrimination necessarily results where there are qualified negroes available for jury service. With the large number of colored male residents of the county who are literate, and in the absence of any countervailing testimony, there is no room for inference that there are not among them householders of good moral character, who can read and write, qualified and available for grand jury service.”
The existence of the kind of discrimination described in the Hill case does not depend upon systematic exclusion continuing over a long period and practiced by a succession of jury commissioners. Since the issue must be whether there has been discrimination in the selection of the jury that has indicted petitioner, it is enough to have direct evidence based on the statements of the jury commissioners in the very case. Discrimination may be proved in other ways than by evidence of long-continued unexplained absence of Negroes from many panels. The statements of the jury commissioners that they chose only whom they knew, and that they knew no eligible Negroes in an area where Negroes made up so large a proportion of the population, prove the intentional exclusion that is discrimination in violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights.
The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
whom
Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Minton join, concurring in the judgment.
It has been settled law since 1880 that the Civil War Amendments barred the States from discriminating because of race in the selection of juries, whether grand or petty. As a result, a conviction cannot stand which is based on an indictment found by a grand jury from which Negroes were kept because of discrimination. Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370; Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354. We ought not to reverse a course of decisions of long standing directed against racial discrimination in the administration of justice. But discrimination in this context means purposeful, systematic non-inclusion because of color. Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400. It does not mean an absence of proportional representation of the various racial components of the relevant political unit from which a grand jury is drawn or an isolated instance of disparity among such components. Akins v. Texas, 325 U. S. 398, 403; Fay v. New York, 332 U. S. 261, 284. Assuming that the grand-jury pool fairly enough reflects the racial composition of the community, there is no basis for a claim of constitutional discrimination if without design it comes to pass that a particular grand jury has no representation of a particular race. The Civil War Amendments did not deprive the States of their power to define qualifications for grand-jury service relevant to the functions of a grand jury, nor did they turn matters that are inherently incommensurable into mere matters of arithmetic. The Constitution has not withdrawn the administration of criminal justice, of which the jury system is a part, from the States. It does command that no State purposefully make jury service turn on color.
A claim that the constitutional prohibition of discrimination was disregarded calls for ascertainment of two kinds of issues which ought not to be confused by being compendiously called “facts.” The demonstrable, outward events by which a grand jury came into being raise issues quite different from the fair inferences to be drawn from what took place in determining the constitutional question: was there a purposeful non-inclusion of Negroes because of race or a merely symbolic representation, not the operation of an honest exercise of relevant judgment or the uncontrolled caprices of chance?
This Court does not sit as a jury to weigh conflicting evidence on underlying details, as for instance what steps were taken to make up the jury list, why one person was rejected and another taken, whether names were picked blindly or chosen by judgment. This is not the place for disputation about what really happened. On that we accept the findings of the State court. But it is for this Court to define the constitutional standards by which those findings are to be judged. Thereby the duty of securing observance of these standards may fall upon this Court. The meaning of uncontrovertible facts in relation to the ultimate issue of discrimination is precisely the constitutional issue on which this Court must pass. See Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, 50-51. Of course even as to this, as always when a State court judgment is claimed to be in disregard of the Constitution, appropriate respect should be given to the judgment of the State court. And so we are brought to this case.
If the record here showed no more than that the grand-jury commissioners had considered the Negroes with whom they were acquainted — just as they considered white persons whom they knew — and had found them to be either unqualified for grand-jury service or qualified but unavailable, and did so not designedly to exclude Negroes, the State court’s validation of the local procedure would have to prevail. We ought not to go behind such a conscientious process, however rough and ready the procedure of selection by jury commissioners. To find in such honest even if pragmatic selection of grand jurors the operation of unconstitutional standards would turn this Court into an agency for supervising the criminal procedure of the forty-eight States. Such an assumption of authority by this Court would jeopardize the practical functioning of grand juries throughout the country in view of the great variety of minority groups that compose our society.
A different situation would be presented by an unquestioned showing that jury commissioners had such a limited personal knowledge of potentially qualified Negro jurors that their purposeful limitation of choice to the negligibly few Negroes known to them would inevitably imply designed exclusion of eligible Negroes. The record here affords no basis whatever for such a finding. It indicates the contrary.
The record does disclose stark facts requiring reversal on a very different basis. If one factor is uniform in a continuing series of events that are brought to pass through human intervention, the law would have to have the blindness of indifference rather than the blindness of impartiality not to attribute the uniform factor to man’s purpose. The purpose may not be of evil intent or in conscious disregard of what is conceived to be a binding duty. Prohibited conduct may result from misconception of what duty requires. Such misconception I believe to be the real situation on the record before us.
The governing facts are briefly stated. In Hill v. Texas, supra, this Court found discrimination in the selection of grand jurors in Dallas County, Texas, by virtue of the fact that, despite a large number of Negroes qualified for grand-jury service, none had been drawn. In the course of the five and a half years between that decision and the time of the drawing of the grand jury which found the indictment now challenged, there were twenty-one grand-jury panels. On each of these twenty-one consecutive panels there was never more than one Negro. This selection was made from lists which were not the result of a drawing of lots but the personal choice of the grand-jury commissioners. The available evidence clearly indicates that no more than one Negro was chosen by the commissioners for each of the twenty-one lists. Only one Negro was placed on the list — he did not serve on the panel — for the second grand jury in Dallas County after the decision in Hill v. Texas. Again, as to the grand jury which figured in Akins v. Texas, supra, only one Negro was placed on the list, and he served as a grand juror. 325 U. S. at 405. And in Weems v. State, 148 Tex. Crim. 154, 157, 185 S. W. 2d 431, 433, it was stipulated that only one Negro, who did not serve on the panel, was on the list. In the present case it is conceded that no Negro was placed on the list. The State makes no contrary claim as to any of the other grand-jury lists though the facts regarding them are peculiarly within the State’s knowledge. In view of this background, the assumption that more than one Negro was placed on the lists is inconceivable.
To assume that the commissioners did tender to the judges lists containing more than one Negro would lead inescapably to the conclusion that the judges systematically discriminated against Negroes. This is so because it just does not happen that from lists of sixteen it is always Negroes (barring one) that judges unpurposefully reject. I cannot attribute such discrimination to the trial judges of Dallas County. I can decline to attribute such discrimination to these judges only by concluding that the judges were never given the opportunity to select more than one Negro.
The grand-jury commissioners here received instructions from the judge not to “discriminate,” and I have no doubt that they tried conscientiously to abide by them. The difficulty lies in what they conceived to be the standard for determining discrimination, as revealed by their action. The number of Negroes both qualified and available for jury service in Dallas County precluded such uniform presence of never more than one Negro on any other basis of good faith than that the commissioners were guided by the belief that one Negro on the grand jury satisfied the prohibition against discrimination in Hill v. Texas. That this was their view is compelled by their testimony at the hearing on the motion to quash the indictment.
This is of course a misconception. The prohibition of the Constitution against discrimination because of color does not require in and of itself the presence of a Negro on a jury. But neither is it satisfied by Negro representation arbitrarily limited to one. It is not a question of presence on a grand jury nor absence from it. The basis of selection cannot consciously take color into account. Such is the command of the Constitution. Once that restriction upon the State’s freedom in devising and administering its jury system is observed, the States are masters in their own household. If it is observed, they cannot be charged with discrimination because of color, no matter what the composition of a grand jury may turn out to be..
On this record I cannot escape the conclusion that the judgment below is not based on an allowable finding of facts behind which this Court cannot go. It derives from the ultimate constitutional significance of undisputed facts. These bear no other rational meaning than purposeful discrimination. It does not neutralize the discrimination that it may well have been due to a misconception by the grand-jury commissioners of the requirements of this Court’s decisions.
This compels reversal of the judgment.
Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 590; Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354, 358; Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 130; Fay v. New York, 332 U. S. 261, 272.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (Vernon, 1948), Arts. 333-340.
Id., Art. 338. Under the Texas Constitution and statutes, women may not serve on Texas juries. Texas Constitution, Art. 5, § 13; Harper v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 252, 234 S. W. 909.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (Vernon, 1948):
“Art. 339. . . . No person shall be selected or serve as a grand juror who does not possess the following qualifications:
“1. He must be a citizen of the State, and of the county in which he is to serve, and qualified under the Constitution and laws to vote in said county; but, whenever it shall be made to appear to the court that the requisite number of jurors who have paid their poll taxes can not be found within the county, the court shall not regard the payment of poll taxes as a qualification for service as a juror.
“2. He must be a freeholder within the State, or a householder within the county.
“3. He must be of sound mind and good moral character.
“4. He must be able to read and write.
“5. He must not have been convicted of any felony.
“6. He must not be under indictment or other legal accusation for theft or of any felony.”
Id,., Art. 357.
Smith v. Texas, supra, p. 130. See Zimmerman v. State, 59 A. 2d 675, 676-77, affirmed under title Zimmerman v. Maryland, 336 U. S. 901; Fay v. New York, 332 U. S. 261, 266, 272; Morse, A Survey of the Grand Jury System, Part II, 10 Ore. L. Rev. 217, 226-239.
There is no suggestion in the case that any judge of the county trial courts discriminated against Negroes in his selection from the lists of the members for the grand juries.
Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940, Population, Volume II, Part 6, p. 795.
We use the word “panel” to mean the grand jury which is the final result of the statutory procedure. See Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 360. The record does not indicate the number of Negroes who were placed on the lists of sixteen, but did not serve. All that appears in this connection is that no Negroes were placed on the list in this case.
See note 4, supra.
Texas Constitution, Art. 6, §2; Vernon’s Texas Statutes, 1948, Art. 2955; Conklin v. State, 144 Tex. Cr. R. 210, 162 S. W. 2d 416.
There is some obscurity in the record as to whether the above figure of Negro poll-tax payers refers to males only or to men and women. 154 Tex. Cr. R. -, -, -, 216 S. W. 2d 813, 816, 819. The testimony and the statistics in the briefs cause us to conclude that the figure refers to all eligible Negro voters.
Texas Almanac, 1947-1948, p. 421.
In our computations we have used statistics which include both men and women, because in many cases statistical breakdowns in terms of sex are not available. Although only men may serve on the grand juries, the use of totals including both sexes should make for only minor variations in the percentages.
Compare Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 591; Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354, 361; Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 129; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 401-403.
Akins v. Texas, 325 U. S. 398, 404.
Cassell v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. R. -, 216 S. W. 2d 813.
Akins v. Texas, supra, 403.
Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 394; Akins v. Texas, supra, 404.
“No citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and whoever, being an officer or other person charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors, excludes or fails to summon any citizen for such cause, shall be fined not more than $5,000.”
“Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
See Neal v. Delaware, supra, 385, 386; Hill v. Texas, supra, 404; Fay v. New York, supra, 284.
One commissioner said: “I was not personally acquainted with any negro citizen of Dallas County that I thought was qualified to sit on the Grand Jury, at that time. I did not know a one personally that I would recommend, myself, at that time.
"... The reason that I did not submit the name of a negro in my 6 names that I submitted was because I did not know any negro citizen that I felt was qualified with reference to education and business ability to serve on this Grand Jury.”
Another said:
“We did not select a negro when I served as a Commissioner; we did disregard color, race or creed; I did not know plenty of negroes that I said would be qualified. I know a lot of negroes that are qualified lawyers, doctors, Superintendents of Schools and that sort of thing but the particular thing is that their occupation precludes their serving. You could not ask a doctor or lawyer to serve 3 months of their time, either white or colored; that limited us as to the number that we could select. I knew a lot of white and colored people that were qualified.
“I did not select a negro on this Grand Jury Panel but I tried.” This commissioner had sought a Negro High School Principal for the list.
The third said: “The reason a negro was not selected was not because we discriminated; I only appointed those that I personally knew to be qualified.
“If the name of any qualified negro citizen — been submitted at that time, who had given his permission and said that he had time to serve, I certainly would have submitted his name along with the other 15 names, if it was somebody that would have been acceptable to me.”
See Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Arts. 339, 355.
In large centers methods of selection other than personal acquaintanceship have been found convenient. Fay v. New York, 332 U. S. 261.
Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354, 360.
Smith v. Texas, supra, 131-132. There was a further discussion of the duty of jury commissioners to familiarize themselves with jury eligibles in Hill v. State, 144 Tex. Cr. R. 415, 418, 157 S. W. 2d 369, 371. The commissioners’ lack of acquaintance with available Negroes was not deemed sufficient by the state court to justify reversal. We disagreed and reversed. 316 U. S. 400.
1 use the term “panel,” as does Mr. Justice Reed in his opinion, to mean the grand jury of twelve selected from the list of sixteen persons tendered to the judge by the grand-jury commissioners.
The following is a fair compilation of the testimony of the three grancl-jury commissioners on this point:
“. . . it was discussed in the Jury Room [among] we Commissioners that an effort had been made to secure a negro for the Grand Jury . . . .”
“The reason that a negro was not put on this Grand Jury Panel was not because I had not made an effort to secure one . . . .”
“I did not select a negro on this Grand Jury Panel but I tried.” "As far as I know, there was not a negro on the October, 1947, Term of Grand Jury; I have never seen them in a body. When the information came to me I tried to contact a negro . . . .”
“The reason a negro was not selected was not because we discriminated . . . .”
“If the name of any qualified negro citizen [had] been submitted at that time, who had given his permission and said that he had time to serve, I certainly would have submitted his name along with the other 15 names, if it was somebody that would have been acceptable to me.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge District Court setting aside and annulling a decision and order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. United States, 397 F. Supp. 607 (WD Ky. 1975).
In 1973, the railroads in southern territory, which lies south of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi, proposed new tariffs changing the method of calculating the through rates on vegetable oil, cake or meal, and related articles, which were subject to transit privileges at various points where animal, fish, and poultry feed using these ingredients was made and transshipped. Certain large feed manufacturers protested. The Commission found that the net effect of the new tariffs would be to increase the through rates on the articles involved and that the railroads had “not presented probative evidence in justification” of the new tariffs. Based on the testimony and evidence presented by the protestante the Commission found “strong support on this record for concluding that these shippers will divert a considerable portion of their feed traffic, from railroad to trucks, with the establishment of the proposed rule.” The result, the Commission found, would be “a net loss of revenue to the [railroads] despite the assessment of the higher rates and charges and thus will be self-defeating.” The Commission concluded that the railroads had not met their burden of proof that the proposed tariffs were just and reasonable under § 15 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 384, as amended, 49 U. S. C. §15(7), and required that the railroads cancel the schedule. 346 I. C. C. 579, 587-588 (1973).
The District Court set aside and annulled the Commission order for want of substantial evidence to support it. The District Court considered the shippers’ evidence mere conjecture and self-serving and could not accept the Commission’s conclusion that the railroads would lose revenue from the new tariffs. It also thought it “un-controverted” that “the railroads have incurred a loss of revenue from the transportation of meal,” and therefore “clearly established that if there should be a diversion of meal traffic as predicted by the shippers, the carriers would actually be in a better financial position than at present.” 397 F. Supp., at 610.
We reverse the judgment of the District Court. Con-cededly, there was detailed evidence with respect to the anticipated traffic diversion which the Commission credited and thought strongly supported its conclusion. The District Court exceeded its function in reweighing the testimony, which is primarily the task of the Commission. Alton R. Co. v. United States, 315 U. S. 15, 23-24 (1942); Illinois C. R. Co. v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 385 U. S. 57, 69 (1966). On the record before it, the District Court also erred in differing with the Commission and agreeing with the railroads with respect to the impact of the new tariffs on railroad revenue. The court relied on evidence which showed only that under the old rates the railroads sustained a loss on feed outbound from the transit points and which, as a railroad witness testified, Comm’n Tr. 28-29, did not relate to the net gain or loss on inbound meal shipments or on the through movement when both legs were considered together.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
' In -November. 1964, the petitioner became a tenant in McDougald Terrace, a federally assisted, low-rent public housing project owned and managed by the Housing - Authority of the City of Durham, North Carolina. The lease provided for a tenancy from month to month, and gave both the tenant and the Authority the right to. terminate by giving notice at least 15 days before the end .of any monthly term. On August 10, 1965, the petitioner was elected president of a McDougald Terrace tenants’ organization. The next day the Authority gave her notice of termination of her tenancy as of August 31. • The notice did not give any reasons for the cancellation, and the Authority declined to accede to the petitioner’s demands for an explanation. The petitioner refused to' vacate the premises, and the Authority thereupon brought a summary ejectment action in the Justice of the Peace Court in Durham. The Authority there obtained a judgment of eviction, which- was affirmed on appeal by the Superior Court of Durham County and the Supreme Court of North Carolina.. We granted certiorari. 385 U. S. 967. Th<? petitioner has remained in possession of her apartment pursuant to a stay granted by the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The petitioner contends that she was constitutionally entitled to notice setting forth the reasons for the termination of her lease, and a hearing fhereon. She also suggests that her eviction was invalid because it allegedly was based on her participation in constitutionally protected associational activities. We find it unnecessary to reach the large issues stirred by these claims, because of a significant development that has occurred since we granted the writ of certiorari.
On February 7, 1967, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a directive to local'housing authorities. After reciting the fact that dissatisfaction had been expressed with eviction procedures in loW-rent housing projects and that suits had been brought to challenge evictions in which the local authority had not given any reason for its action, the circular stated:
“Since this is a federally assisted program, we believe it is essential that no tenant, be given notice to vacate without being told by the Local Authority, in a private conference or other appropriate manner, the reasons for the eviction, and given an opportunity to'make such reply or explanation as he may wish.”
The circular goes on to require local authorities to keep future records of evictions, the reasons therefor, and summaries of any conferences held with tenants in connection with evictions.
While the directive provides that certain records shall. - be kept commencing with the date of its issuance, them'is no suggestion that the basic procedure it prescribes is not to be followed in all eviction proceedings that have not become final. If this procedure were accorded to the petitioner, her case would assume a posture quite different from the one now presented. Compare Wabash R. Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 273 U. S. 126, 131; Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 600, 607; Klapprott v. United States, 335 U. S. 601.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina is accordingly vacated, and the case remanded for such further proceedings as may be appropriate in the light of the February 7 circular of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
/É ⅛ so ordered.
267 N. C. 431, 148 S. E. 2d 290.
In the Superior Court proceedings, it was stipulated' and agreed: “that if Mr. C. S. Oldham, the'Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the City of Durham, were present and duly sworn and were testifying,' he would testify that whatever reason there may have been, if any, for giving notice to Joyce C. Thorpe of the termination of her lease, it was not for the reason that she was elected president of any group organized in McDougald Terrace, and specifically it was not for the reason- that she was elected president of any group organized in McDougald Terrace on August 10, 1965 . . . .” '
The text of the circular is as follows:
“SUBJECT: Terminations of Tenancy in Low-Rent Projects
“Within the past year increasing dissatisfaction has been expressed with eviction practices in public low-rent housing projects. During that period a number of suits have been filed throughout the United States generally challenging the right of á Local Authority to evict a tenant without advising him of the reasons for such eviction.
“Since this is a federally assisted program, we believe it is essential that no tenant be given notice to vacate without, being told by the Local Authority, in a private conference or other appropriate manner, the reasons for the eviction, and given an opportunity to make such reply or explanation as he. may wish.
“In addition to informing the tenant of the reason(s) for any proposed eviction action, from this date each Local Authority shall maintain a written record of every eviction from its federally assisted public housing. Such records are to be available for review from time to time by HUD representatives and shall contain the following information:
“1. Name of tenant and identification of unit occupied.
“2. Date of notice to vacate.
“3. Specific reason (s) for notice to vacate. For example, if a tenant is being evicted because of undesirable actions, the record should detail the actions which resulted in the determination that eviction should be instituted.
“4. Date and method of notifying tenant with summary of any conferences with tenant, including names of conference participants.
“5/Date and description of final action taken.
“The Circular on the above subject from the PHA Commissioner, dated May 31, 1966, is superseded by this Circular.
“[s] Don Hummel
“Assistant Secretary for Renewal
“and Housing Assistance”
The superseded circular of May 31, 1966, státed that the federal authorities “strongly urge, as a matter of good social policy, that Local Authorities in a private conference inform any tenants who are given [eviction] notices of the reasons for this action.”
Although the circular does not specify the authority under which it is issued, federal authorities are given general statutory power to make “such- rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out” federal programs for assistance to low-rent housing projects. United States Housing Act. of 1937, § 8, 50 Stat. 891, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1408. The legal effect of the circular, the extent to which it binds local housing authorities, and whether it is in fact applicable to the petitioner are questions we do not now decide.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The respondent, Texaco, brought this action against the petitioner, Phillips Petroleum Co., in the Northern District of Oklahoma. The complaint asserted that Texaco had not been compensated for the helium constituent of natural gas sold by Texaco to Phillips. Texaco claimed it was entitled to the reasonable value of this helium in addition to the sums already paid by Phillips for the natural gas under the contract of sale. It is conceded that there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties. Accordingly, Texaco relied, as the basis for federal jurisdiction, on 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a), asserting that its claim “[arose] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Phillips moved to dismiss for want of federal jurisdiction of the subject matter. The District Court granted this motion, and Texaco appealed to the Court of Appeals for. the Tenth Circuit, which by a divided vote reversed the District Court’s determination that federal jurisdiction was lacking. Phillips seeks certiorari to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision and contends that past decisions of this Court make clear that Texaco’s claim cannot be said to “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
The substantive claim in this case is an outgrowth of an earlier decision of the Tenth Circuit, Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Grounds, 441 F. 2d 704 (1971). That was a federal interpleader action, in which the Court of Appeals held that lessee-producers of natural gas could recover the reasonable value of helium contained in the gas that they produced and sold to pipeline companies, which later extracted and marketed the helium. The essence of the Grounds decision was its rejection of the buyers’ contention that the contract price paid for the natural gas was compensation for “the gas stream in its entirety and, absent an express reservation, [that] the buyer gets the whole stream for such purposes as it may determine.” Id., at 720. The Court of Appeals reasoned that, as a result of the Helium Act Amendments of 1960, 74 Stat. 922, which added § 11 (50 U. S. C. § 167i) to the Helium Conservation Act, 43 Stat. 1110, “the Natural Gas Act, and the FPC fixed service rates, do not apply” to “[a] sale of the commingled helium as a component of the [natural] gas stream.” 441 F. 2d, at 721. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that “the reconciliation of the Natural Gas Act and of the 1960 amendments to the Helium Act . . . requires the conclusion that the FPC service rates do not apply to deny recovery for the contained helium” in the natural gas stream sold by the lessee-producers. Id., at 723. (Emphasis added.) The court went on to hold that the lessee-producers could therefore recover “the reasonable value of the helium content of the processed gas.” Ibid.
Because of the presence of federal interpleader jurisdiction, the court in Grounds did not consider whether there existed an independent basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction. Texaco contends that the Court of Appeals in Grounds read the Natural Gas Act and § 11 of the Helium Conservation Act together to imply a federal cause of action for the recovery of the reasonable value of the helium constituent in natural gas. On the other hand, Phillips’ position is that Grounds held only that the effect of these federal statutory provisions is to preclude the defense of payment to a quasi-contractual action brought for the recovery of the reasonable value of the helium. Hence, Phillips argues that the federal questions raised in the complaint are not part of Texaco’s claim but are merely asserted in anticipation of a probable defense by Phillips.
This Court has repeatedly held that, in order for a claim to arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” “a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U. S. 109, 112 (1936). The federal questions “must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer.” Moreover, “the complaint itself will not avail as a basis of jurisdiction in so far as it goes beyond a statement of the plaintiff's cause of action and anticipates or replies to a probable defense.” Gully, supra, at 113. See also Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586 (1888); Tennessee v. Union & Planters’ Bank, 152 U. S. 454 (1894); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149 (1908); Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U. S. 74 (1914); Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U. S. 667 (1950).
The Grounds case cannot properly be read as creating a federal cause of action, deriving from the Natural Gas Act and § 11 of the Helium Conservation Act, for the recovery of the reasonable value of helium contained in natural gas sold at rates sanctioned by the Federal Power Commission. Indeed, in commenting on its earlier Grounds decision, the Court of Appeals in the present case concluded that “satisfactory utility regulation does not permit a utility rate to be used to obtain a commodity which is not within the contemplation of that rate.” 481 F. 2d 70, 73. (Emphasis added.) In other words, the Grounds case simply held that payment for natural gas at rates established or permitted by the Commission under the authority of the Natural Gas Act will not be regarded as payment for the helium constituent and cannot be asserted as a defense to a suit for the recovery of the value of that helium. In short, the federal statutory provisions do not under Grounds create a federal right of recovery, but only preclude the interposition of a plea of payment to defeat a quasi-contractual suit for the value of the helium.
Texaco’s suit for the reasonable value of the helium is, in effect, an action in quantum meruit, whose source is state law and not federal law. Cf. Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U. S. 661 (1974). To the extent that the Natural Gas Act and the 1960 Helium Act Amendments may bear on this action for the recovery of the reasonable value of constituent helium in natural gas, it is clear that their effect is no more than to overcome a potential defense to the action. Under the settled precedent of our past decisions noted above, it thus cannot be said that this suit “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Accordingly, there is no federal jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a).
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
MR. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan dissent from the summary disposition of this case without full briefing and oral argument. They would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The price paid here was in accordance with rates sanctioned by the Federal Power Commission, which has authority to establish such rates under the Natural Gas Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 821, 15 U. S. C. §§ 717-717w.
Texaco has not pointed to any language either in the Natural Gas Act and the 1960 Helium Act Amendments or in the legislative history of these enactments that could be read to create a federal cause of action for the recovery of the reasonable value of the helium under the circumstances of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Fortas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Public Authorities Law of New York, § 2601, provides that a clause must be inserted in all contracts awarded by a public authority of the State for work or services to provide that upon refusal of “a person” to testify before a grand jury, to answer any relevant question, or to waive immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution, such person and any firm or corporation of which he is a member, officer, or director shall be disqualified for five years from contracting with any public authority, and any existing contracts may be canceled by the public authority without incurring any penalty or damages.
During 1964, appellant, a closely held family corporation, entered into three painting contracts with appel-lee New York City Housing Authority. Each of these contained the standard disqualification clause. The contracts were executed by appellant’s president, George Campbell, Jr., who was also a director and stockholder of the corporation.
Early in 1965, appellant became aware that the District Attorney of New York County was conducting an investigation before a grand jury of alleged bid rigging on public contracts, including those of appellant. Thereafter, George Campbell, Jr., resigned as appellant’s president and director and divested himself of his stock. He remained in appellant’s employ as an “estimator.”
A few weeks thereafter, Campbell was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. He refused to sign the waiver of immunity. In due course, the Public Housing Authority notified appellant that, pursuant to the provision in its contracts, the contracts were terminated and Campbell and the corporation were disqualified from doing business with the Authority for five years.
After proceedings in the lower courts of New York, the New York Court of Appeals denied relief to appellant. It held that the disqualification was valid and that § 2601 of the Public Authorities Law is constitutional, citing Gardner v. Broderick, 20 N. Y. 2d 227, 229 N. E. 2d 184 (1967) (reversed this day, ante, p. 273). The Court of Appeals also rejected appellant’s claim that it should not have been disqualified because Campbell resigned as president and director before he was called to testify. We noted probable jurisdiction. 390 U. S. 918 (1968).
We do not consider the constitutionality of § 2601 of New York’s Public Authorities Law or the validity or effect of the contract provisions incorporating that section. Appellant’s claim is that these provisions operated unconstitutionally to require its president, Mr. Campbell, to waive the benefits of his privilege against self-incrimination. But appellant cannot avail itself of this point, assuming its validity. It has long been settled in federal jurisprudence that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is “essentially a personal one, applying only to natural individuals.” It “cannot be utilized by or on behalf of any organization, such as a corporation.” United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694, 698, 699 (1944); see also Essgee Co. v. United States, 262 U. S. 151 (1923); Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. ICC, 221 U. S. 612, 622 (1911); Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361, 382-385 (1911); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 74-75 (1906). If a corporation cannot avail itself of the privilege against self-incrimination, it cannot take advantage of the claimed invalidity of a penalty imposed for refusal of an individual, its president, to waive the privilege. Since the privilege is not available to it, appellant, a corporation, cannot invoke the privilege to challenge the constitutionality of § 2601 of the Public Authorities Law. A fortiori, it cannot assail the validity of the provision in the contracts into which it entered, incorporating the substance of that section.
As to appellant’s claim that its due process rights were denied by the imposition of the penalty despite Mr. Campbell’s purported resignation from managerial positions, we do not reach the abstract legal question that is urged upon us. We see no reason to disturb the finding of the New York Court of Appeals that “the resignation was tendered and accepted solely for the purpose of avoiding the statutory disqualification,” and the conclusion of that court that the purported resignation should be disregarded for purposes of this case.
Affirmed.
Section 2602 provides for disqualification on the same basis without reference to any contractual clause.
The Court of Appeals noted that § 2603 of the Public Authorities Act vests the State Supreme Court with jurisdiction, for stated reasons, to remove the disqualification.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are called on to determine whether the federal drug forfeiture statute includes an exemption for assets that a defendant wishes to use to pay an attorney who conducted his defense in the criminal case where forfeiture was sought. Because we determine that no such exemption exists, we must decide whether that statute, so interpreted, is consistent with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. We hold that it is.
I
In January 1985, Christopher Reckmeyer was charged in a multicount indictment with running a massive drug importation and distribution scheme. The scheme was alleged to be a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), in violation of 84 Stat. 1265, as amended, 21 U. S. C. §848 (1982 ed., Supp. V). Relying on a portion of the CCE statute that authorizes forfeiture to the Government of “property constituting, or derived from... proceeds... obtained” from drug-law violations, § 853(a), the indictment sought forfeiture of specified assets in Reckmeyer’s possession. App. 33-40. At this time, the District Court, acting pursuant to § 853(e)(1) (A), entered a restraining order forbidding Reckmeyer to transfer any of the listed assets that were potentially forfeitable.
Sometime earlier, Reckmeyer had retained petitioner, a law firm, to represent him in the ongoing grand jury investigation which resulted in the January 1985 indictments. Notwithstanding the restraining order, Reckmeyer paid the firm $25,000 for preindictment legal services a few days after the indictment was handed down; this sum was placed by petitioner in an escrow account. Petitioner continued to represent Reckmeyer following the indictment.
On March 7, 1985, Reckmeyer moved to modify the District Court’s earlier restraining order to permit him to use some of the restrained assets to pay petitioner’s fees; Reckmeyer also sought to exempt from any postconviction forfeiture order the assets that he intended to use to pay petitioner. However, one week later, before the District Court could conduct a hearing on this motion, Reckmeyer entered a plea agreement with the Government. Under the agreement, Reckmeyer pleaded guilty to the drug-related CCE charge, and agreed to forfeit all of the specified assets listed in the indictment. The day after the Reckmeyer’s plea was entered, the District Court denied his earlier motion to modify the restraining order, concluding that the plea and forfeiture agreement rendered irrelevant any further consideration of the propriety of the court’s pretrial restraints. App. 54-55. Subsequently, an order forfeiting virtually all of the assets in Reckmeyer’s possession was entered by the District Court in conjunction with his sentencing. Id., at 57-65.
After this order was entered, petitioner filed a petition under § 853(n), which permits third parties with an interest in forfeited property to ask the sentencing court for an adjudication of their rights to that property; specifically, §853(n) (6)(B) gives a third party who entered into a bona fide transaction with a defendant a right to make claims against forfeited property, if that third party was “at the time of [the transaction] reasonably without cause to believe that the [defendant’s assets were] subject to forfeiture.” See also §853 (c). Petitioner claimed an interest in $170,000 of Reckme-yer’s assets, for services it had provided Reckmeyer in conducting his defense; petitioner also sought the $25,000 being held in the escrow account, as payment for preindictment legal services. Petitioner argued alternatively that assets used to pay an attorney were exempt from forfeiture under § 853, and if not, the failure of the statute to provide such an exemption rendered it unconstitutional. The District Court granted petitioner’s claim for a share of the forfeited assets.
A panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that—while §853 contained no statutory provision authorizing the payment of attorney’s fees out of forfeited assets—the statute’s failure to do so impermissibly infringed a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to the counsel of his choice. United States v. Harvey, 814 F. 2d 905 (1987). The Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case en banc and reversed. Sub nom. In re Forfeiture Hearing as to Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, 837 F. 2d 637 (1988). All the judges of the Fourth Circuit agreed that the language of the CCE statute acknowledged no exception to its forfeiture requirement that would recognize petitioner’s claim to the forfeited assets. A majority found this statutory scheme constitutional, id., at 642-648; four dissenting judges, however, agreed with the panel’s view that the statute so construed violated the Sixth Amendment, id., at 651-653 (Phillips, J., dissenting).
Petitioner sought review of the statutory and constitutional issues raised by the Court of Appeals’ holding. We granted certiorari, 488 U. S. 940 (1988), and now affirm.
II
Petitioner’s first submission is that the statutory provision that authorizes pretrial restraining orders on potentially for-feitable assets in a defendant’s possession, 21 U. S. C. § 853 (e) (1982 ed., Supp. V), grants district courts equitable discretion to determine when such orders should be imposed. This discretion should be exercised under “traditional equitable standards,” petitioner urges, including a “weighting] of the equities and competing hardships on the parties”; under this approach, a court “must invariably strike the balance so as to allow a defendant [to pay]... for bona fide attorneys fees,” petitioner argues. Brief for Petitioner 8. Petitioner further submits that once a district court so exercises its discretion, and fails to freeze assets that a defendant then uses to pay an attorney, the statute’s provision for recapture of forfeitable assets transferred to third parties, § 853(c), may not operate on such sums.
Petitioner’s argument, as it acknowledges, is based on the view of the statute expounded by Judge Winter of the Second Circuit in his concurring opinion in that Court of Appeals’ en banc decision, United States v. Monsanto, 852 F. 2d 1400, 1405-1411 (1988). We reject this interpretation of the statute today in our decision in United States v. Monsanto, ante, p. 600, which reverses the Second Circuit’s holding in that case. As we explain in our Monsanto decision, ante, at 611-614, whatever discretion § 853(e) provides district court judges to refuse to enter pretrial restraining orders, it does not extend as far as petitioner urges — nor does the exercise of that discretion “immunize” nonrestrained assets from subsequent forfeiture under § 853(c), if they are transferred to an attorney to pay legal fees. Thus, for the reasons provided in our opinion in Monsanto, we reject petitioner’s statutory claim.
Ill
We therefore address petitioner’s constitutional challenges to the forfeiture law. Petitioner contends that the statute infringes on criminal defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, and upsets the “balance of power” between the Government and the accused in a manner contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We consider these contentions in turn.
A
Petitioner’s first claim is that the forfeiture law makes impossible, or at least impermissibly burdens, a defendant’s right “to select and be represented by one’s preferred attorney.” Wheat v. United States, 486 U. S. 153, 159 (1988). Petitioner does not, nor could it defensibly do so, assert that impecunious defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to choose their counsel. The Amendment guarantees defendants in criminal cases the right to adequate representation, but those who do not have the means to hire their own lawyers have no cognizable complaint so.long as they are adequately represented by attorneys appointed by the courts. “[A] defendant may not insist on representation by an attorney he cannot afford.” Wheat, supra, at 159. Petitioner does not dispute these propositions. Nor does the Government deny that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom that defendant can afford to hire, or who is willing to represent the defendant even though he is without funds. Applying these principles to the statute in question here, we observe that nothing in § 853 prevents a defendant from hiring the attorney of his choice, or disqualifies any attorney from serving as a defendant’s counsel. Thus, unlike Wheat, this case does not involve a situation where the Government has asked a court to prevent a defendant’s chosen counsel from representing the accused. Instead, petitioner urges that a violation of the Sixth Amendment arises here because of the forfeiture, at the instance of the Government, of assets that defendants intend to use to pay their attorneys.
Even in this sense, of course, the burden the forfeiture law imposes on a criminal defendant is limited. The forfeiture statute does not prevent a defendant who has nonforfeitable assets from retaining any attorney of his choosing. Nor is it necessarily the case that a defendant who possesses nothing but assets the Government seeks to have forfeited will be prevented from retaining counsel of choice. Defendants like Reckmeyer may be able to find lawyers willing to represent them, hoping that their fees will be paid in the event of acquittal, or via some other means that a defendant might come by in the future. The burden placed on defendants by the forfeiture law is therefore a limited one.
Nonetheless, there will be cases where a defendant will be unable to retain the attorney of his choice, when that defendant would have been able to hire that lawyer if he had access to forfeitable assets, and if there was no risk that fees paid by the defendant to his counsel would later be recouped under § 853(c). It is in these cases, petitioner argues, that the Sixth Amendment puts limits on the forfeiture statute.
This submission is untenable. Whatever the full extent of the Sixth Amendment’s protection of one’s right to retain counsel of his choosing, that protection does not go beyond “the individual’s right to spend his own money to obtain the advice and assistance of... counsel.” Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U. S. 305, 370 (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting). A defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to spend another person’s money for services rendered by an attorney, even if those funds are the only way that that defendant will be able to retain the attorney of his choice. A robbery suspect, for example, has no Sixth Amendment right to use funds he has stolen from a bank to retain an attorney to defend him if he is apprehended. The money, though in his possession, is not rightfully his; the Government does not violate the Sixth Amendment if it seizes the robbery proceeds and refuses to permit the defendant to use them to pay for his defense. “[N]o lawyer, in any case,... has the right to... accept stolen property, or... ransom money, in payment of a fee.... The privilege to practice law is not a license to steal.” Laska v. United States, 82 F. 2d 672, 677 (CA10 1936). Petitioner appears to concede as much, see Brief for Petitioner 40, n. 25, as respondent in Monsanto clearly does, see Brief for Respondent in No. 88-454, pp. 36-37.
Petitioner seeks to distinguish such cases for Sixth Amendment purposes by arguing that the bank’s claim to robbery proceeds rests on “pre-existing property rights,” while the Government’s claim to forfeitable assets rests on a “penal statute” which embodies the “Active property-law concept of... relation-back” and is merely “a mechanism for preventing fraudulent conveyances of the defendant’s assets, not... a device for determining true title to property.” Brief for Petitioner 40-41. In light of this, petitioner contends, the burden placed on defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by the forfeiture statute outweighs the Government’s interest in forfeiture. Ibid.
The premises of petitioner’s constitutional analysis are unsound in several respects. First, the property rights given the Government by virtue of the forfeiture statute are more substantial than petitioner acknowledges. In § 853(c), the so-called “relation-back” provision, Congress dictated that “[a]ll right, title and interest in property” obtained by criminals via the illicit means described in the statute “vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture.” 21 U. S. C. § 853(c) (1982 ed., Supp. V). As Congress observed when the provision was adopted, this approach, known as the “taint theory,” is one that “has long been recognized in forfeiture cases,” including the decision in United States v. Stowell, 133 U. S. 1 (1890). See S. Rep. No. 98-225, p. 200, and n. 27 (1983). In Stowell, the Court explained the operation of a similar forfeiture provision (for violations of the Internal Revenue Code) as follows:
“As soon as [the possessor of the forfeitable asset committed the violation] of the internal revenue laws, the forfeiture under those laws took effect, and (though needing judicial condemnation to perfect it) operated from that time as a statutory conveyance to the United States of all the right, title and interest then remaining in the [possessor]; and was as valid and effectual, against all the world, as a recorded deed. The right so vested in the United States could not be defeated or impaired by any subsequent dealings of the... [possessor].” Stowell, supra, at 19.
In sum, § 853(c) reflects the application of the long-recognized and lawful practice of vesting title to any forfeitable assets, in the United States, at the time of the criminal act giving rise to forfeiture. Concluding that Reckmeyer cannot give good title to such property to petitioner because he did not hold good title is neither extraordinary or novel. Nor does petitioner claim, as a general proposition that the relation-back provision is unconstitutional, or that Congress cannot, as a general matter, vest title to assets derived from the crime in the Government, as of the date of the criminal act in question. Petitioner’s claim is that whatever part of the assets that is necessary to pay attorney’s fees cannot be subjected to forfeiture. But given the Government’s title to Reckme-yer’s assets upon conviction, to hold that the Sixth Amendment creates some right in Reckmeyer to alienate such assets, or creates a right on petitioner’s part to receive these assets, would be peculiar.
There is no constitutional principle that gives one person the right to give another’s property to a third party, even where the person seeking to complete the exchange wishes to do so in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right. While petitioner and its supporting amici attempt to distinguish between the expenditure of forfeitable assets to exercise one’s Sixth Amendment rights, and expenditures in the pursuit of other constitutionally protected freedoms, see, e. g., Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 6, there is no such distinction between, or hierarchy among, constitutional rights. If defendants have a right to spend forfeitable assets on attorney’s fees, why not on exercises of the right to speak, practice one’s religion, or travel? The full exercise of these rights, too, depends in part on one’s financial wherewithal; and forfeiture, or even the threat of forfeiture, may similarly prevent a defendant from enjoying these rights as fully as he might otherwise. Nonetheless, we are not about to recognize an antiforfeiture exception for the exercise of each such right; nor does one exist for the exercise of Sixth Amendment rights.
Petitioner's “balancing analysis” to the contrary rests substantially on the view that the Government has only a modest interest in forfeitable assets that may be used to retain an attorney. Petitioner takes the position that, in large part, once assets have been paid over from client to attorney, the principal ends of forfeiture have been achieved: dispossessing a drug dealer or racketeer of the proceeds of his wrongdoing. See Brief for Petitioner 39; see also 814 F. 2d, at 924-925. We think that this view misses the mark for three reasons.
First, the Government has a pecuniary interest in forfeiture that goes beyond merely separating a criminal from his ill-gotten gains; that legitimate interest extends to recovering all forfeitable assets, for such assets are deposited in a Fund that supports law-enforcement efforts in a variety of important and useful ways. See 28 U. S. C. § 524(c), which establishes the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund. The sums of money that can be raised for law-enforcement activities this way are substantial, and the Government’s interest in using the profits of crime to fund these activities should not be discounted.
Second, the statute permits “rightful owners” of forfeited assets to make claims for forfeited assets before they are retained by the Government. See 21 U. S. C. § 853(n)(6)(A). The Government’s interest in winning undiminished forfeiture thus includes the objective of returning property, in full, to those wrongfully deprived or defrauded of it. Where the Government pursues this restitutionary end, the Government’s interest in forfeiture is virtually indistinguishable from its interest in returning to a bank the proceeds of a bank robbery; and a forfeiture-defendant’s claim of right to use such assets to hire an attorney, instead of having them returned to their rightful owners, is no more persuasive than a bank robber’s similar claim.
Finally, as we have recognized previously, a major purpose motivating congressional adoption and continued refinement of the racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations (RICO) and CCE forfeiture provisions has been the desire to lessen the economic power of organized crime and drug enterprises. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 27-28 (1983). This includes the use of such economic power to retain private counsel. As the Court of Appeals put it: “Congress has already underscored the compelling public interest in stripping criminals such as Reckmeyer of their undeserved economic power, and part of that undeserved power may be the ability to command high-priced legal talent.” 837 F. 2d, at 649. The notion that the Government has a legitimate interest in depriving criminals of economic power, even insofar as that power is used to retain counsel of choice, may be somewhat unsettling. See, e. g., Tr. of Oral Arg. 50-52. But when a defendant claims that he has suffered some substantial impairment of his Sixth Amendment rights by virtue of the seizure or forfeiture of assets in his possession, such a complaint is no more than the reflection of “the harsh reality that the quality of a criminal defendant’s representation frequently may turn on his ability to retain the best counsel money can buy.” Morris v. Slappy, 461 U. S. 1, 23 (1983) (Brennan, J., concurring in result). Again, the Court of Appeals put it aptly: “The modern day Jean Valjean must be satisfied with appointed counsel. Yet the drug merchant claims that his possession of huge sums of money... entitles him to something more. We reject this contention, and any notion of a constitutional right to use the proceeds of crime to finance an expensive defense.” 837 F. 2d, at 649.
It is our view that there is a strong governmental interest in obtaining full recovery of all forfeitable assets, an interest that overrides any Sixth Amendment interest in permitting criminals to use assets adjudged forfeitable to pay for their defense. Otherwise, there would be an interference with a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights whenever the Government freezes or takes some property in a defendant’s possession before, during, or after a criminal trial. So-called “jeopardy assessments” — Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seizures of assets to secure potential tax liabilities, see 26 U. S. C. § 6861 — may impair a defendant’s ability to retain counsel in a way similar to that complained of here. Yet these assessments have been upheld against constitutional attack, and we note that the respondent in Monsanto concedes their constitutionality, see Brief for Respondent in No. 88-454, p. 37, n. 20. Moreover, petitioner’s claim to a share of the forfeited assets postconviction would suggest that the Government could never impose a burden on assets within a defendant’s control that could be used to pay a lawyer. Criminal defendants, however, are not exempted from federal, state, and local taxation simply because these financial levies may deprive them of resources that could be used to hire an attorney.
We therefore reject petitioner’s claim of a Sixth Amendment right of criminal defendants to use assets that are the Government’s — assets adjudged forfeitable, as Reckmeyer’s were — to pay attorney’s fees, merely because those assets are in their possession. See also Monsanto, ante, at 613, which rejects a similar claim with respect to pretrial orders and assets not yet judged forfeitable.
B
Petitioner’s second constitutional claim is that the forfeiture statute is invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it permits the Government to upset the “balance of forces between the accused and his accuser.” Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U. S. 470, 474 (1973). We are not sure that this contention adds anything to petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim, because, while “[t]he Constitution guarantees a fair trial through the Due Process Clauses... it defines the basic elements of a fair trial largely through the several provisions of the Sixth Amendment,” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 684-685 (1984). We have concluded above that the Sixth Amendment is not offended by the forfeiture provisions at issue here. Even if, however, the Fifth Amendment provides some added protection not encompassed in the Sixth Amendment’s more specific provisions, we find petitioner’s claim based on the Fifth Amendment unavailing.
Forfeiture provisions are powerful weapons in the war on crime; like any such weapons, their impact can be devastating when used unjustly. But due process claims alleging such abuses are cognizable only in specific cases of prosecuto-rial misconduct (and petitioner has made no such allegation here) or when directed to a rule that is inherently unconstitutional. “The fact that the... Act might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it... invalid,” United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987). Petitioner’s claim — that the power available to prosecutors under the statute could be abused— proves too much, for many tools available to prosecutors can be misused in a way that violates the rights of innocent persons. As the Court of Appeals put it, in rejecting this claim when advanced below: “Every criminal law carries with it the potential for abuse, but a potential for abuse does not require a finding of facial invalidity.” 837 F. 2d, at 648.
We rejected a claim similar to petitioner’s last Term, in Wheat v. United States, 486 U. S. 153 (1988). In Wheat, the petitioner argued that permitting a court to disqualify a defendant’s chosen counsel because of conflicts of interest — over that defendant’s objection to the disqualification — would encourage the Government to “manufacture” such conflicts to deprive a defendant of his chosen attorney. Id., at 163. While acknowledging that this was possible, we declined to fashion the per se constitutional rule petitioner sought in Wheat, instead observing that “trial courts are undoubtedly aware of [the] possibility” of abuse, and would have to “take it into consideration,” when dealing with disqualification motions.
A similar approach should be taken here. The Constitution does not forbid the imposition of an otherwise permissible criminal sanction, such as forfeiture, merely because in some cases prosecutors may abuse the processes available to them, e. g., by attempting to impose them on persons who should not be subjected to that punishment. Cf. Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 751, and n. 8 (1970). Cases involving particular abuses can be dealt with individually by the lower courts, when (and if) any such cases arise.
<1
For the reasons given above, we find that petitioner’s statutory and constitutional challenges to the forfeiture imposed here are without merit. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
The forfeiture statute provides, in relevant part, that any person convicted of a particular class of criminal offenses
“shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law—
“(1) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation;
“The court, in imposing sentence on such person, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed..., that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection.” 21 U. S. C. § 853(a) (1982 ed., Supp. V).
There is no question here that the offenses Reckmeyer was accused of in the indictment fell within the class of crimes triggering this forfeiture provision.
- The pretrial restraining order provision states that
“[u]pon application of the United States, the court may enter a restraining order or injunction... or take any other action to preserve the availability of property described in subsection (a) of [§ 853] for forfeiture under this section—
“(A) upon the filing of an indictment or information charging a violation... for which criminal forfeiture may be ordered under [§ 853] and alleging that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section.” § 853(e)(1).
The United States argues that petitioner lacks jus tertii standing to advance Reckmeyer’s Sixth Amendment rights. See Brief for United States 35, and n. 17. Though the argument is not without force, we conclude that petitioner has the requisite standing.
When a person or entity seeks standing to advance the constitutional rights of others, we ask two questions: first, has the litigant suffered some injury-in-fact, adequate to satisfy Article Ill’s case-or-controversy requirement; and second, do prudential considerations which we have identified in our prior cases point to permitting the litigant to advance the claim? See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 112 (1976). As to the first inquiry, there can be little doubt that petitioner’s stake in $170,000 of the forfeited assets — which it would almost certainly receive if the Sixth Amendment claim it advances here were vindicated — is adequate injury-in-fact to meet the constitutional minimum of Article III standing.
The second inquiry — the prudential one — is more difficult. To answer this question, our cases have looked at three factors: the relationship of the litigant to the person whose rights are being asserted; the ability of the person to advance his own rights; and the impact of the litigation on third-party interests. See, e. g., Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 196 (1976); Singleton v. Wulff, supra, at 113-118; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 443-446 (1972). The second of these three factors counsels against review here: as Monsanto, ante, p. 600, illustrates, a criminal defendant suffers none of the obstacles discussed in Wulff, supra, at 116-117, to advancing his own constitutional claim. We think that the-first and third factors, however, clearly weigh in petitioner’s favor. The attorney-client relationship between petitioner and Reckmeyer, like the doctor-patient relationship in Baird, is one of special consequence; and like Baird, it is credibly alleged that the statute at issue here may “materially impair the ability of” third persons in Reckmeyer’s position to exercise their constitutional rights. See Baird, supra, at 445. Petitioner therefore satisfies our requirements for jus tertii standing.
That section of the statute, which includes the so-called “relation back” provision, states:
“All right, title, and interest in property described in [§ 853] vests in the United States upon the commission of.the act giving rise to forfeiture under this section. Any such property that is subsequently transferred to a person other than the defendant may be the subject of a special verdict of forfeiture and thereafter shall be forfeited to the United States, unless the transferee establishes” his entitlement to such property pursuant to § 853(n), discussed supra. 21 U. S. C. § 853(c) (1982 ed., Supp. V).
It would be particularly odd to recognize the Sixth Amendment as a defense to forfeiture, because forfeiture is a substantive charge in the indictment against a defendant. Thus, petitioner asks us to take the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel “for his defense” and make that guarantee petitioner’s defense to the indictment. We doubt that the Amendment’s guarantees, which are procedural in nature, cf. Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806, 818 (1975), provide such a substantive defense to charges against an accused.
For example, just one of the assets which Reckmeyer agreed to forfeit, a parcel of land known as “Shelburne Glebe,” see App. 57 (forfeiture order), was recently sold by federal authorities for $5.3 million. Washington Post, May 10, 1989, p. Dl, cols. 1-4. The proceeds of the sale will fund federal, state, and local law-enforcement activities. Ibid.
We also reject the contention, advanced by amici, see, e. g., Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 20-22, and accepted by some courts considering claims like petitioner’s, see, e. g., United States v. Rogers, 602 F. Supp. 1332, 1349-1350 (Colo. 1985), that a type of “per se” ineffective assistance of counsel results — due to the particular complexity of RICO or drug-enterprise cases — when a defendant is not permitted to use assets in his possession to retain counsel of choice, and instead must rely on appointed counsel. If such an argument were accepted, it would bar the trial of indigents charged with such offenses, because those persons would have to rely on appointed counsel — which this view considers per se ineffective.
If appointed counsel is ineffective in a particular case, a defendant has resort to the remedies discussed in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). But we cannot say that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel is a guarantee of a privately retained counsel in every complex case, irrespective of a defendant’s ability to pay.
See, e. g., Avco Delta Corporation Canada Ltd. v. United States, 484 F. 2d 692 (CA7 1973); Summers v. United States, 250 F. 2d 132, 133-135 (CA9 1957); United States v. Brodson, 241 F. 2d 107, 109-111 (CA7 1957) (en bane).
A myriad of other law-enforcement mechanisms operate in a manner similar to IRS jeopardy assessments, and might also be subjected to Sixth Amendment invalidation if petitioner’s claim were accepted. See Briekey, Attorneys’ Fee Forfeitures, 36 Emory L. J. 761, 770-772 (1987).
Petitioner advances three additional reasons for invalidating the forfeiture statute, all of which concern possible ethical conflicts created for lawyers defending persons facing forfeiture of assets in their possession. See Brief for Petitioner 35-37; see also Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 17-22.
Petitioner first notes the statute’s exemption from forfeiture of property transferred to a bona fide purchaser who was “reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture.” 21 U. S. C. § 853(n)(6)(B). This provision, it is said, might give an attorney an incentive not to investigate a defendant’s case as fully as possible, so that the lawyer can invoke it to protect from forfeiture any fees he has received. Yet given the requirement that any assets which the Government wishes to have forfeited must be specified in the indictment, see Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 7(c)(2), the only way a lawyer could be a beneficiary of § 853(n)(6)(B) would be to fail to read the indictment of his client. In this light, the prospect that a lawyer might find himself in conflict with his client, by seeking to take advantage of § 853(n)(6)(B), amounts to very little. Petitioner itself concedes that such a conflict will, as a practical matter, never arise: a defendant’s “lawyer... could not demonstrate that he was ‘reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture,’ ” petitioner concludes at one point. Brief for Petitioner 31.
The second possible conflict arises in plea bargaining: petitioner posits that a lawyer may advise a client to accept an agreement entailing a more harsh prison sentence but no forfeiture — even where contrary to the client’s interests — in an effort to preserve the lawyer’s fee. Following such a strategy, however, would surely constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. We see no reason why our cases such as Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), are inadequate to deal with any such ineffectiveness where it arises. In any event, there is no claim that such conduct occurred here, nor could there be, as Reckmeyer’s plea agreement included forfeiture of virtually every asset in his possession. Moreover, we rejected a claim similar to this one in Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U. S. 717, 727-728 (1986).
Finally, petitioner argues that the forfeiture statute, in operation, will create a system akin to “contingency fees” for defense lawyers: only a defense lawyer who wins acquittal for his client will be able to collect his fees, and contingent fees in criminal cases are generally considered unethical. See ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(d)(2) (1983); ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-106(0 (1979). But there is no indication here that petitioner, or any other firm, has actually sought to charge a defendant on a contingency basis; rather the claim is that a law firm’s prospect of collecting its fee may turn on the outcome at trial. This, however, may often be the case in criminal defense work. Nor is it clear why permitting contingent fees in criminal cases —if that is what the forfeiture statute does — violates a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. The fact that a federal statutory scheme authorizing contingency fees — again, if that is what Congress has created in §853 (a premise we doubt) — is at odds with model disciplinary rules or state disciplinary codes hardly renders the federal statute invalid.
Indeed, the strongest statement on the question is the comment in the House Report: “Nothing in this section is intended to interfere with a person’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” H. R. Rep. No. 98-845, pt. 1, p. 19, n. 1 (1984). Even if the majority were correct that this statement is “nothing more than an exhortation for the courts to tread carefully in this delicate area,” United States v. Monsanto, ante, at 609, n. 8, the majority does not explain why it proceeds to ignore Congress’ exhortation
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
On January 11, 1962, the three-judge District Court dismissed the complaint alleging violation of the Constitution of the United States by New York State’s constitutional and statutory provisions governing apportionment of State Senate and Assembly Districts. 202 F. Supp. 741. The three judges filed separate opinions, no two of which supported the judgment of dismissal on identical grounds. One opinion expressed the view that the action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, want of justiciability, and want of equity. 202 F. Supp., at 742. A second opinion expressed the view that since the apportionment was not alleged to effect a discrimination against any particular racial or religious group, but merely a geographical discrimination, jurisdiction should be exercised, but only to dismiss. 202 F. Supp., at 754. A third opinion rested on the ground that the action was not justiciable and expressed no view on the merits. 202 F. Supp., at 755.
On March 26, 1962, we held in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, that a justiciable federal constitutional cause of action is stated by a claim of arbitrary impairment of votes by means of invidiously discriminatory geographic classification. Our well-established practice of a remand for consideration in the light of a subsequent decision therefore applies. As in Scholle v. Hare, 369 U. S. 429, we believe that the court below should be the first to consider the merits of the federal constitutional claim, free from any doubts as to its justiciability and as to the merits of alleged arbitrary and invidious geographical discrimination. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in the light of Baker v. Carr, supra.
The motions to substitute Paul R. Screvane in the place of Abe Stark, and Eugene H. Nickerson in the place of A. Holly Patterson, as parties appellee, are granted.
MR. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case limited to the question whether a shipowner’s duty to furnish an injured seaman maintenance and cure continues from the date
the seaman leaves the ship to the date when a medical diagnosis is made that the seaman’s injury was permanent immediately after his accident and therefore incurable. 419 U. S. 894 (1974).
Petitioner was a seaman aboard respondent’s Great Lakes vessel, S. S. Robert S. McNamara. He was discharged and left the ship on June 29, 1968. Thereafter he filed this suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, based on a claim that on April 4, 1968, while replacing a lower engineroom deck plate, he slipped and fell on the oily floor plate causing his head to suffer a severe blow when it struck an electrical box. The complaint included a count, among others, for maintenance and cure. The medical testimony at the trial was that petitioner suffered from a vestibular disorder defined as damage to the balancing mechanism of the inner ear. The testimony of respondent’s medical witness, Dr. Heil, an otolaryngologist, supplied the only medical diagnosis as to the time when the disorder became permanent and not susceptible of cura-tive treatment. Dr. Heil testified on April 27, 1972, that he had recently examined petitioner. . He conceded that a severe blow to the head, such as alleged by petitioner, could have caused the disorder. He said, however, that the disorder is not a condition that can be cured by treatment. The jury awarded petitioner maintenance and cure in the amount of $5,848. Respondent moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that the award was not within the permissible scope of maintenance and cure. The District Court denied the motion and stated: “While it is true that maintenance and cure is not available for a sickness declared to be permanent, it is also true that maintenance and cure continues until such time as the incapacity is declared to be permanent.” App. 20a. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed without a published opinion, 495 F. 2d 1374 (1974). The Court of Appeals held that “once the seaman reaches ‘maximum medical recovery/ the shipowner’s obligation to provide maintenance and cure ceases,” App. 28a, and since “ [t]he record in this case does not permit an inference other than that [petitioner’s] condition was permanent immediately after the accident,” id., at 29a, the District Court’s holding impermissibly extended the shipowner’s obligation.
We disagree with the Court of Appeals and therefore reverse. The shipowner’s ancient duty to' provide maintenance and cure for the seaman who becomes ill or is injured while in the service of the ship derives from the “unique hazards [which] attend the work of seamen,” and fosters the “combined object of encouraging marine com-
merce and assuring the well-being of seamen.” Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U. S. 724, 727 (1943). To further that “combined object” we have held that the duty arises irrespective of the absence of shipowner negligence and indeed irrespective of whether the illness or injury is suffered in the course of the seaman’s employment. Calmar S. S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U. S. 525, 527 (1938). And, “[s]o broad is the shipowner’s obligation, . . . negligence or acts short of culpable misconduct on the seaman’s part will not relieve [the shipowner] of the responsibility.” Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., supra, at 730-731. Thus, the breadth and inclusiveness of the shipowner’s duty assure its easy and ready administration for “[i]t has few exceptions or conditions to stir contentions, cause delays, and invite litigations.” Farrell v. United States, 336 U. S. 511, 516 (1949).
Denial of maintenance and cure when the seaman’s injury, though in fact permanent immediately after the accident, is not medically diagnosed as permanent until long after its occurrence would obviously disserve and frustrate the “combined object of encouraging marine commerce and assuring the well-being of seamen.” A shipowner might withhold vitally necessary maintenance and cure on the belief, however well or poorly founded, that the seaman’s injury is permanent and incurable. Or the seaman,, if paid maintenance and cure by the shipowner, might be required to reimburse the payments, if it is later determined that the injury was permanent immediately after the accident. Thus uncertainty would displace the essential certainty of protection against the ravages of illness and injury that encourages seamen to undertake their hazardous calling. Moreover, easy and ready administration of the shipowner’s duty would seriously suffer from the introduction of complexities and uncertainty that could “stir contentions, cause delays, and invite litigations.”
The Shipowners’ Liability Convention, made effective for the United States on October 29, 1939, Farrell v. United States, supra, at 517, buttresses our conclusion that the District Court correctly held that “maintenance and cure continues until such time as the incapacity is declared to be permanent.” That holding tracks the wording of Art. 4, ¶[ 1, of the Convention which provides: “The shipowner shall be liable to defray the expense of medical care and maintenance until the sick or injured person has been cured, or until the sickness or incapacity has been declared of a permanent character.” 54 Stat. 1696. (Emphasis supplied.) The aim of the Convention “was not to change materially American standards but to equalize operating costs by raising the standards of member nations to the American level.” Warren v. United States, 340 U. S. 523, 527 (1951). Thus Art. 4, ¶ 1, is declaratory of a longstanding tradition respecting the scope of the shipowner’s duty to furnish injured seamen maintenance and cure, Farrell v. United States, supra, at 518, and therefore the District Court’s interpretation was correct.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
This question is subsumed in Question I presented in the petition for writ of certiorari:
“Is a disabled seaman who contracted by trauma a permanent disease while in the service of a vessel entitled to maintenance and cure payments during the interim between the period the incident occurred and the time the disease was medically diagnosed and proclaimed incurable?”
Petitioner also sought damages under counts founded on the Jones Act, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688, and on unseaworthiness under general maritime law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of respondent entered on a jury verdict of no cause for action on either count. We denied review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in respect of that affirmance when we denied the petition for writ of certiorari as respects Question II presented in the petition.
When asked whether petitioner might be cured by treatment, Dr. Heil testified:
“No, not really. Treatment is primarily symptomatic for this condition. That is, people with a vestibular disorder are apt to have intermittent episodes of dizziness which, on occasion, are somewhat more severe. Treatment is limited to those times when the patient is particularly dizzy. They can obtain some symptomatic relief with medication. Other than that, there is no specific cure or treatment.”
On this record maintenance and cure could have been claimed to continue from June 29, 1968, the date petitioner left the vessel, to April 27, 1972, the date Dr. Heil testified that the vestibular disorder was permanent immediately after the accident and not susceptible of curative treatment. The jury, however, awarded petitioner maintenance and cure at $8 per day only for the period from June 29, 1968, to June 29, 1970. Petitioner’s appeal to the Court of Appeals did not, however, draw into question a claim of entitlement.to maintenance and cure for the longer period. App. 25a. In that circumstance petitioner is not entitled to the relief respecting the longer period sought by him in this Court, Brief for Petitioner 19. See Le Tulle v. Scofield, 308 U. S. 415, 421-422 (1940). Moreover, in light of our holding that the shipowner’s duty continued until Dr. Heil’s testimony, it is not necessary to address the question whether the jury award might also be sustained on the ground that the shipowner’s duty in any event obliged him to provide palliative medical care to arrest further progress of the condition or to reduce pain, and we intimate no view whatever upon the shipowner’s duty in that regard. Compare Ward v. Union Barge Line Corp., 443 F. 2d 565, 572 (CA3 1971), with the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case. App. 29a n. 1. Nor do we express any view whether a seaman may forfeit his right to maintenance and cure by not reporting a known injury or malady, or by refusing from the outset to allow proper medical examination, or by discontinuing medical care made available.
See Desmond v. United States, 217 F. 2d 948, 950 (CA2 1954): “The shipowner is liable for maintenance and cure only until the disease is cured or recognized as incurable” (emphasis supplied); Vitco v. Joncich, 130 F. Supp. 945, 949 (SD Cal. 1955), aff’d, 234 F. 2d 161 (CA9 1956): “The shipowner’s obligation to furnish maintenance is coextensive in time with his duty to furnish cure . . . and neither obligation is discharged until the earliest time when it is reasonably and in good faith determined by those charged with the seaman’s care and treatment that the maximum cure reasonably possible has been effected” (emphasis supplied).
It is therefore unnecessary to address the conflict between commentators whether the Convention is applicable to Great Lakes shipping. Compare G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 323 (2d ed. 1975) (“Evidently the Convention was not to apply to . . . Great Lakes shipping”), with 4 E. Benedict, Admiralty 296 (6th ed. 1940) ("[T]he Convention would seem to apply to the Great Lakes, which are not ‘inland waters’ in the usual sense . . .”). The United States’ reservation to the Convention provides: “[T]he United States Government understands and construes the words ‘maritime navigation’ appearing in this Convention to mean navigation on the high seas only.” 54 Stat. 1704.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Fortas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners are identified with a “white supremacist” organization called the National States Rights Party. They held a public assembly or rally near the courthouse steps in the town of Princess Anne, the county seat of Somerset County, Maryland, in the evening of August 6, 1966. The authorities did not attempt to interfere with the rally. Because of the tense atmosphere which developed as the meeting progressed, about 60 state policemen were brought in, including some from a nearby county. They were held in readiness, but for tactical reasons only a few were in evidence at the scene of the rally.
Petitioners’ speeches, amplified by a public address system so that they could be heard for several blocks, were aggressively and militantly racist. Their target was primarily Negroes and, secondarily, Jews. It is sufficient to observe with the court below, that the speakers engaged in deliberately derogatory, insulting, and threatening language, scarcely disguised by protestations of peaceful purposes; and that listeners might well have construed their words as both a provocation to the Negroes in the crowd and an incitement to the whites. The rally continued for something more than an hour, concluding at about 8:25 p. m. The crowd listening to the speeches increased from about 50 at the beginning to about 150, of whom 25% were Negroes.
In the course of the proceedings it was announced that the rally would be resumed the following night, August 7.
On that day, the respondents, officials of Princess Anne and of Somerset County, applied for and obtained a restraining order from the Circuit Court for Somerset County. The proceedings were ex parte, no notice being given to petitioners and, so far as appears, no effort being made informally to communicate with them, although this is expressly contemplated under Maryland procedure. The order restrained petitioners for 10 days from holding rallies or meetings in the county “which will tend to disturb and endanger the citizens of the County.” As a result, the rally scheduled for August 7 was not held. After the trial which took place 10 days later, an injunction was issued by the Circuit Court on August 30, in effect extending the restraint for 10 additional months. The court had before it, in addition to the testimony of witnesses, tape recordings made by the police of the August 6 rally.
On appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the 10-day order, but reversed the 10-month order on the ground that “the period of time was unreasonable and that it was arbitrary to assume that a clear and present danger of civil disturbance and riot would persist for ten months.”
Petitioners sought review by this Court, under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (3), asserting that the case is not moot and that the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals continues to have an adverse effect upon petitioners’ rights. We granted certiorari.
We agree with petitioners that the case is not moot. Since 1966, petitioners have sought to continue their activities, including the holding of rallies in Princess Anne and Somerset County, and it appears that the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals continues to play a substantial role in the response of officials to their activities. In these circumstances, our jurisdiction is not at an end.
This is the teaching of Bus Employees v. Missouri, 374 U. S. 74 (1963), which concerned a labor dispute which had led to state seizure of the business. This Court held that, although the seizure had been terminated, the case was not moot because “the labor dispute [which gave rise to the seizure] remains unresolved. There thus exists . . . not merely the speculative possibility of invocation of the [seizure law] in some future labor dispute, but the presence of an existing unresolved dispute which continues . . . .” Id., at 78.
In Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498 (1911), this Court declined to hold that the case was moot although the two-year cease-and-desist order at issue had expired. It said: “The questions involved in the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission are usually continuing . . . and their consideration ought not to be, as they might be, defeated, by short term orders, capable of repetition, yet evading review . . . Id., at 515.
These principles are applicable to the present case. The underlying question persists and is agitated by the continuing activities and program of petitioners: whether, by what processes, and to what extent the authorities of the local governments may restrict petitioners in their rallies and public meetings.
This conclusion — that the question is not moot and ought to be adjudicated by this Court — is particularly appropriate in view of this Court’s decision in Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U. S. 307 (1967). In that case, the Court held that demonstrators who had proceeded with their protest march in face of the prohibition of an in-junctive order against such a march, could not defend contempt charges by asserting the unconstitutionality of the injunction. The proper procedure, it was held, was to seek judicial review of the injunction and not to disobey it, no matter how well-founded their doubts might be as to its validity. Petitioners have here pursued the course indicated by Walker; and in view of the continuing vitality of petitioners’ grievance, we cannot say that their case is moot.
Since the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the 10-month injunction of August 30, 1966, we do not consider that order. We turn to the constitutional problems raised by the 10-day injunctive order.
The petitioners urge that the injunction constituted a prior restraint on speech and that it therefore violated the principles of the First Amendment which are applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. In any event, they assert, it was not constitutionally permissible to restrain petitioners’ meetings because no “clear and present danger” existed.
Respondents, however, argue that the injunctive order in this case should not be considered as a “prior restraint” because it was based upon the events of the preceding evening and was directed at preventing a continuation of those events, and that, even if considered a “prior restraint,” issuance of the order was justified by the clear and present danger of riot and disorder deliberately generated by petitioners.
We need not decide the thorny problem of whether, on the facts of this case, an injunction against the announced rally could be justified. The 10-day order here must be set aside because of a basic infirmity in the procedure by which it was obtained. It was issued ex parte, without notice to petitioners and without any effort, however informal, to invite or permit their participation in the proceedings. There is a place in our jurisprudence for ex parte issuance, without notice, of temporary restraining orders of short duration; but there is no place within the area of basic freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment for such orders where no showing is made that it is impossible to serve or to notify the opposing parties and to give them an opportunity to participate.
We do not here challenge the principle that there are special, limited circumstances in which speech is so interlaced with burgeoniiig violence that it is not protected by the broad guarantee of the First Amendment. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, at 308 (1940), this Court said that “[n]o one would have the hardihood to suggest that the principle of freedom of speech sanctions incitement to riot.” See also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 668, 572 (1942); Milk Wagon Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Dairies, 312 U. S. 287, 294 (1941). . Ordinarily, the State’s constitutionally permissible interests are adequately served by criminal penalties imposed after freedom to speak has been so grossly abused that its immunity is breached. The impact and consequences of subsequent punishment for such abuse are materially different from those of prior restraint. Prior restraint upon speech suppresses the precise freedom which the First Amendment sought to protect against abridgment.
The Court has emphasized that “[a] system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 57 (1965). And even where this presumption might otherwise be overcome, the Court has insisted upon careful procedural provisions, designed to assure the fullest presentation and consideration of the matter which the circumstances permit. As the Court said in Freedman v. Maryland, supra, at 58, a noncriminal process of prior restraints upon expression “avoids constitutional infirmity only if it takes place under procedural safeguards designed to obviate the dangers of a censorship system.”
Measured against these standards, it is clear that the 10-day restraining order in the present case, issued ex parte, without formal or informal notice to the petitioners or any effort to advise them of the proceeding, cannot be sustained. Cf. Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717, 731 (1961); A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U. S. 205 (1964). In the latter case, this Court disapproved a seizure of books under a Kansas statute on the basis of ex parte scrutiny by a judge. The Court held that the statute was unconstitutional. Mr. Justice Brennan, speaking for a plurality of the Court, condemned the statute for “not first affording [the seller of the books] an adversary hearing.” Id., at 211. In the present case, the reasons for insisting upon an opportunity for hearing and notice, at least in the absence of a showing that reasonable efforts to notify the adverse parties were unsuccessful, are even more compelling than in cases involving allegedly obscene books. The present case involves a rally and “political” speech in which the element of timeliness may be important. As Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting in A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, pointed out, speaking of “political and social expression”:
“It is vital to the operation of democratic government that the citizens have facts and ideas on important issues before them. A delay of even a day or two may be of crucial importance in some instances. On the other hand, the subject of sex is of constant but rarely particularly topical interest.” 378 U. S., at 224.
In the present case, the record discloses no reason why petitioners were not notified of the application for injunction. They were apparently present in Princess Anne. They had held a rally there on the night preceding the application for and issuance of the injunction. They were scheduled to have another rally on the very evening of the day when the injunction was issued. And some of them were actually served with the writ of injunction at 6:10 that evening. In these circumstances, there is no justification for the ex parte character of the proceedings in the sensitive area of First Amendment rights.
The value of a judicial proceeding, as against self-help by the police, is substantially diluted where the process is ex parte, because the Court does not have available the fundamental instrument for judicial judgment: an adversary proceeding in which both parties may participate. The facts in any case involving a public demonstration are difficult to ascertain and even more difficult to evaluate. Judgment as to whether the facts justify the use of the drastic power of injunction necessarily turns on subtle and controversial considerations and upon a delicate assessment of the particular situation in light of legal standards which are inescapably imprecise. In the absence of evidence and argument offered by both sides and of their participation in the formulation of value judgments, there is insufficient assurance of the balanced analysis and careful conclusions which are essential in the area of First Amendment adjudication.
The same is true of the fashioning of the order. An order issued in the area of First Amendment rights must be couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of the public order. In this sensitive field, the State may not employ “means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.” Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 488 (1960). In other words, the order must be tailored as precisely as possible to the exact needs of the case. The participation of both sides is necessary for this purpose. Certainly, the failure to invite participation of the party seeking to exercise First Amendment rights reduces the possibility of a narrowly drawn order, and substantially imperils the protection which the Amendment seeks to assure.
Finally, respondents urge that the failure to give notice and an opportunity for hearing should not be considered to invalidate the order because, under Maryland procedure, petitioners might have obtained a hearing on not more than two days’ notice. Maryland Rule of Procedure BB72. But this procedural right does not overcome the infirmity in the absence of a showing of justification for the ex parte nature of the proceedings. The issuance of an injunction which aborts a scheduled rally or public meeting, even if the restraint is of short duration, is a matter of importance and consequence in view of the First Amendment’s imperative. The denial of a basic procedural right in these circumstances is not excused by the availability of post-issuance procedure which could not possibly serve to rescue the August 7 meeting, but, at best, could have shortened the period in which petitioners were prevented from holding a rally.
We need not here decide that it is impossible for circumstances to arise in which the issuance of an ex parte restraining order for a minimum period could be justified because of the unavailability of the adverse parties or their counsel, or perhaps for other reasons. In the present case, it is clear that the failure to give notice, formal or informal, and to provide an opportunity for an adversary proceeding before the holding of the rally was restrained, is incompatible with the First Amendment. Because we reverse the judgment below on this basis, we need not and do not decide whether the facts in this case provided a constitutionally permissible basis for temporarily enjoining the holding of the August 7 rally.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.
Petitioner Norton said, “I want you to ... be back here at the same place tomorrow night, bring every friend you have . . . . We’re going to take it easy tonight ...” and "You white folks bring your friends, come back tomorrow night. . . . Come on back tomorrow night, let’s raise a little bit of hell for the white race.”
Maryland Rule of Procedure BB72.
The text of the Writ of Injunction is as follows:
“We command and strictly enjoin and prohibit you the said Joseph Carroll, Richard Norton, J. B. Stoner, Connie Lynch, Robert Lyons, William Brailsford and National States Rights Party from holding rallies or meetings in Somerset County which will tend to disturb and endanger the citizens of the County and to enjoin you, the said defendants, from using and operating or causing to be operated within the County any devices or apparatus for the application [sic] of the human voice or records from any radio, phonograph or other sound making or producing device thereby disturbing the tranquility of the populace of the County, until the matter can be heard and determined in equity, or for a period of ten days from the date hereof.
“Hereof, fail not, as you will act to the contrary at your peril.”
Petitioners recite that they were denied the right to hold a rally in Princess Anne on July 17, 1967, and that the letter of rejection relied upon the Court of Appeals’ decision. They acknowledge that on July 25, they were authorized to hold rallies in Princess Anne on July 28, 29, and 30, 1967; but they appear to complain that the permit stipulated that the sound should not be amplified for more than 250 feet, and that “you will not be permitted to use racial epithets or to make slanderous remarks about the members of any race or ethnic group.”
.The elimination of prior restraints was a “leading purpose” in the adoption of the First Amendment. See Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, at 451-452 (1938).
Marcus rejected the contention that Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436 (1957), supported “the proposition that the State may impose the extensive restraints imposed here on the distribution of these publications prior to an adversary proceeding on the issue of obscenity.” 367 U. S., at 736. In Kingsley, a New York statute authorizing an injunction pendente lite against the distribution of obscene books was upheld. By statute, the person enjoined could get a hearing “within one day after joinder of issue.” The New York courts have subsequently held that no ex parte injunction may be issued under the statute. Tenney v. Liberty News Distribs., Inc., 13 App. Div. 2d 770, 215 N. Y. S. 2d 663 (1961).
Compare the considerations leading to the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. §§101-115. See F. Frankfurter & N. Greene, The Labor Injunction 200-205 (1930).
The petition for the temporary injunction recited that Carroll and the others against whom the injunction was sought “are presently in Somerset or Wicomico Counties of the State of Maryland.”
Cf. Frankfurter & Greene, The Labor Injunction, supra.
There is a danger in relying exclusively on the version of events and dangers presented by prosecuting officials, because of their special interest. Freedman v. Maryland, supra, at 57-58.
Cf. Williams v. Wallace, 240 F. Supp. 100 (D. C. M. D. Ala. 1965). There District Judge Johnson initially refused to issue an injunction ex parte against the absent state officials. Then, after a hearing at which the plaintiffs submitted a detailed plan for their proposed Selma-Montgomery march, he enjoined the State from interfering with the march as proposed in the plan.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Article I, §8, cl. 4, of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power “[t]o establish . .. uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” We granted certiorari to determine whether this Clause grants Congress the authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity from private suits. Because we conclude that a proceeding initiated by a debtor to determine the dis-chargeability of a student loan debt is not a suit against the State for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment, and we do not reach the question on which certiorari was granted.
I
Petitioner, Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation (TSAC), is a governmental corporation created by the Tennessee Legislature to administer student assistance programs. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-4-201 (2002). TSAC guarantees student loans made to residents of Tennessee and to nonresidents who are either enrolled in an eligible school in Tennessee or make loans through an approved Tennessee lender. §49-4-203.
Between July 1988 and February 1990, respondent, Pamela Hood, a resident of Tennessee, signed promissory notes for educational loans guaranteed by TSAC. In February 1999, Hood filed a “no asset” Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee; at the time of the filing, her student loans had an outstanding balance of $4,169.31. TSAC did not participate in the proceeding, but Sallie Mae Service, Inc. (Sallie Mae), submitted a proof of claim to the Bankruptcy Court, which it subsequently assigned to TSAC. The Bankruptcy Court granted Hood a general discharge in June 1999. See 11 U. S. C. § 727(a).
Hood did not list her student loans in the bankruptcy proceeding, and the general discharge did not cover them. See § 727(b) (providing that a discharge under § 727(a) discharges the debtor from all prepetition debts except as listed in § 523(a)); § 523(a)(8) (providing that student loans guaranteed by governmental units are not included in a general discharge order unless the bankruptcy court determines that excepting the debt from the order would impose an “undue hardship” on the debtor). In September 1999, Hood reopened her bankruptcy petition for the limited purpose of seeking a determination by the Bankruptcy Court that her student loans were dischargeable as an “undue hardship” pursuant to § 523(a)(8). As prescribed by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Hood filed a complaint against the United States of America, the Department of Education, and Sallie Mae, see Fed. Rules Bkrtcy. Proc. 7001(6) and 7003, and later filed an amended complaint in which she included TSAC and University Account Services as additional defendants and deleted Sallie Mae. The complaint and the amended complaint were served along with a summons on each of the named parties. See Rule 7004.
In response, TSAC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, holding that 11 U. S. C. § 106(a) was a valid abrogation of TSAC’s sovereign immunity. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-62. TSAC took an interlocutory appeal, see Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139, 147 (1993), and a unanimous Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit affirmed, 262 B. R. 412 (2001). TSAC appealed the panel’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That court affirmed, holding that the States ceded their immunity from private suits in bankruptcy in the Constitutional Convention, and therefore, the Bankruptcy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, provided Congress with the necessary authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity in 11 U. S. C. § 106(a). 319 F. 3d 755, 767 (2003). One judge concurred in the judgment, concluding that TSAC waived its sovereign immunity when it accepted Sallie Mae’s proof of claim. Id., at 768. We granted certiorari, 539 U. S. 986 (2003), and now affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Because we hold that a bankruptcy court’s discharge of a student loan debt does not implicate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, we do not reach the broader question addressed by the Court of Appeals.
II
By its terms, the Eleventh Amendment precludes suits “in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” For over a century, however, we have recognized that the States’ sovereign immunity is not limited to the literal terms of the Eleventh Amendment. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890). Although the text of the Amendment refers only to suits against a State by citizens of another State, we have repeatedly held that an unconsenting State also is immune from suits by its own citizens. See, e. g., id., at 15; Duhne v. New Jersey, 251 U. S. 311, 313 (1920); Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U. S. 47, 51 (1944); Employees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. Department of Public Health and Welfare of Mo., 411 U. S. 279, 280 (1973); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 ,662-663 (1974); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 55 (1996).
States, nonetheless, may still be bound by some judicial actions without their consent. In California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc., 523 U. S. 491 (1998), we held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal jurisdiction over in rem admiralty actions when the State is not in possession of the property. In that case, a private corporation located a historic shipwreck, the S. S. Brother Jonathan, in California’s territorial waters. The corporation filed an in rem action in federal court seeking rights to the wreck and its cargo. The State of California intervened, arguing that it possessed title to the wreck and that its sovereign immunity precluded the court from adjudicating its rights. While acknowledging that the Eleventh Amendment might constrain federal courts’ admiralty jurisdiction in some instances, id., at 503 (citing Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490 (1921) (New York I); Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 503 (1921) (New York II); Florida Dept. of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U. S. 670 (1982)), we held that the States’ sovereign immunity did not prohibit in rem admiralty actions in which the State did not possess the res, 523 U. S., at 507-508 (citing e. g., The Davis, 10 Wall. 15 (1870); The Pesaro, 255 U. S. 216 (1921)).
The discharge of a debt by a bankruptcy court is similarly an in rem proceeding. See Gardner v. New Jersey, 329 U. S. 565, 574 (1947); Straton v. New, 283 U. S. 318, 320-321 (1931); Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181, 192 (1902); New Lamp Chimney Co. v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., 91 U. S. 656, 662 (1876). Bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a debtor’s property, wherever located, and over the estate. See 28 U. S. C. § 1334(e). In a typical voluntary bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 7, the debtor files a petition for bankruptcy in which he lists his debts or his creditors, Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 1007(a)(1); the petition constitutes an order for relief, 11 U. S. C. §301. The court clerk notifies the debtor’s creditors of the order for relief, see Rule 2002(¿), and if a creditor wishes to participate in the debtor’s assets, he files a proof of claim, Rule 3002(a); see 11 U. S. C. § 726. If a creditor chooses not to submit a proof of claim, once the debts are discharged, the creditor will be unable to collect on his unsecured loans. Rule 3002(a); see 11 U. S. C. §726. The discharge order releases a debtor from personal liability with respect to any discharged debt by voiding any past or future judgments on the debt and by operating as an injunction to prohibit creditors from attempting to collect or to recover the debt. §§ 524(a)(1), (2); 3 W. Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice 2d §48:1, p. 48-3 (1998) (hereinafter Norton).
A bankruptcy court is able to provide the debtor a fresh start in this manner, despite the lack of participation of all of his creditors, because the court’s jurisdiction is premised on the debtor and his estate, and not on the creditors. In re Collins, 173 F. 3d 924, 929 (CA4 1999) (“A federal court’s jurisdiction over the dischargeability of debt... derives not from jurisdiction over the state or other creditors, but rather from jurisdiction over debtors and their estates” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Gardner, supra, at 572; In re Ellett, 254 F. 3d 1135, 1141 (CA9 2001); Texas v. Walker, 142 F. 3d 813, 822 (CA5 1998). A bankruptcy court’s in rem jurisdiction permits it to “determinfe] all claims that anyone, whether named in the action or not, has to the property or thing in question. The proceeding is ‘one against the world.’” 16 J. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 108.70[1], p. 108-106 (3d ed. 2004). Because the court’s jurisdiction is premised on the res, however, a nonparticipating creditor cannot be subjected to personal liability. See Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U. S. 185, 188-189 (1886) (citing Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308 (1870)).
Under our longstanding precedent, States, whether or not they choose to participate in the proceeding, are bound by a bankruptcy court’s discharge order no less than other creditors. In New York v. Irving Trust Co., 288 U. S. 329 (1933), we sustained an order of the Bankruptcy Court which barred the State of New York’s tax claim because it was not filed within the time fixed for the filing of claims. We held that “[i]f a state desires to participate in the assets of a bankrupt, she must submit to the appropriate requirements.” Id., at 333; see also Gardner, supra, at 574 (holding that a State waives its sovereign immunity by filing a proof of claim). And in Van Huffel v. Harkelrode, 284 U. S. 225, 228-229 (1931), we held that the Bankruptcy Court had the authority to sell a debtor’s property “free and clear” of a State’s tax lien. At least when the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over the res is unquestioned, cf. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30 (1992), our cases indicate that the exercise of its in rem jurisdiction to discharge a debt does not infringe state sovereignty. Cf. Hoffman v. Connecticut Dept. of In come Maintenance, 492 U. S. 96, 102 (1989) (plurality opinion) (applying Eleventh Amendment analysis where a Bankruptcy Court sought to issue a money judgment against a nonconsenting State).
TSAC concedes that States are generally bound by a bankruptcy court’s discharge order, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 17, but argues that the particular process by which student loan debts are discharged unconstitutionally infringes its sovereignty. Student loans used to be presumptively discharged in a general discharge. But in 1976, Congress provided a significant benefit to the States by making it more difficult for debtors to discharge student loan debts guaranteed by States. Education Amendments of 1976, § 439A(a), 90 Stat. 2141 (codified at 20 U. S. C. § 1087-3 (1976 ed.), repealed by Pub. L. 95-598, §317, 92 Stat. 2678). That benefit is currently governed by 11 U. S. C. § 523(a)(8), which provides that student loan debts guaranteed by governmental units are not included in a general discharge order unless excepting the debt from the order would impose an “undue hardship” on the debtor. See also § 727(b) (providing that a discharge under § 727(a) discharges the debtor from all pre-petition debts except as listed in § 523(a)).
Section 523(a)(8) is “self-executing.” Norton §47:52, at 47-137 to 47-138; see also S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 79 (1978). Unless the debtor affirmatively secures a hardship determination, the discharge order will not include a student loan debt. Norton §47:52, at 47-137 to 47-138. Thus, the major difference between the discharge of a student loan debt and the discharge of most other debts is that governmental creditors, including States, that choose not to submit themselves to the court’s jurisdiction might still receive some benefit: The debtor’s personal liability on the loan may survive the discharge.
It is this change that TSAC contends infringes state sovereignty. Tr. of Oral Arg. 15-16. By making a student loan debt presumptively nondischargeable and singling it out for an “individualized adjudication,” id., at 17, TSAC argues that Congress has authorized a suit against a State. But TSAC misunderstands the fundamental nature of the proceeding.
No matter how difficult Congress has decided to make the discharge of student loan debt, the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction is premised on the res, not on the persona; that States were granted the presumptive benefit of nondischargeability does not alter the court’s underlying authority. A debtor does not seek monetary damages or any affirmative relief from a State by seeking to discharge a debt; nor does he subject an unwilling State to a coercive judicial process. He seeks only a discharge of his debts.
Indeed, we have previously endorsed individualized determinations of States’ interests within the federal courts’ in rem jurisdiction. In Van Huffel, we affirmed* the bankruptcy courts’ power to sell property free from encumbrances, including States’ liens, and approvingly noted that some courts had chosen specifically to discharge States’ liens for taxes. 284 U. S., at 228; cf. Gardner, 329 U. S., at 572-574 (noting “that the reorganization court had jurisdiction over the proof and allowance of the tax claims and that the exercise of that power was not a suit against the State”). Our decision in California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc., 523 U. S. 491 (1998), also involved an individualized in rem adjudication in which a State claimed an interest, as have other in rem admiralty cases involving sovereigns, e. g., The Davis, 10 Wall, at 19; The Siren, 7 Wall. 152, 159 (1869); The Pesaro, 255 U. S., at 219. Although both bankruptcy and admiralty are specialized areas of the law, we see no reason why the exercise of the federal courts’ in rem bankruptcy jurisdiction is more threatening to state sovereignty than the exercise of their in rem admiralty jurisdiction.
We find no authority, in fine, that suggests a bankruptcy court’s exercise of its in rem jurisdiction to discharge a student loan debt would infringe state sovereignty in the manner suggested by TSAC. We thus hold that the undue hardship determination sought by Hood in this case is not a suit against a State for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment.
Ill
Lastly, we deal with the procedure that was used in this case. Creditors generally are not entitled to personal service before a bankruptcy court may discharge a debt. Hanover Nat. Bank, 186 U. S., at 192. Because student loan debts are not automatically dischargeable, however, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provide creditors greater procedural protection. See Fed. Rules Bkrtcy. Proc. 7001(6), 7003, and 7004. The current Bankruptcy Rules require the debtor to file an “adversary proceeding” against the State in order to discharge his student loan. debt. The proceeding is considered part of the original bankruptcy-case, see 10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 7003.02 (rev. 15th ed. 2003), and still within the bankruptcy court’s in rem jurisdiction as discussed above. But, as prescribed by the Rules, an “adversary proceeding” requires the service of a summons and a complaint. Rules 7001(6), 7003, and 7004.
Because this “adversary proceeding” has some similarities to a traditional civil trial, Justice Thomas contends that the Bankruptcy Court cannot make an undue hardship determination without infringing TSAC’s sovereignty under Federal Maritime Comm’n v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U. S. 743 (2002). See post, at 457-460. In Federal Maritime Comm’n, we held that the Eleventh Amendment precluded a private party from haling an unconsenting State into a proceeding before the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). We noted that we have applied a presumption since Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), “that the Constitution was not intended to rais[e] up’ any proceedings against the States that were ‘anomalous and unheard of when the Constitution was adopted.’ ” 535 U. S., at 755. Because agency adjudications were unheard of at the time of the founding, we had to determine whether the FMC proceeding was “the type of proceeding] from which the Framers would have thought the States possessed immunity when they agreed to enter the Union.” Id., at 756. Noting the substantial similarities between a proceeding before the FMC and one before an Article III court, we concluded that the Hans presumption applied, see 535 U. S., at 756-763, and that the Eleventh Amendment therefore precluded private suits in such a forum, id., at 769.
In this case, however, there is no need to engage in a comparative analysis to determine whether the adjudication would be an affront to States’ sovereignty. As noted above, we have long held that the bankruptcy courts’ exercise of in rem jurisdiction is not such an offense. Supra, at 448-451. Nor is there any dispute that, if the Bankruptcy Court had to exercise personal jurisdiction over TSAC, such an adjudication would implicate the Eleventh Amendment. Our precedent has drawn a distinction between in rem and in personam jurisdiction, even when the underlying proceedings are, for the most part, identical. Thus, whether an in rem adjudication in a bankruptcy court is similar to civil litigation in a district court is irrelevant. If Justice Thomas’ interpretation of Federal Maritime Common were adopted, Deep Sea Research, Van Huffle, and Irving Trust, all of which involved proceedings resembling traditional civil adjudications, would likely have to be overruled. We are not willing to take such a step.
The issuance of process, nonetheless, is normally an indignity to the sovereignty of a State because its purpose is to establish personal jurisdiction over the State. We noted in Seminole Tribe: “The Eleventh Amendment does not exist solely in order to prevent federal-court judgments that must be paid out of a State’s treasury; it also serves to avoid the indignity of subjecting a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the instance of private parties.” 517 U. S., at 58 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, however, the Bankruptcy Court’s in rem jurisdiction allows it to adjudicate the debtor’s discharge claim without in personam jurisdiction over the State. See 4A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1070, pp. 280-281 (3d ed. 2002) (noting jurisdiction over the person is irrelevant if the court has jurisdiction over the property). Hood does not argue that the court should exercise personal jurisdiction; all she wants is a determination of the dis-chargeability of her debt. The text of § 523(a)(8) does not require a summons, and absent Rule 7001(6) a debtor could proceed by motion, see Rule 9014 (“[I]n a contested matter . . . not otherwise governed by these rules, relief shall be requested by motion”), which would raise no constitutional concern. Hood concedes that even if TSAC ignores the summons and chooses not to participate in the proceeding the Bankruptcy Court cannot discharge her debt without making an undue hardship determination. Tr. of Oral Arg. 33-34.
We see no reason why the service of a summons, which in this ease is indistinguishable in practical effect from a motion, should be given dispositive weight. As we said in Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U. S. 261, 270 (1997), “[t]he real interests served by the Eleventh Amendment are not to be sacrificed to elementary mechanics, of captions and pleading.” See New York I, 256 U. S., at 500 (a suit against a State “is to be determined not by the mere names of the titular parties but by the essential nature and effect of the proceeding, as it appears from the entire record”). To conclude that the issuance of a summons, which is required only by the Rules, precludes Hood .from exercising her statutory right to an undue hardship determination would give the Rules an impermissible effect. 28 U. S. C. §2075 (“[The Bankruptcy Rules] shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right”). And there is no reason to take such a step. TSAC sought only to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction in the Bankruptcy Court. Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction in No. 99-0847 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Tenn.), pp. 1-2. Clearly dismissal of the complaint is not appropriate as the court has in rem jurisdiction over the matter, and the court here has not attempted to adjudicate any claims outside of that jurisdiction. The case before us is thus unlike an adversary proceeding by the bankruptcy trustee seeking to recover property in the hands of the State on the grounds that the transfer was a voidable preference. Even if we were to hold that Congress lacked the ability to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Bankruptcy Clause, as TSAC urges us to do, the Bankruptcy Court would still have the authority to make the undue hardship determination sought by Hood.
We therefore decline to decide whether a bankruptcy court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a State would be valid under the Eleventh Amendment. See Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U. S. 33, 39 (1885) (“[We are bound] never to anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it”). If the Bankruptcy Court on remand exceeds its in rem jurisdiction, TSAC, of course, will be free to challenge the court’s authority. At this point, however, any such constitutional concern is merely hypothetical. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Sallie Mae was the original holder of Hood’s student loan debt. On November 15, 1999, Sallie Mae signed an assignment of proof of claim, transferring the debt to TSAC. The actual proof of claim was filed by Sallie Mae in the Bankruptcy Court on November 29, and one month later, on December 29, the assignment of the proof of claim was filed.
Hood does not dispute that TSAC is considered a “State” for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment.
Hood does not argue in this Court that TSAC waived its sovereign immunity, and we pass no judgment on the question.
Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U. S. 18 (1933), is not to the contrary. In that case, private individuals sought to enjoin the State of Missouri from prosecuting probate proceedings in state court, contending that the Federal District Court had made a final determination of the ownership of the contested stock. We held the Eleventh Amendment prevented federal courts from entertaining such a suit because a “[federal] court has no authority to issue process against the State to compel it to subject itself to the court’s judgment.” Id., at 28. Although a discharge order under the Bankruptcy Code “operates as an injunction” against creditors who commence or continue an action against a debtor in personam to recover or to collect a discharged debt, 11 U. S. C. § 524(a)(2), the enforcement of such an injunction against the State by a federal court is not before us. To the extent that Fiske is relevant in the present context, it supports our conclusion that a discharge order is binding on the State. There, we noted the State might still be bound by the federal court’s adjudication even if an injunction could not issue. 290 U. S., at 29. It is unlikely that the Court sub silentio overruled the holdings in Irving Trust and Van Huffel in Fiske as Justice Thomas implies, see post, at 463 (dissenting opinion), as Fiske was decided the same year as Irving Trust.
This is not to say, “a bankruptcy court’s in rem jurisdiction overrides sovereign immunity,” United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 38 (1992), as Justice Thomas characterizes our opinion, post, at 462, but rather that the court’s exercise of its in rem jurisdiction to discharge a student loan debt is not an affront to the sovereignty of the State. Nor do we hold that every exercise of a bankruptcy court’s in rem jurisdiction will not offend the sovereignty of the State. No such concerns are present here, and we do not address them.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether, under the special circumstances of this case, a native-born American citizen who became an Italian citizen in 1940, and lived in Italy with her Italian husband from 1941 to 1945, nevertheless retained her American citizenship. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we hold that she did not. The controlling statutes are § 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1907, and §§ 401, 403 and 104 of its successor, the Nationality Act of 1940.
The petitioner, Rosette Sorge Savorgnan, brought this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, under § 503 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1171, 8 U. S. C. § 903, for a judgment declaring her to be an American citizen. That court decided in her favor. 73 F. Supp. 109. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the petition against the United States because it had not consented to be sued, and to enter judgment in favor of the other defendants in conformity with its opinion. 171 F. 2d 155. Because of the importance of this decision in determining American citizenship, we granted certiorari. 337 U. S. 914.
Insofar as material, the undisputed facts and those found by the District Court are as follows:
The petitioner was born in Wisconsin in 1915 of native-born parents and resided in the United States until July, 1941. In March, 1940, her intended husband, Alessandro Savorgnan, was an Italian citizen, serving as Italian Vice Consul at St. Louis, Missouri. He informed her that, under Italian law, she would have to become an Italian citizen before he could obtain the necessary royal consent to their marriage. She applied for Italian citizenship. He prepared her application. It was in Italian which he understood, but which she did not understand. In August, the petitioner was granted Italian citizenship. In November, she appeared with Savorgnan at the Italian Consulate in Chicago, Illinois, and, in his presence, signed an instrument which contained an oath, in Italian, expressly renouncing her American citizenship and swearing her allegiance to the King of Italy. No ceremony or formal administration of the oath accompanied her signature and apparently none was required. She and Savorgnan understood that her signing of this instrument had to do with her citizenship and with securing the required royal consent for Savorgnan to marry her, but he did not translate the instrument or explain its contents to her. The District Court found as a fact that, at the time of signing each of the documents mentioned, the petitioner, although intending to obtain Italian citizenship, had no intention of endangering her American citizenship or of renouncing her allegiance to the United States.
December 26, 1940, the petitioner and Savorgnan were married. In July, 1941, when Italian diplomatic officials were required to leave the United States, an Italian diplomatic passport was issued to the petitioner, and she embarked for Italy with her husband. She remained in Italy until November, 1945, except for six months spent in Germany. While in Italy she lived with her husband and his family in Rome, where he worked in the Italian Foreign Ministry. In November, 1945, she returned to America on an Italian diplomatic passport and later requested the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to correct the records of his office to show that she was an American citizen at the time of her return to America. The request was denied and she instituted the present proceeding.
There is no evidence of her maintaining, at any time after her marriage, a residence, dwelling place or place of general abode apart from her husband. The District Court, however, found that, at the times of signing her application for Italian citizenship and the instrument containing her oath of allegiance to the King of Italy, she did not intend to establish a “permanent residence” in any country other than the United States. It found also that when she left America for Italy, “she did so without any intention of establishing a permanent residence abroad or abandoning her residence in the United States, or of divesting herself of her American citizenship.” See 73 F. Supp. at 110.
We thus face two principal questions:
I. What was the effect upon the petitioner’s American citizenship of her applying for and obtaining Italian citizenship? The Government contends that she thereby was naturalized in a foreign state in conformity with its laws within the meaning of either § 2 of the Act of 1907 or § 401 (a) of the Act of 1940. It contends further that § 2 of the Act of 1907 did not require residence abroad as a condition of expatriation, and that she, therefore, was, then and there, effectively expatriated under that Act, merely upon becoming naturalized as an Italian citizen while still remaining in the United States. We agree that she was thus naturalized, but we do not find it necessary to pass upon the further contention that, by obtaining such naturalization in 1940, she then and there expatriated herself, and lost her American citizenship without taking up residence abroad.
II. What was the effect upon the petitioner’s American citizenship of her residence in Italy from 1941 to 1945? The Government contends that, even if the petitioner did not lose her American citizenship, in 1940, when she became a naturalized Italian citizen, she lost it when she took up her residence in Italy. We agree. The Government contends that this expatriation was effected either under the Act of 1940 or under the Act of 1907 as continued in effect by a saving clause in the Act of 1940. We find it unnecessary to choose between these contentions because each leads to the same conclusion in this case.
I.
What was the effect upon the petitioner’s American citizenship of her applying for and obtaining Italian citizenship?
The requirements for expatriation under § 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1907 are objective. That section provides that “any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, or when he has taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign state.”
Traditionally the United States has supported the right of expatriation as a natural and inherent right of all people. Denial, restriction, impairment or questioning of that right was declared by Congress, in 1868, to be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this Government. From the beginning, one of the most obvious and effective forms of expatriation has been that of naturalization under the laws of another nation. However, due to the common-law prohibition of expatriation without the consent of the sovereign, our courts hesitated to recognize expatriation of our citizens, even by foreign naturalization, without the express consent of our Government. Congress finally gave its consent upon the specific terms stated in the Citizenship Act of 1907 and in its successor, the Nationality Act of 1940. Those Acts are to be read in the light of the declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed. 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law §§242-250 (1942).
A. One contention of the petitioner is the novel one that her naturalization did not meet the requirements of § 2 of the Act of 1907, because it did not take place within the boundaries of a foreign state. The answer is that the phrase in § 2 which states that “any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . .” (emphasis supplied) refers merely to naturalization into the citizenship of any foreign state. It does not refer to the place where the naturalization proceeding occurs. The matter is even more clearly dealt with in the Act of 1940. Section 401 (a) there lists “Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, . . .” as a means of losing nationality. Section 403 (a) then states that expatriation shall result from the performance of the acts listed in § 401 “within the United States . . .” if and when the national performing them “thereafter takes up a residence abroad.” Thus Congress expressly recognized that “naturalization in a foreign state” included naturalization proceedings which led to citizenship in a foreign state, but took place within the United States.
B. The petitioner’s principal contention is that she did not intend to give up her American citizenship, although she applied for and accepted Italian citizenship, and that her intent should prevail. However, the acts upon which the statutes expressly condition the consent of our Government to the expatriation of its citizens are stated objectively. There is no suggestion in the statutory language that the effect of the specified overt acts, when voluntarily done, is conditioned upon the undisclosed intent of the person doing them.
The United States has long recognized the general undesirability of dual allegiances. Since 1795, Congress has required any alien seeking American citizenship to declare “that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; . . . .” 1 Stat. 414, see 8 U. S. C. § 735 (a). Temporary or limited duality of citizenship has arisen inevitably from differences in the laws of the respective nations as to when naturalization and expatriation shall become effective. There is nothing, however, in the Act of 1907 that implies a congressional intent that, after an American citizen has performed an overt act which spells expatriation under the wording of the statute, he, nevertheless, can preserve for himself a duality of citizenship by showing his intent or understanding to have been contrary to the usual legal consequences of such an act.
This Court, in interpreting § 3 of the Act of 1907 as it existed from 1907 to 1922, has passed upon substantially this question. Section 3 then provided that “any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband.” 34 Stat. 1228, repealed in 42 Stat. 1022. While that provision was in effect, a woman who was a native-born citizen of the United States married a subject of Great Britain residing in California. The woman had not intended to give up, her American citizenship. On being advised that she had done so, she sought a writ of mandamus to compel the local Board of Elections to register her as a voter and she showed that she had the necessary qualifications for registration, provided she established her American citizenship. The Court held that, during her coverture, her expatriation was binding upon her as the statutory consequence of her marriage to a foreigner in spite of her contrary intent and understanding as to her American citizenship. She accordingly was denied relief. Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U. S. 299. See also, Ex parte Griffin, 237 F. 445 (N. D. N. Y.). Cf. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325.
The petitioner, in the instant case, was a competent adult. She voluntarily and knowingly sought and obtained Italian citizenship. Her application for naturalization and her oath of allegiance were in Italian, which she did not understand, but Savorgnan did understand Italian, and he was with her and able to translate and explain them to her when she signed them. She knew that the instruments related to her citizenship and that her signature of them was an important condition upon which her marriage depended. She thus was as responsible for understanding them as if they had been in English. On that basis, she was married. Whatever the legal consequences of those acts may be, she is bound by them.
C. The Government contends vigorously that the petitioner’s Italian naturalization, in 1940, then and there expatriated her. It contends that this provides sufficient basis, under the Act of 1907, to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals without reference to the petitioner’s subsequent residence abroad. While recognizing the force of this alternative ground for affirmance, we do not rest our decision upon it. It is, however, entitled to be noted. The Government’s argument is that, while residence abroad may have been required before the Act of 1907 and is now expressly required by the Act of 1940, it was not required under the Act of 1907. See Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U. S. 299. The Government concedes, however, that, at least since 1933, the State Department has considered residence abroad to be a necessary element of expatriation. 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law §§ 242-250 (1942). In our view, the petitioner’s residence abroad from 1941 to 1945 makes it unnecessary to determine, in this case, what would have been her status if she had not taken up her residence abroad. We accordingly do not do so.
II.
What was the effect upon the petitioner’s American citizenship of her residence in Italy from 1941 to 1945?
A. The Nationality Act of 1940, including its repeal of § 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1907, took effect January 13, 1941. The petitioner’s residence abroad began after that date. It is contended that the effect of such residence may be determined either by the terms of the Act of 1940, or by those of the Act of 1907 continued in force by a saving clause in the Act of 1940. We find, however, that the petitioner’s residence and her naturalization have the same effect whether or not resort is had to the saving clause. Accordingly, it is not necessary to determine here whether the petitioner’s residence and naturalization are to be tested under the saving clause or under the rest of the Act of 1940.
B. The petitioner’s residence abroad met the requirements of the Act of 1940. Sections 403 (a) and 104 used the terms “residence” and “place of general abode” without mention of the intent of the person concerned. The Act cleared up the uncertainties which had been left by early decisions as to the type and amount, if any, of residence abroad that was required to establish expatriation. In contrast to such terms as: “temporary residence,” “domicile,” “removal, with his family and effects,” “absolute removal” or “permanent residence,” the new Act used the term “residence” as plainly as possible to denote an objective fact. To identify the required “place of residence,” it required only that it be the “place of general abode.” Confirmation of this intended simplification appears in the Report on Revision and Codification of the Nationality Laws of the United States, submitted by the Secretary of State, Attorney General and Secretary of Labor to Congress on the bill which became the Nationality Act of 1940:
“Definitions of ‘residence’ frequently include the element of intent as to the future place of abode. However, in section 104 hereof no mention is made of intent, and the actual ‘place of general abode’ is the sole test for determining residence. The words ‘place of general abode,’ which are taken from the second paragraph of section 2 of the Citizenship Act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. 1228), seem to speak for themselves. They relate to the principal dwelling place of a person.”
The District Court did not find that the petitioner failed to take up an actual residence or place of general abode abroad. It found merely that in “July 1941 when she left this country for Italy she did so without any intention of establishing a permanent residence abroad or abandoning her residence in the United States, . . . (Emphasis supplied.) See 73 F. Supp. at 110. Under the Act of 1940, the issue is not what her intent was on leaving the United States, nor whether, at any later time, it was her intent to have a permanent residence abroad or to have a residence in the United States. The issue is only whether she did, at any time between July, 1941, and November, 1945, in fact “reside” abroad. The test of such “residence” is whether, at any time during that period, she did, in fact, have a “principal dwelling place” or “place of general abode” abroad. She testified that, from 1941 to 1945, she lived with her husband and his family in Rome, except for six months’ internment in Salzburg, Germany. Whatever may have been her reasons, wishes or intent, her principal dwelling place was in fact with her husband in Rome where he was serving in his Foreign Ministry. Her intent as to her “domicile” or as to her “permanent residence,” as distinguished from her actual “residence,” “principal dwelling place,” and “place of abode,” is not material. She expatriated herself under the laws of the United States by her naturalization as an Italian citizen followed by her residence abroad.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the petition against the United States and to enter judgment in favor of the other defendants in conformity with this opinion.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
whom Mr. Justice Black joins, is of opinion that the judgment of the District Court should be reinstated. Law of course determines the legal consequences of conduct. But both the Citizenship Act of 1907 and the Nationality Act of 1940 raise issues of fact, and the District Court allowably found the facts in favor of the petitioner. Since expatriation does not follow on the basis of such finding, the judgment of the District Court should not have been disturbed. 73 F. Supp. 109.
“Sec. 2. That any American citizen shall he deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, or when he has taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign state.
“When any naturalized citizen shall have resided for two years in the foreign state from which he came, or for five years in any other foreign state it shall be presumed that he has ceased to be an American citizen, and the place of his general abode shall be deemed his place of residence during said years: Provided, however, That such presumption may be overcome on the presentation of satisfactory evidence to a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, under such rules and regulations as the Department of State may prescribe: And provided also, That no American citizen shall be allowed to expatriate himself when this country is at war.” (Emphasis supplied.) 34 Stat. 1228, 8 U. S. C. (1934 ed.) § 17.
“Sec. 401. A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:
“(a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: ... or
“(b) Taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) 54 Stat. 1168-1169, 8 U. S. C. § 801 (a) and (b).
“Sec. 403. (a) Except as provided in subsections (g), (h), and (i) of section 401, no national can expatriate himself, or be expatriated, under this section [] while within the United States or any of its outlying possessions, but expatriation shall result from the performance within the United States or any of its outlying possessions of any of the acts or the fulfillment of any of the conditions specified in this section [*] if and when the national thereafter takes up a residence abroad.” (Emphasis supplied.) 54 Stat. 1169-1170, 58 Stat. 677, 8 U. S. C. § 803 (a).
“Sec. 104. For the purposes of sections 201, 307 (b), 403, 404, 405, 406, and 407 of this Act, the place of general abode shall be deemed the place of residence." (Emphasis supplied.) 54 Stat. 1138, 8 U. S. C. § 504.
The words “this section” as used in § 403 refer to § 401. This not only is evident from the context but a ready explanation appears from the fact that the language of § 403 originally appeared as a proviso in §401 (h) of H. R. 6127, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. (1940). Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization on H. R. 6127, superseded by H. R. 9980, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 25 (1940). H. R. 9980 became the Nationality Act of 1940.
A translation shows that this instrument included the following statement:
“The person in question [Rosetta Andrus Sorge, who, as Rosette Sorge Savorgnan, later became the petitioner in the instant case], having been requested to take an oath . . . pronounced the following words:
“ ‘I, Rosetta Andrus Sorge, born an American citizen, declare I renounce and in truth do renounce my American citizenship, and swear to be faithful to H. M. the King of Italy and Albania, Emperor of Ethiopia, to his royal successors, and to loyally observe the statutes and other laws of the Kingdom of Italy! ” (Emphasis supplied.)
See notes 1 and 2, supra.
The Government further claims that the petitioner's signing of the instrument containing her oath of allegiance to the King of Italy was an oath of allegiance to a foreign state within the meanings of § 2 of the Act of 1907, and of § 401 (b) of the Act of 1940. We agree.
See note 2, supra.
Section 347 (a) of the Act of 1940 is set out in full in note 20, infra.
The same is true of the requirements for expatriation under §§ 401 (a) and (b) and 403 (a) of the Nationality Act of 1940. See notes 1 and 2, supra. See also, Bauer v. Clark, 161 F. 2d 397 (C. A. 7th Cir.); Reynolds v. Haskins, 8 F. 2d 473 (C. A. 8th Cir.); United States ex rel. De Cicco v. Longo, 46 F. Supp. 170 (Conn.); United States ex rel. Wrona v. Karnuth, 14 F. Supp. 770 (W. D. N. Y.).
For full text, see note 1, supra.
The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283; Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch 64; Case of Isaac Williams, opinion of Ellsworth, C. J., see 2 Cranch 82-83, n.; Talbot v. Janson, 3 Dall. 133; Ex parte Griffin, 237 F. 445 (N. D. N. Y.); Comitis v. Parkerson, 56 F. 556 (C. C. E. D. La.); 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 295 (1872-1874); 8 Op. Atty. Gen. 139 (1856-1857).
"Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed: Therefore,
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.” 15 Stat. 223-224, R. S. § 1999, 8 U. S. C. § 800.
The above language, when enacted, was intended to apply especially to immigrants into the United States. It sought to emphasize the natural and inherent right of such people to expatriate themselves from their native nationalities. It sought also to secure for them full recognition of their newly acquired American citizenship. The language is also broad enough to cover, and does cover, the corresponding natural and inherent right of American citizens to expatriate themselves.
See note 10, supra.
See note 1, supra.
See note 2, supra.
See note 8, supra.
The present statute requires an oath in the following form :
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion: So help me God. In acknowledgment whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.” 54 Stat. 1157, 8 U. S. C. § 735 (b).
See 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law §§ 243, 244 (1942).
The Citizenship Board of 1906, appointed by the Secretary of State, proposed the expatriation provisions of the Act of 1907, and said in support of them:
“It is true that because of conflicting laws on the subject of citizenship in different countries a child may be born to a double allegiance; but no man should be permitted deliberately to place himself in a position where his services may be claimed by more than one government and his allegiance be due to more than one.” H. R. Doc. No. 326, 59th Cong., 2d Sess. 23 (1906-1907).
Similarly, the legislative history of the Nationality Act of 1940 contains no intimation that subjective intent is material to the issue of expatriation. On the other hand, it makes it clear that the relevant provisions of the new Act are a restatement of those in § 2 of the Act of 1907, and of the historic policy of the United States. Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization on H. R. 6127, superseded by H. R. 9980, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 489, 408 (1940).
In § 401 of the Act of 1940, Congress added a number of per se acts of expatriation. These included, among others, entering the armed forces of a foreign state, accepting office in a foreign state to which only nationals of such state were eligible, and voting in a political election of a foreign state. Lack of intent to abandon American citizenship certainly could not offset any of these. A fortiori a mature citizen who accepted naturalization into the full citizenship of a foreign state could not have been intended by Congress to have greater freedom to establish duality of citizenship.
Congress found it necessary after World War I to enact special legislation to assist men to regain their American citizenship after they had expatriated themselves by taking a foreign oath of allegiance required to permit them to enlist in the armies of certain foreign nations. 40 Stat. 340, 542 et seq. See 55 Cong. Rec. 6935, 7665-7666 (1917); S. Rep. No. 388, 65th Cong., 2d Sess. 7-8 (1917-1918); H. R. Rep. No. 532, 65th Cong., 2d Sess. 3-4 (1917-1918); 56 Cong. Rec. 6008-6009, 6011-6012 (1917-1918).
“. . . the forsaking of American citizenship, even in a difficult situation, as a matter of expediency, with attempted excuse of such conduct later when crass material considerations suggest that course, is not duress.” Doreau v. Marshall, 170 F. 2d 721, 724 (C. A. 3d Cir.); but see, in cases of real duress, Dos Reis v. Nicolls, 161 F. 2d 860 (C. A. 1st Cir.); Schioler v. United States, 75 F. Supp. 353 (N. D. Ill.); In re Gogol, 75 F. Supp. 268 (W. D. Pa.).
See §§ 504, 601 of the Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1172, 1174, 8 U. S. C. §§ 904, 906.
It is apparent that Congress did not intend to leave a gap in the statutory coverage of acts of expatriation.
“Sec. 347. (a) Nothing contained in . . . chapter V [including § 504 which expressly repealed § 2 of the Act of 1907] of this Act, unless otherwise provided therein, shall be construed to affect the validity of any declaration of intention, petition for naturalization, certificate of naturalization or of citizenship, or other document or proceeding which shall be valid at the time this Act shall take effect; or to affect any prosecution, suit, action, or proceedings, civil or criminal, brought, or any act, thing, or matter, civil or criminal, done or existing, at the time this Act shall take effect; but as to all such prosecutions, suits, actions, proceedings, acts, things, or matters, the statutes or parts of statutes repealed by this Act, are hereby continued in force and effect.” 54 Stat. 1168,8 U. S. C. § 747 (a).
Section 504 also included the following clause: “The repeal herein provided shall not terminate nationality heretofore lawfully acquired, nor restore nationality heretofore lost under any law of the United States or any treaty to which the United States may have been a party.” 54 Stat. 1174,8 U. S. C. § 904.
Section 403 (a) of the Act of 1940 (see note 2, supra) may apply to antecedent naturalizations and oaths of allegiance, as well as to future ones. “A statute is not made retroactive merely because it draws upon antecedent facts for its operation.” Cox v. Hart, 260 U. S. 427, 435. See also, Reynolds v. United States, 292 U. S. 443; United States v. Bradley, 83 F. 2d 483 (C. A. 7th Cir.); United States ex rel. Rojak v. Marshall, 34 F. 2d 219 (W. D. Pa.); 39 Op. Atty. Gen. 474 (1937-1940).
See note 2, supra.
See note 10, supra.
Where “permanent residence” was intended, the statute used that term. E. g., §§ 308 and 407 of the Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1143, 1170, 8 U. S. C. §§ 708, 807.
Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization on H. R. 6127, superseded by H. R. 9980, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 417 (1940).
If the test is to be made under the saving clause quoted in note 20, supra, that may mean that the need and character of her residence are to be determined under the Act of 1907. Under the contention of the Department of Justice no residence abroad would be required. Under the practice of the Department of State some residence abroad would be required. 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law §§ 242-250 (1942). But we believe that the provisions of §§ 403 (a) and 104 of the Act of 1940 substantially reflect the requirements of that residence.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This litigation presents issues of state-court civil jurisdiction over a claim asserted by an Indian tribe. The case, as it comes to us, is somewhat unusual in a central respect: the Tribe seeks, rather than contests, state-court jurisdiction, and the non-Indian party is in opposition. Cf. Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217 (1959).
Chapter 27-19 of the North Dakota Century Code (1974) is entitled “Indian Civil Jurisdiction.” Section 27-19-01 of that
Code provides that the jurisdiction of North Dakota courts shall extend “over all civil causes of action which arise on an Indian reservation upon acceptance by Indian citizens.” In this case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota interpreted Chapter 27-19 to disclaim state-court jurisdiction over a claim (against a non-Indian) by an Indian Tribe that had not accepted jurisdiction under the statute. The court determined that the North Dakota Legislature had disclaimed jurisdiction pursuant to the principal federal statute governing state jurisdiction over Indian country, namely, the Act of Aug. 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 588, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 1360, commonly known as Pub. L. 280. The court further concluded that the jurisdictional disclaimer, inasmuch as it was authorized by Pub. L. 280, did not run afoul of the North Dakota or Federal Constitutions. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court’s interpretation of Chapter 27-19 and its accompanying constitutional analysis appear to us to rest on a possible misunderstanding of Pub. L. 280, we vacate the court’s judgment and remand the case to allow reconsideration of the jurisdictional questions in the light of what we feel is the proper meaning of the federal statute.
A. Petitioner Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation is a federally recognized Indian Tribe with its reservation in northwestern North Dakota. Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 543, §23, 26 Stat. 1032. See City of New Town v. United States, 454 F. 2d 121 (CA8 1972). In 1974, petitioner employed respondent Wold Engineering, P. C. (hereafter respondent), a North Dakota corporation, to design and build the Four Bears Water System Project, a water-supply system located wholly within the reservation. The project was completed in 1977 but it did not perform to petitioner’s satisfaction.
In 1980, petitioner sued respondent in a North Dakota state court for negligence and breach of contract. At the time the suit was filed, petitioner’s tribal court did not have jurisdiction over a claim by an Indian against a non-Indian in the absence of an agreement by the parties. Tribal Code, ch. II, § 1(a). The subject matter of petitioner’s complaint, however, clearly fell within the scope of the state trial court’s general jurisdiction. See N. D. Const., Art. VI, §8; N. D. Cent. Code § 27-05-06 (1974 and Supp. 1983). After counterclaiming for petitioner’s alleged failure to complete its payments on the water-supply system, respondent moved to dismiss petitioner’s complaint on the ground that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over any claim arising in Indian country.
B. At this point, in order to place respondent’s jurisdictional argument in perspective, it is desirable to review the somewhat erratic course of federal and state law governing North Dakota’s jurisdiction over the State’s Indian reservations. Long before North Dakota became a State, this Court had recognized the general principle that Indian territories were beyond the legislative and judicial jurisdiction of state governments. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515 (1832); see generally Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S., at 218-222. That principle was reflected in the federal statute that granted statehood to North Dakota. Like many other other States in the Midwest and West, North Dakota was required to “disclaim all right and title... to all lands lying within [the State] owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes” as a condition for admission to the Union. Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889, § 4, cl. 2, 25 Stat. 677. The Act further provided that all such Indian land shall “remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and... shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States.” Ibid. North Dakota’s original Constitution contained, in identical terms, the required jurisdictional disclaimers. See N. D. Const., Art. XVI, §203, cl. 2 (1889).
Federal restrictions on North Dakota’s jurisdiction over Indian country, however, were substantially eliminated in 1953 with the enactment of the aforementioned Pub. L. 280. See generally Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U. S. 463, 471-474 (1979). Sections 2 and 4 of Pub. L. 280 gave five States full jurisdiction, with a stated minor exception as to each of two States, over civil and criminal actions involving Indians and arising in Indian country. 67 Stat. 588-589, codified, as amended, at 18 U. S. C. § 1162 and 28 U. S. C. §1360, respectively. Sections 6 and 7 gave all other States the option of assuming similar jurisdiction. Section 6 authorized States whose constitutions and statutes contained federally imposed jurisdictional restraints, like North Dakota’s, to amend their laws to assume jurisdiction. 67 Stat. 590, codified, as amended, at 25 U. S. C. §1324. Section 7 provided similar federal consent to any other State not having civil and criminal jurisdiction, but required such States to assume jurisdiction through “affirmative legislative action.” 67 Stat. 590. As originally enacted, Pub. L. 280 did not require States to obtain the consent of affected Indian tribes before assuming jurisdiction over them. Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 amended Pub. L. 280, however, to require that all subsequent assertions of jurisdiction be preceded by tribal consent. Pub. L. 90-284, §§401, 402, 406, 82 Stat. 78-80, codified at 25 U. S. C. §§ 1321, 1322, 1326.
Even before North Dakota moved to amend its Constitution and assume full jurisdiction under Pub. L. 280, the North Dakota Supreme Court had taken an expansive view of the scope of state-court jurisdiction over Indians in Indian country. In 1957, the court held that the existing jurisdictional disclaimers in the Enabling Act and the State’s Constitution foreclosed civil jurisdiction over Indian country only in cases involving interests in Indian lands themselves. Vermill thorize its legislature to “provid[e] for the acceptance of such jurisdiction [over Indian country] as may be delegated to the State by Act of Congress.” N. D. Const., Art. XIII, §1, cl. 2. Finally, in 1963, the North Dakota Legislature enacted Chapter 27-19, the principal section of which provides:
“In accordance with the provisions of Public Law 280... and [the amended] North Dakota constitution, jurisdiction of the state of North Dakota shall be extended over all civil causes of action which arise on an Indian reservation upon acceptance by Indian citizens in a manner provided by this chapter. Upon acceptance the jurisdiction of the state shall be to the same extent that the state has jurisdiction over other civil causes of action, and those civil laws of this state that are of general application to private property shall have the same force and effect within such Indian reservation or Indian country as they have elsewhere within this state.” N. D. Cent. Code §27-19-01 (1974).
On their face, both the 1958 amendment to the North Dakota Constitution and Chapter 27-19 appear to expand preexisting state jurisdiction over Indian country rather than to contract it. In In re Whiteshield, 124 N. W. 2d 694 (1963), however, the North Dakota Supreme Court reached the conclusion that Chapter 27-19 actually disclaimed all jurisdiction over claims arising in Indian country absent Indian consent. In subsequent decisions, that court adhered to its general view that without Indian consent “the State has no jurisdiction over any civil cause arising on an Indian reservation in this State.” White Eagle v. Dorgan, 209 N. W. 2d 621, 623 (1973). In each case in which the North Dakota Supreme Court declined to recognize jurisdiction, however, the defendant was an Indian; the court never had held squarely that an Indian could not maintain an action against a non-Indian in state court for a claim arising in Indian country.
C. Respondent’s motion to dismiss rested on the restrictive jurisdictional principles of Whiteshield and its successors. Because the petitioner Tribe at no point has consented to state-court jurisdiction under Chapter 27-19 over the Fort Berthold Reservation, respondent argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim under Chapter 27-19 and the amended provisions of Pub. L. 280. Petitioner opposed respondent’s motion to dismiss on the ground, inter alia, that the tribal consent requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 were not meant to apply to a suit brought by a tribal government like petitioner. The trial court rejected petitioner’s arguments and granted the motion to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, but did so without prejudice to a renewal of the action following compliance with the state and federal consent requirements. App. to Pet. for Cert. la.
On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. 321 N. W. 2d 510 (1982). Petitioner argued that the jurisdiction recognized in Vermillion had not been extinguished altogether and that the North Dakota courts possessed “residuary jurisdiction” over a claim by an Indian against a non-Indian following the enactment of Pub. L. 280 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The court rejected this argument, adhering instead to its conclusion in Nelson v. Dubois, 232 N. W. 2d 54 (1975), that any residuary jurisdiction was preempted by the tribal consent requirements contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1968. After reviewing the history of North Dakota’s jurisdiction over Indian country, the court reaffirmed its prior holdings, observing that “we have no jurisdiction over civil causes of action arising within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation, unless the Indian citizens of the reservation vote to accept jurisdiction.” 321 N. W. 2d, at 512.
The court also rejected petitioner’s argument that to prohibit an Indian plaintiff from suing a non-Indian in state court for a claim arising on an Indian reservation would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and deny petitioner equal access to the courts, in violation of the North Dakota Constitution. The court relied on Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U. S. 463 (1979), in which this Court rejected an equal protection challenge to a state jurisdictional statute that relied on tribal classifications. In Yakima Indian Nation the Court held that the unique legal status of Indian tribes under federal law permitted the Federal Government to single out tribal Indians in ways that otherwise might be unconstitutional, and that the state jurisdictional statute at issue there was insulated from strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause because it was enacted under the authority of Pub. L. 280. 439 U. S., at 499-502. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded: “Likewise, the people of North Dakota and the legislature were acting under explicit authority granted by Congress in the exercise of its federal power over Indians when our Constitution was amended and Chapter 27-19... was enacted.” 321 N. W. 2d, at 513. As a result, any discrimination against Indian litigants did not violate the State or Federal Constitutions. Ibid.
Because of the complexity and importance of the issue posed by the North Dakota Supreme Court’s decision, we granted certiorari. 461 U. S. 904 (1983).
I-H H-1
Respondent does not dispute that petitioner s claim comes within the scope of the civil jurisdiction recognized by the North Dakota court in its Vermillion ruling in 1957. Respondent advances two arguments in support of the North Dakota Supreme Court’s conclusion that state-court jurisdiction no longer extends so far. The first is that federal law precludes the state courts from asserting jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim. The second is that, regardless of federal law, the North Dakota Supreme Court has held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction as a matter of state law. We address these arguments in turn.
A
Although this Court has departed from the rigid demarcation of state and tribal authority laid down in 1832 in Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, the assertion of state authority over tribal reservations remains subject to “two independent but related barriers.” White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U. S. 136, 142 (1980). First, a particular exercise of state authority may be foreclosed because it would undermine “ ‘the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.’” Ibid., quoting Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S., at 220. Second, state authority may be pre-empted by incompatible federal law. White Mountain, 448 U. S., at 142. Accord, New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U. S. 324, 334, and n. 16 (1983); Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue, 458 U. S. 832, 837-838 (1982); McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 179 (1973). We do not believe that either of these barriers precludes North Dakota courts from entertaining a civil action by an Indian tribe against a non-Indian for a claim arising on an Indian reservation.
Despite respondent’s arguments, we fail to see how the exercise of state-court jurisdiction in this case would interfere with the right of tribal Indians to govern themselves under their own laws. To be sure, the full breadth of state-court jurisdiction recognized in Vermillion cannot be squared with principles of tribal autonomy; to the extent that Vermillion permitted North Dakota state courts to exercise jurisdiction over claims by non-Indians against Indians or over claims between Indians, it intruded impermissibly on tribal self-governance. See Fisher v. District Court, 424 U. S. 382 (1976); Williams v. Lee, supra. This Court, however, repeatedly has approved the exercise of jurisdiction by state courts over claims by Indians against non-Indians, even when those claims arose in Indian country. See McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S., at 173 (dictum); Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co., 390 U. S. 365 (1968); Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S., at 219 (dictum); United States v. Can-delaria, 271 U. S. 432, 444 (1926); Felix v. Patrick, 145 U. S. 317, 332 (1892); Fellows v. Blacksmith, 19 How. 366 (1857). The interests implicated in such cases are very different from those present in Williams v. Lee, where a non-Indian sued an Indian in state court for debts incurred in Indian country, or in Fisher v. District Court, where this Court held that a tribal court had exclusive jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding in which all parties were tribal Indians residing on a reservation. As a general matter, tribal self-government is not impeded when a State allows an Indian to enter its courts on equal terms with other persons to seek relief against a non-Indian concerning a claim arising in Indian country. The exercise of state jurisdiction is particularly compatible with tribal autonomy when, as here, the suit is brought by the tribe itself and the tribal court lacked jurisdiction over the claim at the time the suit was instituted.
Neither are we persuaded that the exercise of state jurisdiction here would be inconsistent with the federal and tribal interests reflected in North Dakota’s Enabling Act or in Pub. L. 280. As for the disclaimer provisions of the Enabling Act, the presence or absence of specific jurisdictional disclaimers rarely has had controlling significance in this Court’s past decisions about state jurisdiction over Indian affairs or activities on Indian lands. Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 463 U. S. 545, 562 (1983); see F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 268 (1982 ed.). In this case, the sparse legislative record suggests only that the Enabling Act’s phrase “absolute [congressional] jurisdiction and control” was meant to foreclose state regulation and taxation of Indians and their lands, not that Indians were to be prohibited from entering state courts to pursue judicial remedies against non-Indians. See H. R. Rep. No. 1025, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9, 24 (1888). To the extent that the disclaimer language of the Enabling Act may be regarded as ambiguous, moreover, it is a settled principle of statutory construction that statutes passed for the benefit of dependent Indian tribes are to be liberally construed, with doubtful expressions being resolved in favor of the Indians. See, e. g., Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U. S. 373, 392 (1976); Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U. S. 78, 89 (1918). It would be contrary to this principle to resolve any ambiguity in the language of the Enabling Act in favor of a construction under which North Dakota could not provide a judicial forum for an Indian to obtain relief against a non-Indian.
We also cannot subscribe to the view that Pub. L. 280 either required North Dakota to disclaim the basic jurisdiction recognized in Vermillion or authorized it to do so. This Court previously has recognized that Pub. L. 280 was intended to facilitate rather than to impede the transfer of jurisdictional authority to the States. Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U. S., at 490; see also Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U. S., at 383-390. Nothing in the language or legislative history of Pub. L. 280 indicates that it was meant to divest States of pre-existing and otherwise lawfully assumed jurisdiction. Section 6 of the federal statute authorized a State whose enabling Act and constitution contained jurisdictional disclaimers “to remove any legal impediment to the assumption of civil and criminal jurisdiction” (emphasis added). 67 Stat. 590, codified, as amended, at 25 U. S. C. § 1324. Similarly, § 7 gave congressional consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by any other State “not having jurisdiction.” 67 Stat. 590. By their terms, therefore, both §6 and § 7 were designed to eliminate obstacles to the assumption of jurisdiction rather than to require pre-existing jurisdiction to be disclaimed. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1968 amended Pub. L. 280 by adding tribal consent requirements, those requirements were not made retroactive; the 1968 amendments therefore did not displace jurisdiction previously assumed under Pub. L. 280, much less jurisdiction assumed prior to and apart from Pub. L. 280. Similarly, while Pub. L. 280 authorized States to assume partial rather than full civil jurisdiction, see Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U. S., at 493-499, nothing in Pub. L. 280 purports to authorize States to disclaim pre-existing jurisdiction. Indeed, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 granted States the authority to retrocede jurisdiction acquired under Pub. L. 280 precisely because Pub. L. 280 itself did not authorize such jurisdictional disclaimers.
In sum, then, no federal law or policy required the North Dakota courts to forgo the jurisdiction recognized in Vermillion in this case. If the North Dakota Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling is to stand, it must be shown to rest on state rather than federal law.
B
This Court concededly has no authority to revise the North Dakota Supreme Court’s interpretation of state jurisdictional law. Only last Term, in Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, supra, we noted that “to the extent that a claimed bar to state jurisdiction... is premised on the respective State Constitutions, that is a question of state law over which the state courts have binding authority.” 463 U. S., at 561. That principle is equally applicable, of course, with respect to jurisdictional bars grounded in state statutes. If the North Dakota Supreme Court’s decision that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in this case rested solely on state law, the only remaining issue before this Court would be petitioner’s argument that the jurisdictional disclaimer here violates petitioner’s federal constitutional rights.
It is equally well established, however, that this Court retains a role when a state court’s interpretation of state law has been influenced by an accompanying interpretation of federal law. In some instances, a state court may construe state law narrowly to avoid a perceived conflict with federal statutory or constitutional requirements. See, e. g., United Air Lines, Inc. v. Mahin, 410 U. S. 623, 630-632 (1973); State Tax Comm’n v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511, 513-515 (1939); Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U. S. 109, 120 (1924); see also San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U. S. 26 (1957). In others, in contrast, the state court may construe state law broadly in the belief that federal law poses no barrier to the exercise of state authority. See, e. g., Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 316 U. S. 481 (1942). In both categories of cases, this Court has reviewed the federal question on which the state-law determination appears to have been premised. If the state court has proceeded on an incorrect perception of federal law, it has been this Court’s practice to vacate the judgment of the state court and remand the case so that the court may reconsider the state-law question free of misapprehensions about the scope of federal law.
Here, a careful reading of the North Dakota Supreme Court’s opinion leaves us far from certain that the court’s present interpretation of Chapter 27-19 does not rest on a misconception of federal law. In determining the role played by that court’s understanding of federal law, we are guided by the jurisdictional principles that have come to govern our calculation of adequate and independent state grounds. In Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (1983), this Court ruled that “when... a state court decision fairly appears... to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, we will accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal law required it to do so.” Id., at 1040-1041. Although petitioner’s constitutional challenge to the North Dakota Supreme Court’s judgment means that we do not face a question of our own jurisdiction, see Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 316 U. S., at 482-483, we believe that the same general interpretive principles properly apply here. The North Dakota Supreme Court’s opinion does state that the North Dakota Legislature “totally disclaimed jurisdiction over civil causes of action arising on an Indian reservation,” but it adds that the legislature did so “pursuant to Public Law 280,” “[u]nder the authority of Public Law 280,” and “under explicit authority granted by Congress in the exercise of its federal power over Indians.” 321 N. W. 2d, at 511, 513. There are at least two respects in which these references and other language in the court’s opinion leave it far less than clear that the North Dakota Supreme Court’s interpretation of Chapter 27-19 was not influenced by its understanding of federal law.
First, the court’s treatment of petitioner’s constitutional claims strongly suggests that the court’s underlying interpretation of Chapter 27-19 would have been different if the court had realized from the outset that federal law does not insulate the present jurisdictional disclaimer from state and federal constitutional scrutiny. While we express no view about the merits of petitioner’s federal equal protection challenge, we note that the North Dakota Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s state and federal constitutional claims not because it viewed them as otherwise meritless, but because “the people of North Dakota and the legislature were acting under explicit authority granted by Congress in the exercise of its federal power over Indians” in disclaiming state jurisdiction. 321 N. W. 2d, at 513. The court had proceeded on a similar assumption before; in Gourneau v. Smith, 207 N. W. 2d 256 (1973), for example, the court rejected an Indian plaintiff’s jurisdictional claim based on the “open courts” provision of N. D. Const. Art. I, § 9, because the tribal consent requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 were taken to foreclose jurisdiction:
“The courts of the State of North Dakota are open to all persons. But... Federal law prohibits State courts from assuming jurisdiction of civil actions involving Indians which arise on an Indian reservation, until such time as the Indians of that reservation have consented to such jurisdiction. Thus the courts of the State of North Dakota are open to Indians, if they consent to the courts’ jurisdiction as provided by law.” 207 N. W. 2d, at 259.
The assumption that Pub. L. 280 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 either authorized North Dakota to disclaim jurisdiction or affirmatively forbade the exercise of jurisdiction absent tribal consent is incorrect, for the reasons given above. That assumption, however, appears to have been the sole basis relied on by the North Dakota Supreme Court to avoid holding the jurisdictional disclaimer unconstitutional as applied in this case. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court has adhered consistently to the policy of construing state statutes to avoid potential state and federal constitutional problems, see, e. g., State v. Kottenbroch, 319 N. W. 2d 465, 473 (1982); Paluck v. Board of County Comm’rs, 307 N. W. 2d 852, 856 (1981); Grace Lutheran Church v. North Dakota Employment Security Bureau, 294 N. W. 2d 767, 772 (1980); North American Coal Corp. v. Huber, 268 N. W. 2d 593, 596 (1978); Tang v. Ping, 209 N. W. 2d 624, 628 (1973), it is entirely possible that the court would have avoided any constitutional question by construing Chapter 27-19 not to disclaim jurisdiction here, and it is equally possible that the court will reconstrue Chapter 27-19 that way if it is given an opportunity to do so.
Second, the manner in which the court rejected the availability of “residuary jurisdiction” leaves open the possibility that, despite the court’s references to state law, the court regarded federal law as an affirmative bar to the exercise of jurisdiction here. The court stated:
“In essence, [petitioner] argues that North Dakota retained residuary jurisdiction over actions brought by Indians against non-Indians for civil wrongs committed on Indian lands.... That argument would be more convincing had the legislature of North Dakota not, pursuant to Public Law 280, totally disclaimed jurisdiction over civil causes of action arising on an Indian reservation. In re Whiteshield, 124 N. W. 2d 694 (N. D. 1963). In Nelson v. Dubois, 232 N. W. 2d 54 (N. D. 1975),... we rejected the concept of ‘residuary’ jurisdiction. We adhere to that decision today.” 321 N. W. 2d, at 511 (emphasis added).
The court’s reliance on Nelson v. Dubois is suggestive because Dubois itself turned aside an attempt to invoke state-court jurisdiction over Indian country on the ground that federal law barred the exercise of jurisdiction. Specifically, the court held that it did not have “residuary jurisdiction” over a suit by non-Indians against Indians, even if the exercise of jurisdiction were assumed not to infringe on tribal self-governance under Williams v. Lee, because the tribal consent provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 pre-empted any exercise of state jurisdiction except in accordance with the terms of that Act. 232 N. W. 2d, at 57-59. The court recognized that its holding deprived the plaintiffs of any forum for their suit, but added: “The solution to this most serious problem lies not with the State. Congress may amend its statutes; Indian tribes of this State may begin to assert their own jurisdiction. This State cannot exercise jurisdiction that it does not possess.” Id., at 59.
As noted above, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 in no way bars the exercise of jurisdiction in this case. The court’s reliance on Nelson v. Dubois to dismiss petitioner’s jurisdictional claim suggests, however, that the court was proceeding on a contrary premise. In that event, it may well have adopted a restrictive interpretation of Chapter 27-19 to avoid a perceived conflict between state and federal jurisdictional mandates. By the same token, Nelson v. Dubois itself suggests that the court might recognize some measure of “residuary jurisdiction” here but for the mistaken belief that a federal jurisdictional impediment exists. Because we cannot exclude this possibility with any degree of confidence, the prudent course is to give the North Dakota Supreme Court an opportunity to express its views on Chapter 27-19 and thereby “avoid the risk of ‘an affirmance of a decision which might have been decided differently if the court below had felt free, under our decisions, to do so.’ ” United Air Lines, Inc. v. Mahin, 410 U. S., at 632, quoting Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U. S. 437, 443 (1952).
Our conclusion that the North Dakota Supreme Court’s state-law decision may well have rested on federal law is buttressed by prudential considerations. Were we not to give the North Dakota Supreme Court an opportunity to reconsider its conclusions with the proper understanding of federal law, we would be required to decide whether North Dakota has denied petitioner equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding it from state courts in a circumstance in which a non-Indian would be allowed to maintain a suit. It is a fundamental rule of judicial restraint, however, that this Court will not reach constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them. See, e. g., Leroy v. Great Western United Corp., 443 U. S. 178, 181 (1979); Massachusetts v. Westcott, 431 U. S. 322, 323 (1977); Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U. S. 625, 633 (1972); Ashwander v. TV A, 297 U. S. 288, 346-348 (1936) (concurring opinion); see also Whalen v. United States, 445 U. S. 684, 702 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). This Court has relied on that principle in similar circumstances to resolve doubts about the independence of state-law decisions in favor of an interpretation that avoids a constitutional question. See, e. g., Black v. Cutter Laboratories, 351 U. S. 292, 299 (1956). The same prudential rule is properly employed in this case. If the North Dakota Supreme Court reinterprets Chapter 27-19 to permit petitioner to maintain its claim in the state courts, or if it concludes that Chapter 27-19 violates the State’s Constitution insofar as it bars jurisdiction in this case, neither that court nor this one will be required finally to reach petitioner’s federal constitutional challenge. Under these circumstances, our responsibility to avoid unnecessary constitutional adjudication demands that we resolve any uncertainty over the North Dakota Supreme Court’s decision in favor of the possibility that it was influenced by a misunderstanding of federal law.
I — I I — I hH
It is important to recognize what we have not decided m this case today. We have made no ruling that Chapter 27-19 has any meaning other than the one assigned to it by the North Dakota Supreme Court. Neither have we decided whether, assuming that the North Dakota Supreme Court adheres to its current interpretation of Chapter 27-19, application of the statute to petitioner will deny petitioner federal equal protection or violate any other federally protected right. Finally, we have intimated no view concerning the state trial court’s jurisdiction over respondent’s counterclaim should the North Dakota Supreme Court decide that the trial court does have jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim. Instead, we merely vacate the North Dakota Supreme Court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Following the North Dakota Supreme Court’s decision in this case, petitioner’s Tribal Business Council amended the Tribal Code to grant the tribal court subject-matter jurisdiction over all civil causes of action arising within the boundaries of the Fort Berthold Reservation.
See F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 268, and n. 72 (1982 ed.).
Before that, however, Congress had vested North Dakota with certain criminal jurisdiction over the Devils Lake Reservation. Act of May 31, 1946. ch. 279. 60 Stat. 229.
In Gourneau v. Smith, 207 N. W. 2d 256, 258 (1973), the court expressly held that Vermillion “no longer states the rule to be applied... in a case between Indians arising out of use of the public highways on an Indian reservation.”
In United States ex rel. Hall v. Hansen, 303 N. W. 2d 349, 350, and n. 3 (1981), however, the court did state in dictum that a state trial court lacked jurisdiction over a claim by an Indian against a non-Indian arising in Indian country.
“All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due process of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.” N. D. Const., Art. I, §9. The State’s Constitution further provides that no citizen or class of citizens “shall... be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens.” Art. I, §21.
A number of state courts have recognized the right of Indians to bring suits in state courts against non-Indians for claims arising in Indian country. See, e. g., McCrea v. Busch, 164 Mont. 442, 524 P. 2d 781 (1974); Paiz v. Hughes, 76 N. M. 562, 417 P. 2d 51 (1966); Whiting v. Hoffine, 294 N. W. 2d 921, 923-924 (S. D. 1980).
In Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. S. 60, 71 (1962), this Court held that the phrase “absolute jurisdiction and control” was not intended to oust States completely from all authority concerning Indian lands. See, however, McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner James Hamilton, an attorney, made notes of an initial interview with a client shortly before the client’s death. The Government, represented by the Office of Independent Counsel, now seeks his notes for use in a criminal investigation. We hold that the notes are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
This dispute arises out of an investigation conducted by the Office of the Independent Counsel into whether various individuals made false statements, obstructed justice, or committed other crimes during investigations of the 1998 dismissal of employees from the White House Travel Office. Vincent W. Poster, Jr., was Deputy White House Counsel when the firings occurred. In July 1993, Poster met with petitioner Hamilton, an attorney at petitioner Swid-ler & Berlin, to seek legal representation concerning possible congressional or other investigations of the firings. During a 2-hour meeting, Hamilton took three pages of handwritten notes. One of the first entries in the notes is the word “Privileged.” Nine days later, Foster committed suicide.
In December 1995, a federal grand jury, at the request of the Independent Counsel, issued subpoenas to petitioners Hamilton and Swidler & Berlin for, inter alia, Hamilton’s handwritten notes of his meeting with Foster. Petitioners filed a motion to quash, arguing that the notes were protected by the attorney-client privilege and by the work-product privilege. The District Court, after examining the notes in camera, concluded they were protected from disclosure by both doctrines and denied enforcement of the subpoenas.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. In re Sealed Case, 124 F. 3d 230 (1997). While recognizing that most courts assume the privilege survives death, the Court of Appeals noted that holdings actually manifesting the posthumous force of the privilege are rare. Instead, most judicial references to the privilege’s posthumous application occur in the context of a well-recognized exception allowing disclosure for disputes among the client’s heirs. Id., at 231-232. It further noted that most commentators support some measure of posthumous curtailment of the privilege. Id., at 232. The Court of Appeals thought that the risk of posthumous revelation, when confined to the criminal context, would have little to no chilling effect on client communication, but that the costs of protecting communications after death were high. It therefore concluded that the privilege was not absolute in such circumstances, and that instead, a balancing test should apply. Id., at 233-234. It thus held that there is a posthumous exception to the privilege for communications whose relative importance to particular criminal litigation is substantial. Id., at 235. While acknowledging that uncertain privileges are disfavored, Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U. S. 1, 17-18 (1996), the Court of Appeals determined that the uncertainty introduced by its balancing test was insignificant in light of existing exceptions to the privilege. 124 F. 3d, at 235. The Court of Appeals also held that the notes were not protected by the work-produet privilege.
The dissenting judge would have affirmed the District Court’s judgment that the attorney-client privilege protected the notes. Id., at 237. He concluded that the common-law rule was that the privilege survived death. He found no persuasive reason to depart from this accepted rule, particularly given the importance of the privilege to full and frank client communication. Id., at 237.
Petitioners sought review in this Court on both the attorney-client privilege and the work-product privilege. We granted certiorari, 523 U. S. 1045 (1998), and we now reverse.
The attorney-client privilege is one of the oldest recognized privileges for confidential communications. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U. S. 383, 389 (1981); Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U. S. 464, 470 (1888). The privilege is intended to encourage “full and frank communication between attorneys and thefr clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice.” Upjohn, supra, at 389. The issue presented here is the scope of that privilege; more particularly, the extent to which the privilege survives the death of the client. Our interpretation of the privilege’s scope is guided by “the principles of the common law ... as interpreted by the courts ... in the light of reason and experience.” Fed. Rule Evid. 501; Funk v. United States, 290 U. S. 371 (1933).
The Independent Counsel argues that the attorney-client privilege should not prevent disclosure of confidential communications where the client has died and the information is relevant to a criminal proceeding. There is some authority for this position. One state appellate court, Cohen v. Jenkintown Cab Co., 238 Pa. Super. 456, 357 A. 2d 689 (1976), and the Court of Appeals below have held the privilege may be subject to posthumous exceptions in certain circumstances. In Cohen, a civil case, the court recognized that the privilege generally survives death, but concluded that it could make an exception where the interest of justice was compelling and the interest of the client in preserving the confidence was insignificant. Id., at 462-464, 357 A. 2d, at 692-693.
But other than these two decisions, cases addressing the existence of the privilege after death-most involving the testamentary exception — uniformly presume the privilege survives, even if they do not so hold. See, e. g., Mayberry v. Indiana, 670 N. E. 2d 1262 (Ind. 1996); Morris v. Cain, 39 La. Ann. 712, 1 So. 797 (1887); People v. Modzelewski, 611 N. Y. S. 2d 22, 203 A. 2d 594 (App. Div. 1994). Several State Supreme Court decisions expressly hold that the attorney-client privilege extends beyond the death of the client, even in the criminal context. See In re John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 408 Mass. 480, 481-483, 562 N. E. 2d 69, 70 (1990); State v. Doster, 276 S. C. 647, 650-651, 284 S. E. 2d 218, 219 (1981); State v. Macumber, 112 Ariz. 569, 571, 544 P. 2d 1084, 1086 (1976). In John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that survival of the privilege was “the clear implication” of its early pronouncements that communications subject to the privilege could not be disclosed at any time. 408 Mass., at 483, 562 N. E. 2d, at 70. The court further noted that survival of the privilege was “necessarily implied” by cases allowing waiver of the privilege in testamentary disputes. Ibid.
Such testamentary exception cases consistently presume the privilege survives. See, e. g., United States v. Osborn, 561 F. 2d 1334, 1340 (CA9 1977); DeLoach v. Myers, 215 Ga. 255, 259-260, 109 S. E. 2d 777, 780-781 (1959); Doyle v. Reeves, 112 Conn. 521, 152 A. 882 (1931); Russell v. Jackson, 9 Hare 387, 68 Eng. Rep. 558 (V. C. 1851). They view testamentary disclosure of communications as an exception to the privilege: “[T]he general rule with respect to confidential communications ... is that such communications are privileged during the testator’s lifetime and, also, after the testator’s death unless sought to be disclosed in litigation between the testator’s heirs.” Osborn, 561 F. 2d, at 1340. The rationale for such disclosure is that it furthers the client’s intent. Id., at 1340, n. II.
Indeed, in Glover v. Patten, 165 U. S. 394, 406-408 (1897), this Court, in recognizing the testamentary exception, expressly assumed that the privilege continues after the individual’s death. The Court explained that testamentary disclosure was permissible because the privilege, which normally protects the client’s interests, could be impliedly waived in order to fulfill the client’s testamentary intent. Id., at 407-408 (quoting Blackburn v. Crawfords, 3 Wall. 175 (1866), and Russell v. Jackson, supra).
The great body of this case law supports, either by holding or considered dicta, the position that the privilege does survive in a case such as the present one. Given the language of Rule 501, at the very least the burden is on the Independent Counsel to show that “reason and experience” require a departure from this rule.
The Independent Counsel contends that the testamentary-exception supports the posthumous termination of the privilege because in practice most cases have refused to apply the privilege posthumously. He further argues that the exception reflects a policy judgment that the interest in settling estates outweighs any posthumous interest in confidentiality. He then reasons by analogy that in criminal proceedings, the interest in determining whether a crime has been committed should trump client confidentiality, particularly since the financial interests of the estate are not at stake.
But the Independent Counsel’s interpretation simply does not square with the ease law’s implicit acceptance of the privilege’s survival and with the treatment of testamentary disclosure as an “exception” or an implied “waiver.” And the premise of his analogy is incorrect, since eases consistently recognize' that the rationale for the testamentary exception is that it furthers the client’s intent, see, e. g., Glover, supra. There is no reason to suppose as a general matter that grand jury testimony about confidential communications furthers the client’s intent.
Commentators on the law also recognize that the general rule is that the attorney-client privilege continues after death. See, e. g., 8 Wigmore, Evidence §2323 (MeNaughton rev. 1961); Frankel, The Attorney-Client Privilege After the Death of the Client, 6 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 45, 78-79 (1992); 1 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 94, p. 348 (4th ed. 1992). Undoubtedly, as the Independent Counsel emphasizes, various commentators have criticized this rule, urging that the privilege should be abrogated after the client’s death where extreme injustice would result, as long as disclosure would not seriously undermine the privilege by deterring elient communication. See, e.g., C. Mueller & L. Kirkpatrick, 2 Federal Evidence §199, pp. 380-381 (2d ed. 1994); Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 127, Comment d (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, Mar. 29, 1996). But even these critics clearly recognize that established law supports the continuation of the privilege and that a contrary rule would be a modification of the common law. See, e. g., Mueller & Kirkpatrick, supra, at 379; Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers, supra, § 127, Comment c; 24 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure § 5498, p. 488 (1986).
Despite the scholarly criticism, we think there are weighty reasons that counsel in favor of posthumous application. Knowing that communications will remain confidential even after death encourages the client to communicate fully and frankly with counsel. While the fear of disclosure, and the consequent withholding of information from counsel, may be reduced if disclosure is limited to posthumous disclosure in a criminal context, it seems unreasonable to assume that it vanishes altogether. Clients may be concerned about reputation, civil liability, or possible harm to friends or family. Posthumous disclosure of such communications may be as feared as disclosure during the client’s lifetime.
The Independent Counsel suggests, however, that his proposed exception would have little to no effect on the client’s willingness to confide in his attorney. He reasons that only clients intending to perjure themselves will be chilled by a ride of disclosure after death, as opposed to truthful clients or those asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege. This is because for the latter group, communications disclosed by the attorney after the client’s death purportedly will reveal only information that the client himself would have revealed if alive.
The Independent Counsel assumes, incorrectly we believe, that the privilege is analogous to the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. But as suggested above, the privilege serves much broader purposes. Clients consult attorneys for a wide variety of reasons, only one of which involves possible criminal liability. Many attorneys aet as counselors on personal and family matters, where, in the course of obtaining the desired advice, confidences about family members or financial problems must be revealed in order to assure sound legal advice. The same is true of owners of small businesses who may regularly consult their attorneys about a variety of problems arising in the course of the business. These confidences may not come close to any sort of admission of criminal wrongdoing, but nonetheless be matters which the client would not wish divulged.
The contention that the attorney is being required to disclose only what the client could have been required to disclose is at odds with the basis for the privilege even during the client’s lifetime. In related cases, we have said that the loss of evidence admittedly caused by the privilege is justified in part by the fact that without the privilege, the client may not have made such communications in the first place. See Jaffee, 518 U. S., at 12; Fisher v. United States, 425 U. S. 391, 403 (1976). This is true of disclosure before and after the client’s death. Without assurance of the privilege’s posthumous application, the client may very well not have made disclosures to his attorney at all, so the loss of evidence is more apparent than real. In the case at hand, it seems quite plausible that Foster, perhaps already contemplating suicide, may not have sought legal advice from Hamilton if he had not been assured the conversation was privileged.
The Independent Counsel additionally suggests that his proposed exception would have minimal impact if confined to criminal cases, or, as the Court of Appeals suggests, if it is limited to information of substantial importance to a particular criminal case. However, there is no case authority for the proposition that the privilege applies differently in erimi-nal and civil cases, and only one commentator ventures such a suggestion, see Mueller & Kirkpatrick, supra, at 380-381. In any event, a client may not know at the time he discloses information to his attorney whether it will later be relevant to a civil or a criminal matter, let alone whether it will be of substantial importance. Balancing ex post the importance of the information against client interests, even limited to criminal eases, introduces substantial uncertainty into the privilege’s application. For just that reason, we have rejected use of a balancing test in defining the contours of the privilege. See Upjohn, 449 U. S., at 393; Jaffee, supra, at 17-18.
In a similar vein, the Independent Counsel argues that existing exceptions to the privilege, such as the crime-fraud exception and the testamentary exception, make the impact of one more exception marginal. However, these exceptions do not demonstrate that the impact of a posthumous exception would be insignificant, and there is little empirical evidence on this point. The established exceptions are consistent with the purposes of the privilege, see Glover, 165 U. S., at 407-408; United States v. Zolin, 491 U. S. 554, 562-563 (1989), while a posthumous exception in criminal cases appears at odds with the goals of encouraging fall and frank communication and of protecting the client’s interests. A “no harm in one more exception” rationale could contribute to the general erosion of the privilege, without reference to common-law principles or “reason and experience.”
_ Finally, the Independent Counsel, relying on cases such as United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 710 (1974), and Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 (1972), urges that privileges be strictly construed because they are inconsistent with the paramount judicial goal of truth seeking. But both Nixon and Bmnzburg dealt with the creation of privileges not recognized by the common law, whereas here we deal with one of the oldest recognized privileges in the law. And we are asked, not simply to “construe” the privilege, but to narrow it, contrary to the weight of the existing body of case law.
It has been generally, if not universally, accepted, for well over a century, that the attorney-client privilege survives the death of the client in a case such as this. While the arguments against the survival of the privilege are by no means frivolous, they are based in large part on speculation — thoughtful speculation, but speculation nonetheless— as to whether posthumous termination of the privilege would diminish a client’s willingness to confide in an attorney. In an area where empirical information would be useful, it is scant and inconclusive.
Rule 501’s direction to look to “the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience” does not mandate that a rule, once established, should endure for all time. Funk v. United States, 290 U. S. 371, 381 (1933). But here the Independent Counsel has simply not made a sufficient showing to overturn the common-law rule embodied in the prevailing ease law. Interpreted in the light of reason and experience, that body of law requires that the attorney-client privilege prevent disclosure of the notes at issue in this case. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Because we sustain the claim of attorney-client privilege, we do not reach the claim of work-product privilege.
About half the States have codified the testamentary exception by providing that a personal representative of the deceased can waive the privilege when heirs or devisees claim through the deceased client (as opposed to parties claiming against the estate, for whom the privilege is not waived). See, e. g., Ala. Rule Evid. 502 (1996); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-41-101, Rule 502 (Supp. 1997); Neb. Rev. Stat. §27-503, Rule 503 (1995). These statutes do not address expressly the continuation of the privilege outside the context of testamentary disputes, although many allow the attorney to assert the privilege on behalf of the client apparently without temporal limit. See, e. g., Ark. Code Ann. § 16-41-101, Rule 502(e) (Supp. 1997). They thus do not refute or affirm the general presumption in the case law that the privilege survives. California’s statute is exceptional in that it apparently allows the attorney to assert the privilege only so long as a holder of the privilege (the estate’s personal representative) exists, suggesting the privilege terminates when the estate is wound up. See Cal. Code Evid. Ann. §§954, 957 (West 1995). But no other State has followed California’s lead in this regard.
Petitioners, while opposing wholesale abrogation of the privilege in criminal cases, concede that exceptional eireumstanees implicating a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights might warrant breaching the privilege. We do not, however, need to reach this issue, since such exceptional circumstances clearly are not presented here.
Empirical evidence on the privilege is limited. Three studies do not reach firm conclusions on whether limiting the privilege would discourage full and frank communication. Alexander, The Corporate Attorney Client Privilege: A Study of the Participants, 63 St. John’s L. Rev. 191 (1989); Zacharias, Rethinking Confidentiality, 74 Iowa L. Rev. 352 (1989); Comment, Functional Overlap Between the Lawyer and Other Professionals: Its Implications for the Privileged Communications Doctrine, 71 Yale L. J. 1226 (1962). These articles note that clients are often uninformed or mistaken about the privilege, but suggest that a substantial number of clients and attorneys think the privilege encourages candor. Two of the articles conclude that a substantial number of clients and attorneys think the privilege enhances open communication, Alexander, supra, at 244-246,261, and that the absence of a privilege would be detrimental to such communication, Comment, 71 Yale L. J., supra, at 1236. The third article suggests instead that while the privilege is perceived as important to open communication, limited exceptions to the privilege might not discourage such communication, Zacharias, supra, at 382, 386. Similarly, relatively few court decisions discuss the impact of the privilege’s application after death. This may reflect the general assumption that the privilege survives — if attorneys were required as a matter of practice to testify or provide notes in criminal proceedings, cases discussing that practice would surely exist.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Hurley Henson filed suit in state court in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, against petitioner Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. (then known as Ciba-Geigy Corp.) asserting various tort claims related to petitioners’ manufacture and sale of a chlordimeform-based insecticide. A similar action, Price v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., was already underway in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. The Louisiana court stayed respondent’s action when respondent successfully intervened in the Price suit and participated in the ensuing settlement. That settlement included a stipulation that the Henson action, “including any and all claims . . . against [petitioners], shall be dismissed, with prejudice,” as of the approval date. App. 38a; see also id., at 36a.
Following the approval of the settlement, the Louisiana state court conducted a hearing to determine whether the Henson action should be dismissed. Counsel for respondent told the court that the Price settlement required dismissal of only some of the claims raised in Henson. Although this representation appeared to be contrary to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Louisiana court relied upon it and invited respondent to amend the complaint and proceed with the action.
Counsel for petitioners did not attend the hearing. Upon learning of the state court’s action, however, petitioners promptly removed the action to the Middle District of Louisiana, relying on 28 U. S. C. § 1441(a). The notice of removal asserted federal jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, § 1651, and under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, §1367. The Middle District of Louisiana granted a transfer to the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to § 1404(a), and the Alabama court then dismissed Henson as barred by the Price settlement and sanctioned respondent’s counsel for his misrepresentation to the Louisiana state court.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sanctions but vacated the District Court’s order dismissing the Henson action. Henson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 261 F. 3d 1065 (2001). The court reasoned that §1441 by its terms authorizes removal only of actions over which the district courts have original jurisdiction. But the All Writs Act authorizes writs “in aid of [the courts’] respective jurisdictions” without providing any federal subject-matter jurisdiction in its own right, see, e. g., Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U. S. 529, 534-535 (1999). Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded, the All Writs Act could not support removal of the Henson action from state to federal court.
In so holding, the Court of Appeals recognized that several Circuits have held that the All Writs Act gives a federal court the authority to remove a state-court case in order to prevent the frustration of orders the federal court has previously issued. See, e. g., Xiong v. Minnesota, 195 F. 3d 424, 426 (CA8 1999); Bylinski v. Allen Park, 169 F. 3d 1001, 1003 (CA6 1999); In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 996 F. 2d 1425, 1431 (CA2 1993). It noted, however, that other Circuits have agreed with its conclusion that the All Writs Act does not furnish removal jurisdiction. See, e. g., Hillman v. Webley, 115 F. 3d 1461, 1469 (CA10 1997). We granted certiorari to resolve this controversy, 534 U. S. 1126 (2001), and now affirm.
The All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a), provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Petitioners advance two arguments in support of their claim that removal of the Henson action was proper under the All Writs Act: (1) The All Writs Act authorized removal of the Henson action, and (2) the All Writs Act in conjunction with the doctrine of ancillary enforcement jurisdiction authorized the removal. We address these contentions in turn.
First, petitioners, like the courts that have endorsed “All Writs removal,” rely upon our statement in United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U. S. 159, 172 (1977), that the Act authorizes a federal court “to issue such commands . . . as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders it has previously issued in its exercise of jurisdiction otherwise obtained.” Petitioners also cite Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. United States Marshals Service, 474 U. S. 34, 41 (1985), for the proposition that the All Writs Act “fill[s] the interstices of federal judicial power when those gaps threate[n] to thwart the otherwise proper exercise of federal courts’ jurisdiction.” They argue that the Act comes into play here because maintenance of the Henson action in state court in Louisiana frustrated the express terms of the Price settlement, which required that “any and all claims” in Henson be dismissed.
But Pennsylvania Bureau made clear that “[w]here a statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is controlling.” 474 U. S., at 43. The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and “a suit commenced in a state court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.” Great Northern R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U. S. 276, 280 (1918) (citing Gold-Washing and Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199, 201 (1878)). These statutory procedures for removal are to be strictly construed. See, e. g., Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U. S. 100, 108-109 (1941) (noting that policy underlying removal statutes “is one calling for the strict construction of such legislation”); Healy v. Ratta, 292 U. S. 263, 270 (1934) (“Due regard for the rightful independence of state governments ... requires that [federal courts] scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined”); Matthews v. Rodgers, 284 U. S. 521, 525 (1932); Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U. S. 226, 233-234 (1922). Petitioners may not, by resorting to the All Writs Act, avoid complying with the statutory requirements for removal. See Pennsylvania Bureau, supra, at 43 (All Writs Act “does not authorize [federal courts] to issue ad hoc writs whenever compliance with statutory procedures appears inconvenient or less appropriate”).
Petitioners’ question presented to this Court suggests a variation on this first argument, asking whether the All Writs Act “vests federal district courts with authority to exercise removal jurisdiction under 28 U S. C. §1441” Pet. for Cert. i (emphasis added). The general removal statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1441, provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending,” unless,Congress specifically provides otherwise. § 1441(a). Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove the Henson action pursuant to that provision, petitioners must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal courts. They concede that the All Writs Act “does not, by its specific terms, provide federal courts with an independent grant of jurisdiction.” Brief for Petitioners 9; see also Clinton, supra, at 534-535 (express terms of the All Writs Act confine a court “to issuing process ‘in aid of’ its existing statutory jurisdiction; the Act does not enlarge that jurisdiction”). Because the All Writs Act does not confer jurisdiction on the federal courts, it cannot confer the original jurisdiction required to support removal pursuant to § 1441.
Second, petitioners contend that some combination of the All Writs Act and the doctrine of ancillary enforcement jurisdiction support the removal of the Henson action. As we explained in Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U. S. 349, 355 (1996), “[ancillary jurisdiction may extend to claims having a factual and logical dependence on ‘the primary lawsuit.’ ” Petitioners emphasize that the Southern District of Alabama retained jurisdiction over the Price settlement, thus distinguishing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U. S. 375 (1994), in which we found ancillary jurisdiction lacking. They argue that respondent’s maintenance of the Henson action undermined the Price settlement and that, in light of the Alabama court’s retained jurisdiction, ancillary enforcement jurisdiction was necessary and appropriate. But they fail to explain how the Alabama District Court’s retention of jurisdiction over the Price settlement authorized removal of the Henson action. Removal is governed by statute, and invocation of ancillary jurisdiction, like invocation of the All Writs Act, does not dispense with the need for compliance with statutory requirements.
Read in light of the question presented in the petition for certiorari, perhaps petitioners’ argument is that ancillary jurisdiction authorizes removal under 28 U. S. C. § 1441. As we explained in Peacock, however, a “court must have jurisdiction over a case or controversy before it may assert jurisdiction over ancillary claims.” 516 U. S., at 355. Ancillary jurisdiction, therefore, cannot provide the original jurisdiction that petitioners must show in order to qualify for removal under § 1441.
Section 1441 requires that a federal court have original jurisdiction over an action in order for it to be removed from a state court. The All Writs Act, alone or in combination with the existence of ancillary jurisdiction in a federal court, is not a substitute for that requirement. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Petitioners’ assertion that removal was “necessary” is unpersuasive on its own bottom. One in petitioners’ position may apply to the court that approved a settlement for an injunction requiring dismissal of a rival action. Petitioners could also have sought a determination from the Louisiana state court that respondent’s action was barred by the judgment of the Alabama District Court.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U. S. 200 (1922), this Court held that the business of providing public baseball games for profit between clubs of professional baseball players was not within the scope of the federal antitrust laws. Congress has had the ruling under consideration but has not seen fit to bring such business under these laws by legislation having prospective effect. The business has thus been left for thirty years to develop, on the understanding that it was not subject to existing antitrust legislation. The present cases ask us to overrule the prior decision and, with retrospective effect, hold the legislation applicable. We think that if there are evils in this field which now warrant application to it of the antitrust laws it should be by legislation. Without re-examination of the underlying issues, the judgments below are affirmed on the authority of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, supra, so far as that decision determines that Congress had no intention of including the business of baseball within the scope of the federal antitrust laws.
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mb. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents an issue of federal condemnation law — as it relates to an outstanding lease of trust lands— that, we are told, affects substantial acreage in our Southwestern and Western States.
I
Under § 24 of the New Mexico-Arizona Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 572 (1910), specified sections of every township in the then proposed State were granted to Arizona “for the support of common schools.” By § 28 of the same Act, 36 Stat. 674, as amended by the Act of June 5, 1936, c. 517, 49 Stat. 1477, and by the. Act of June 2, 1951, 65 Stat. 51, the lands transferred “shall be by the said State held in trust, to be disposed of in whole or in part only in manner as herein provided and for the several objects specified . . . and . . . the . . . proceeds of any of said lands shall be subject to the same trusts as the lands producing the same.” Arizona, by its Constitution, Art. 10, § 1, accepted the lands so granted and its trusteeship over them.
Among the lands constituting the grant to Arizona were two parcels herein referred to as Tract 304 and Tract 305, respectively. On February 8, 1962, Arizona, as lessor, and petitioner Alamo Land and Cattle Company, Inc. (Alamo), as lessee, executed a grazing lease of these tracts for the 10-year period ending February 7, 1972. App. 6-14. By Arizona statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 37-281D (1974), incorporated by general reference into the lease, App. 7, Alamo may not use the lands for any purpose other than grazing.
On May 31, 1966, while the two tracts were subject to the grazing lease and were utilized as part of Alamo’s larger operating cattle ranch, the United States filed a complaint in condemnation in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in connection with the establishment of a flood control dam and reservoir at a site on the Bill Williams River. The tracts in their entirety were among the properties that were the subject of the complaint in condemnation. The District Court duly entered the customary order for delivery of possession.
Thereafter, the United States and Arizona and, separately, the United States and Alamo, stipulated that “the full just compensation” payable by the United States “for the taking of said property, together with all improvements thereon and appurtenances thereunto belonging” was $48,220 for Tract 304 and $70,400 for Tract 305, and thus a total of $118,620 for the two. 1 Record 156, 162.
At a distribution hearing held to determine the proper allocation of the compensation amounts, the only parties claiming an interest in the awards for the two tracts were respondent Arizona, asserting title through the federal grants to it, and petitioner Alamo, asserting a compensa-ble leasehold interest in the lands and a compensable interest in the improvements thereon. The State conceded that Alamo was entitled to receive the value of the improvements, but contested Alamo’s right, as lessee, to participate in the portion of the award allocated to land value. The District Court, with an unreported opinion, App. 1-5, awarded Arizona $57,970 for its fee interest, and awarded Alamo $3,600 for the improvements and $57,050 for “its leasehold interest at the time of taking, and its reasonable prospective leasehold interest.” 1 Record 227-228. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, while recognizing that Alamo was entitled to compensation for the improvements, held that under the Enabling Act Arizona “had no power to grant a compensable property right to Alamo,” and that “Alamo therefore never acquired a property right for which it is entitled to compensation.” United States v. 2,662.92 Acres of Land, 495 F. 2d 12, 14 (1974). The Court of Appeals thus reversed the judgment of the District Court insofar as it concerned the leasehold interests. It remanded the cause for the entry of a new judgment in accordance with its opinion. Id., at 15. Because the Ninth Circuit’s decision appeared to implicate this Court’s decision in Lassen v. Arizona ex rel. Arizona Highway Dept., 385 U. S. 458 (1967), and because it was claimed to be in conflict with Nebraska v. United States, 164 F. 2d 866 (CA8 1947), cert. denied, 334 U. S. 815 (1948), we granted Alamo’s petition for certiorari. 420 U. S. 971 (1975).
II
The Lassen case was an action instituted by the Arizona Highway Department to prohibit the application by the State Land Commissioner of rules governing the acquisition of rights-of-way and material sites in federally donated lands held by Arizona in trust pursuant to the provisions of the Enabling Act. What was involved, therefore, was the acquisition of interests in trust lands by the State itself. The Supreme Court of Arizona held that it could be presumed conclusively that highways constructed across trust lands always enhanced the value of the remainder in amounts at least equal to the value of the areas taken and therefore refused to order the Highway Department to compensate the trust. State v. Lassen, 99 Ariz. 161, 407 P. 2d 747 (1965). This Court unanimously reversed. In so doing, it observed that the more recent federal grants to newly admitted States, including Arizona, “make clear that the United States has a continuing interest in the administration of both the lands and the funds which derive from them.” 385 U. S., at 460.
The Court read § 28 of the Enabling Act with particularity. It emphasized the Act’s requirements that trust lands be sold or leased only to “ ‘the highest and best bidder’ ”; that no lands be sold for less than their appraised value; that disposal of trust lands be “ ‘only in manner as herein provided’ ”; that disposition in any other way “ ‘shall be deemed a breach of trust’ ”; and that every sale or lease “ ‘not made in substantial conformity with the provisions of this Act shall be null and void.’ ” 385 U. S., at 461-462. The Court then examined the purposes of the Act and concluded that the grant “was plainly expected to produce a fund, accumulated by sale and use of the trust lands, with which the State could support the public institutions designated by the Act.” Id., at 463. Sales and leases were intended. The “central problem” was “to devise constraints which would assure that the trust received in full fair compensation for trust lands.” Ibid. The Court concluded, for reasons stated in the opinion, that the Act’s procedural restrictions did not apply when the State itself sought trust lands for its highway program.
The Court then turned to the standard of compensation Arizona must employ to recompense the trust for the interests the State acquired. It concluded that the terms and purposes of the grant did not permit Arizona to diminish the actual monetary compensation payable to the trust by the amount of any enhancement in the value of remaining trust lands. The Court emphasized that the Enabling Act “unequivocally demands both that the trust receive the full value of any lands transferred from it and that any funds received be employed only for the purposes for which the land was given.” Id., at 466. It again stressed the requirements of the Act and noted that “these restrictions in combination indicate Congress’ concern both that the grants provide the most substantial support possible to the beneficiaries and that only those beneficiaries profit from the trust.” Id., at 467. All this was confirmed by the background and legislative history of the Enabling Act. Accordingly, it held that even where the State itself is the acquisitor, the Act’s designated beneficiaries were to derive the full benefit of the grant. Thus, “Arizona must actually compensate the trust in money for the full appraised value of any material sites or rights-of-way which it obtains on or over trust lands.” Id., at 469 (footnotes omitted). This standard, it was said, “most consistently reflects the essential purposes of the grant.” Id., at 470.
Much of what was said in Lassen had also been said, several decades earlier, in Ervien v. United States, 251 U. S. 41 (1919), when the provisions of the same Enabling Act were under consideration in a federal case from New Mexico. The Court’s concern for the integrity of the conditions imposed by the Act, therefore, has long been evident.
But to say, as the Court did in Ervien and in Lassen, that the trust is to receive the full value of any lands transferred from it is not to say that the Act requires, in every Arizona case where a leasehold is outstanding at the time of the federal condemnation, that the trust is to receive the entire then value of the land and the possessor of the leasehold interest is to receive nothing whatsoever. What the Act requires — and we think that this is clear from Ervien and Lassen — is that the trust is to receive, at the time of its disposition of any interest in the land, the then full value of the particular interest which is being dispensed.
It has long been established that the holder of an unexpired leasehold interest in land is entitled, under the Fifth Amendment, to just compensation for the value of that interest when it is taken upon condemnation by the United States. United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U. S. 372 (1946); A. W. Duckett & Co. v. United States, 266 U. S. 149 (1924). See United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373 (1945); Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 409 U. S. 470 (1973); 2 P. Nichols, Eminent Domain § 5.23 (Rev. 3d ed. 1975); 4 id. § 12.42 [1]. It would therefore seem to follow that when a lease of trust land is made, the trust must receive from the lessee the then fair rental value of the possessory interest transferred by the lease, and that upon a subsequent condemnation by the United States, the trust must receive the then full value of the reversionary interest that is subject to the outstanding lease, plus, of course, the value of the rental rights under the lease. The trust should not be entitled, in addition to all this, to receive the compensable value, if any, of the leasehold interest. That, if it exists and if the lease is valid, is the lessee’s. See State ex rel. La Prade v. Carrow, 57 Ariz. 429, 433-434, 114 P. 2d 891, 893 (1941).
Ordinarily, a leasehold interest has a compensable value whenever the capitalized then fair rental value for the remaining term of the lease, plus the value of any renewal right, exceeds the capitalized value of the rental the lease specifies. The Court has expressed it this way:
“The measure of damages is the value of the use and occupancy of the leasehold for the remainder of the tenant’s term, plus the value of the right to renew . . . , less the agreed rent which the tenant would pay for such use and occupancy.” United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U. S., at 381.
See Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States, supra. A number of factors, of course, could operate to eliminate the existence of compensable value in the leasehold interest. Presumably, this would be so if the Enabling Act provided, as the New Mexico-Arizona Act does not, that any lease of trust land was revocable at will by the State, or if it provided that, upon sale or condemnation of the land, no compensation was payable to the lessee. The State, of course, may require that a provision of this kind be included in the lease. See United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U. S., at 375-376, and n. 4; see also 4 Nichols, supra, § 12.42 [1], pp. 12-488 and 12-489.
A difference between the rental specified in the lease and the fair rental value plus the renewal right could arise either because the lease rentals were set initially at less than fair rental value, or because during the term of the lease the value of the land, and consequently its fair rental value, increased. The New Mexico-Arizona Enabling Act has a protective provision against the initial setting of lease rentals at less than fair rental value. This is specifically prohibited by § 28. The prohibition is given bite by the further very drastic provision that a lease not made in substantial conformity with the Act “shall be null and void.” Thus, if the lease of trust lands calls for a rental of substantially less than the land’s then fair rental value, it is null and void and the holder of the claimed leasehold interest could not be entitled to compensation upon condemnation.
On the other hand, the fair rental value of the land may increase during the term of the lease. If this takes place, the increase in fair rental value operates to create a compensable value in the leasehold interest. It is at this point, we feel, that the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the Act by its terms, and apart from the extent to which it incorporated Arizona law by reference, barred Arizona from leasing trust land in any manner that might result in the lessee’s becoming constitutionally entitled to just compensation for the value of its unexpired leasehold interest at the time of the federal condemnation. Instead, the Act is completely silent in this respect.
Ill
Arizona, however, suggests that this usually acceptable analysis may not be applied under the New Mexico-Arizona Enabling Act. It argues, as the Court of Appeals held, 495 F. 2d, at 14, that under that Act the State, as trustee, has no power to grant a compensable property interest to Alamo, as lessee. It bases this thesis on the Enabling Act’s provision in § 28 that no “mortgage or other encumbrance” of trust land shall be valid, and it claims that a lease is an encumbrance, citing, among other cases, Hecketsweiler v. Parrett, 185 Ore. 46, 52, 200 P. 2d 971, 974 (1948) (agreement to sell real estate free and clear of encumbrances), and Hartman v. Drake, 166 Neb. 87, 91, 87 N. W. 2d 895, 898 (1958) (partition). One seemingly apparent and complete answer to this argument is that § 28 goes on to authorize specifically a lease of trust land for grazing purposes for a term of 10 years or less, and further provides that a leasehold, before being offered, shall be appraised at “true value.” See n. 2, supra. These provisions thus plainly contemplate the possibility of a lease of trust land and, in so doing, intimate that such a lease is not a prohibited “mortgage or other encumbrance.” Furthermore, Arizona statutes in other contexts specifically protect the lessee’s interest. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§41-511.06, 37-291 (1974). See Ehle v. Tenney Trading Co., 56 Ariz. 241, 107 P. 2d 210 (1940). To this the State responds that, while a lease is possible, it falls short of being a compensable interest when the property is sold because the Act prohibits the sale unless the trust receives the full appraised value of the land. The argument assumes that such compensation is to be measured by the entire land value despite the presence of the outstanding lease. That approach overlooks the actuality of a two-step disposition of interests in the land, the first at the time of the granting of the lease, and the second at the time of the condemnation. Full appraised value is to be determined and measured at the times of disposition of the respective interests, and if the State receives those values at those respective times, the demands of the Enabling Act are met. The State’s argument would serve to convert and downgrade a 10-year grazing lease, fully recognized and permitted by the Act, into a lease terminable at will or into one automatically terminated whenever the State sells the property or it is condemned. The lessee is entitled to better treatment than this if neither the Enabling Act nor the lease contains any such provision. We have noted above that the Act or the lease, or both, could provide for that result. The Act, however, does not specifically so provide. Whether either the Act or the lease does so through incorporation of state law is an issue not addressed by the Court of Appeals, and it is to be considered on remand. We merely note that the fact that it is within Arizona’s power to insert a condemnation clause in a lease it makes of trust land does not mean that the State may claim the same result when its lease contains no such clause.
IV
Alamo suggests that the Court of Appeals’ decision is at odds with the above-cited case of Nebraska v. United States, 164 F. 2d 866 (CA8 1947), cert. denied, 334 U. S. 815 (1948). There, in the face of a totality claim like that, made by Arizona here, the Eighth Circuit ruled that trust lands in Nebraska were to be treated as any other property and that condemnation proceeds were subject to allocation between the State, as trustee and the holder of an outstanding agricultural lease. The Nebraska Enabling Act of April 19, 1864, c. 59, 13 Stat. 47, was an earlier edition of this type of statute, and was adopted more than four decades before the New Mexico-Arizona Act. It did not contain the detailed restrictive provisions that appear in the 1910 Act and that were developed and utilized as passing years and experience demonstrated a need for them. Because of this, one may say, as Arizona does, that the Nebraska case is distinguishable from the present one. But the decision is not devoid of precedential value, for it is consistent with our analysis of the New Mexico-Arizona Act in its recognition of the possibility of a compensable leasehold interest in trust land upon federal condemnation, and it demonstrates that the existence of that interest is not incompatible with the trust land concept. See also United States v. 78.61 Acres of Land, 265 F. Supp. 564 (Neb. 1967), a post-Lassen case; United States v. 40,021.64 Acres of Land, 387 F. Supp. 839, 848-849 (NM 1975).
V
Finally, the Court of Appeals observed, but only in passing, 495 F. 2d, at 14, that the lease recited that it was made subject to the laws of Arizona; that if the State “relinquished” the property to the United States, the lease “shall be null and void as it may pertain to the land so relinquished”; and that no provision of the lease “shall create any vested right in the lessee.” The court also observed, ibid., that Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37-242 and 37-293 restrict a lessee’s participation in the proceeds of a sale of public land to the value of improvements. Having made these observations, however, the court thereupon concluded that it did not find it .necessary “to determine the rights of Alamo based upon these lease provisions or the state law.” 495 F. 2d, at 14.
The significance of the provisions referred to and of the cited statutes will now be for determination upon remand. We note only that the land in question was condemned and thus does not appear to have been technically “relinquished” by Arizona to the United States; that we are not at all sure that there is language of restriction in § § 37-242 and 37-293; and that Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 37-288 and 37-290 respectively permit forfeiture for violation of the conditions of a lease or for nonpayment of rent, and cancellation of a lease if the leased land is reclassified to a higher use, and thus could explain the lease’s provision against vesting in the technical sense that it is not subject to any contingency whatsoever. ■
To repeat: we hold that nothing in the Enabling Act apart, possibly, from the extent it may incorporate Arizona law by reference, prevents the usual application of Fifth Amendment protection of the outstanding leasehold interest. We leave for determination on remand the following: (1) whether, under state law and the lease provisions, Alamo could not possess a compensable leasehold interest upon the federal condemnation; (2) if Alamo did possess such an interest, how it is properly to be evaluated and calculated (with the subsidiary questions of the relevance of possible lease renewals and of possible value additions by reason of Alamo’s development of adjoining properties, cf. United States v. Fuller, 409 U. S. 488 (1973)); and, (3) if that interest proves to be substantial, whether it is permissible to find from that fact a violation of the Enabling Act’s requirement that a lease, when offered, “shall be appraised at [its] true value” and be given at not less than that value.
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.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“Sec. 24. That in addition to sections sixteen and thirty-six, heretofore reserved for the Territory of Arizona, sections two and thirty-two in every township in said proposed State not otherwise appropriated at the date of the passage of this Act are hereby granted to the said State for the support of common schools . . . .”
“Sec. 28. That it is hereby declared that all lands hereby granted, including those which, having been heretofore granted to the said Territory, are hereby expressly transferred and confirmed to the said State, shall be by the said State held in trust, to be disposed of in whole or in part only in manner as herein provided and for the several objects specified in the respective granting and confirmatory provisions, and that the natural products and money proceeds of any of said lands shall be subject to the same trusts as the lands producing the same.
“Disposition of any of said lands, or of any money or thing of value directly or indirectly derived therefrom, for any object other than for which such particular lands, or the lands from which such money or thing of value shall have been derived, were granted or confirmed, or in any manner contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed a breach of trust.
“No mortgage or other encumbrance of the said lands, or any part thereof, shall be valid in favor of any person or for any purpose or under any circumstances whatsoever. . . . Nothing herein contained shall prevent: (1) the leasing of any of the lands referred to in this section, in such manner as the Legislature of the State of Arizona may prescribe, for grazing, agricultural, commercial, and homesite purposes, for a term of ten years or less; ... or (4) the Legislature of the State of Arizona from providing by proper laws for the protection of lessees of said lands, whereby such lessees shall be protected in their rights to their improvements (including water rights) in such manner that in case of lease or sale of said lands to other parties the former lessee shall be paid by the succeeding lessee or purchaser the value of such improvements and rights placed thereon by such lessee.
“All lands, leaseholds, timber, and other products of land, before being offered, shall be appraised at their true value, and no sale or other disposal thereof shall be made for a consideration less than the value so ascertained ....
“No lands shall be sold for less than their appraised value ....
“A separate fund shall be established for each of the several objects for which the said grants are hereby made or confirmed, and whenever any moneys shall be in any manner derived from any of said land the same shall be deposited by the state treasurer in the fund corresponding to the grant under which the particular land producing such moneys was by this Act conveyed or confirmed. No moneys shall ever be taken from one fund for deposit in any other, or for any object other than that for which the land producing the same was granted or confirmed. . . .
“Every sale, lease, conveyance, or contract of or concerning any of the lands hereby granted or confirmed, or the use thereof or the natural products thereof, not made in substantial conformity with the provisions of this Act shall be null and void, any provision of the constitution or laws of the said- State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
“All lands expressly transferred and confirmed to the State by the provisions of the Enabling Act approved June 20, 1910, including all lands granted to the State and all lands heretofore granted to the Territory of Arizona, and all lands otherwise acquired by the State, shall be by the State accepted and held in trust to be disposed of in whole or in part, only in manner as in the said Enabling Act and in this Constitution provided, and for the several objects specified in the respective granting and confirmatory provisions. The natural products and money proceeds of any of said lands shall be subject to the same trusts as the lands producing the same.”
Tract 304:
“All of Section 2, Township 10 North, Range 13 West, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yuma County, Arizona.”
Tract 305:
“All of Section 36, Township 11 North, Range 13 West, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yuma County, Arizona.” App. 1-2.
No question is raised as to the propriety or effectiveness of the condemnation procedure.
These figures were also the compensation estimated for the respective tracts in the declaration of taking and paid into court. 1 Record 15.
The full-value provision does not exclude an appropriate deferred-payment arrangement. 385 U. S., at 469, n. 21.
“[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
The Arizona statutes governing grazing leases of trust lands recognize this possibility and provide for adjustment of rent at specified times to account for fluctuations in fair rental value. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 37-283, 37-285 (1974). Indeed, under § 28 of the Enabling Act, at the termination of a lease, a re-evaluation would appear to be required before release or renewal.
The Supreme Court of New Mexico long ago ruled that a grazing lease of state lands is not a “mortgage or... encumbrance,” within the meaning of the identical prohibition, applicable to New Mexico, in § 10 of the New Mexico-Arizona Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 563. American Mortgage Co. v. White, 34 N. M. 602, 605-606, 287 R. 702, 703 (1930). See United States v. 40,021.64 Acres of Land, 387 F. Supp. 839, 848-849 (NM 1975); State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Chavez, 80 N. M. 394, 456 P. 2d 868 (1969).
§ 37-242:
“A. When state lands on which there are improvements for which the owner thereof is entitled to be compensated are offered for sale, and the purchaser is not the owner of the improvements, the purchaser shall pay the person conducting the sale ten percent of the appraised value of the improvements and the balance within thirty days thereafter. If the state land department determines that the amount at which the improvements are appraised is so great that competitive bidding for the land will be thereby hindered, the department may sell the improvements on installments payable ten per cent upon announcement of the successful bidder, fifteen per cent thirty days thereafter, and fifteen per cent annually thereafter for five years, together with six per cent interest on the balance remaining unpaid, which amount, until paid, shall be a lien upon the land. The purchaser shall at all times, keep the insurable improvements insured for the benefit of the state. Payments shall be made at the time and in the manner prescribed for payments on the land, and any default in the payments for improvements shall be deemed a default in the payments for the land.
“B. When improvements are sold on installments, the first twenty-five per cent, after deducting all rents, penalties and costs owing to the state on account of the land, shall be paid to the owner of the improvements, and the balance shall become a legal charge against the state.
“C. Upon surrendering possession of any such land, the owner of the improvements thereof shall file with the commissioner of finance his claim for the balance on the improvements remaining unpaid, and if the claim bears the approval of the department as to correctness, and a certificate that possession of the lands and improvements has been surrendered by all persons having lawful claims for improvements on the land, it shall be paid by the state treasurer on the warrant of the commissioner of finance from any fund in which there is money subject to investment. As payments for the improvements are made by the purchaser, they shaE be deposited with the state treasurer and both principal and interest shaE be returned by him to the fund from which they were taken.
“D. Failure to pay the balance of the purchase price or the fifteen per cent within thirty days after the announcement of the successful bidder shaE constitute a forfeiture of all rights to the land and all payments made.”
§37-293:
“A. A lessee of state lands shaE be reimbursed by a succeeding lessee for improvements placed on the lands which are not removable. If the retiring lessee and the new lessee do not agree upon the value of the improvements, either party may file with the state land department an application for appraisal of the improvements. Thereafter an appraisal of the improvements shall be made in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as appraisals of improvements are made when state lands are sold.
“B. Upon making the appraisal, the department shall give notice of the amount thereof by registered mail to each person interested in the appraisal. The notice shall require that the new lessee pay to the department for the prior lessee the entire amount of the appraisal within thirty days from the date of the notice, or the department, when the value is greater than the rental for the period of the lease, may require that payment of ten per cent of the appraised value be made within thirty days, fifteen per cent within sixty days, twenty-five per cent at the end of the first year of the new lease, and twenty-five per cent at the end of each year thereafter until the entire balance is paid.
“C. If the improvements are not paid for as required in the notice, the succeeding lessee shall not be permitted to sell, assign, or transfer his lease, nor sell, assign or remove any improvements whatever from the land until the entire amount of the appraised value of the improvements has been paid. Upon default he shall be subject to the same penalties and liabilities as provided by § 37-288 for failure to pay rents, including a cancellation of the lease.”
We note in regard to the possible value of renewal rights that leases of the kind in issue here are limited by statute to 10.years in duration, and that the Act requires that rentals be adjusted to reflect current fair rental value before any renewal. See n. 9, supra. Therefore, although we do not foreclose the relevance of - possible renewals, the calculation of the lessee’s interest cannot include the prospect of renewing the lease at less than fair rental value.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Alito
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy join.
This is a lawsuit in which it was claimed that conferences held as part of the President’s Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because, among other things, President Bush and former Secretary of Education Paige gave speeches that used “religious imagery” and praised the efficacy of faith-based programs in delivering social services. The plaintiffs contend that they meet the standing requirements of Article III of the Constitution because they pay federal taxes.
It has long been established, however, that the payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken by the Federal Government. In light of the size of the federal budget, it is a complete fiction to argue that an unconstitutional federal expenditure causes an individual federal taxpayer any measurable economic harm. And if every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any Government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus.
In Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83 (1968), we recognized a narrow exception to the general rule against federal taxpayer standing. Under Flast, a plaintiff asserting an Establishment Clause claim has standing to challenge a law authorizing the use of federal funds in a way that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause. In the present case, Congress did not specifically authorize the use of federal funds to pay for the conferences or speeches that the plaintiffs challenged. Instead, the conferences and speeches were paid for out of general Executive Branch appropriations. The Court of Appeals, however, held that the plaintiffs have standing as taxpayers because the conferences were paid for with money appropriated by Congress.
The question that is presented here is whether this broad reading of Flast is correct. We hold that it is not. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
I
A
In 2001, the President issued an executive order creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within the Executive Office of the President. Exec. Order No. 13199, 3 CFR 752 (2001 Comp.). The purpose of this new office was to ensure that “private and charitable community groups, including religious ones... have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field, so long as they achieve valid public purposes” and adhere to “the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality.” Ibid. The office was specifically charged with the task of eliminating unnecessary bureaucratic, legislative, and regulatory barriers that could impede such organizations’ effectiveness and ability to compete equally for federal assistance. Id., at 752-753.
By separate executive orders, the President also created Executive Department Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within several federal agencies and departments. These centers were given the job of ensuring that faith-based community groups would be eligible to compete for federal financial support, without impairing their independence or autonomy, as long as they did “not use direct Federal financial assistance to support any inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.” Exec. Order No. 13279, 3 CFR §2(f), p. 260 (2002 Comp.). To this end, the President directed that “[n]o organization should be discriminated against on the basis of religion or religious belief in the administration or distribution of Federal financial assistance under social service programs,” id., § 2(c), at 260, and that “[a]ll organizations that receive Federal financial assistance under social services programs should be prohibited from discriminating against beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of the social services programs on the basis of religion or religious belief,” id., § 2(d), at 260. Petitioners, who have been sued in their official capacities, are the directors of the White House Office and various Executive Department Centers.
No congressional legislation specifically authorized the creation of the White House Office or the Executive Department Centers. Rather, they were “created entirely within the executive branch... by Presidential executive order.” Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Chao, 433 F. 3d 989, 997 (CA7 2006). Nor has Congress enacted any law specifically appropriating money for these entities’ activities. Instead, their activities are funded through general Executive Branch appropriations. For example, the Department of Education’s Center is funded from money appropriated for the Office of the Secretary of Education, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Center is funded through that Department’s salaries and expenses account. See GAO, Faith-Based and Community Initiative: Improvements in Monitoring Grantees and Measuring Performance Could Enhance Accountability 21 (GAO-06-616, June 2006), online at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06616.pdf (as visited June 25,2007, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file); see also Amended Complaint in No. 04-C-381-S (WD Wis.), ¶ 23, App. to Pet. for Cert. 71a-72a.
B
The respondents are Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., a nonstock corporation “opposed to government endorsement of religion,” id., ¶ 5, App. to Pet. for Cert. 68a, and three of its members. Respondents brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging that petitioners violated the Establishment Clause by organizing conferences at which faith-based organizations allegedly “are singled out as being particularly worthy of federal funding..., and the belief in God is extolled as distinguishing the claimed effectiveness of faith-based social services.” Id., ¶ 32, App. to Pet. for Cert. 73a. Respondents further alleged that the content of these conferences sent a message to religious believers “that they are insiders and favored members of the political community” and that the conferences sent the message to nonbelievers “that they are outsiders” and “not full members of the political community.” Id., ¶ 37, App. to Pet. for Cert. 76a. In short, respondents alleged that the conferences were designed to promote, and had the effect of promoting, religious community groups over secular ones.
The only asserted basis for standing was that the individual respondents are federal taxpayers who are “opposed to the use of Congressional taxpayer appropriations to advance and promote religion.” Id., ¶ 10, App. to Pet. for Cert. 69a; see also id., ¶¶ 7-9, App. to Pet. for Cert. 68a-69a. In their capacity as federal taxpayers, respondents sought to challenge Executive Branch expenditures for these conferences, which, they contended, violated the Establishment Clause.
C
The District Court dismissed the claims against petitioners for lack of standing. See Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Towey, No. 04-C-381-S (WD Wis., Nov. 15, 2004), App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a-35a. It concluded that under Flast, 392 U. S. 83, federal taxpayer standing is limited to Establishment Clause challenges to the constitutionality of “ ‘exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, §8.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 31a (quoting Flast, supra, at 102). Because petitioners in this case acted “at the President’s request and on the President’s behalf” and were not “charged with the administration of a congressional program,” the District Court concluded that the challenged activities were “not ‘exercises of congressional power’” sufficient to provide a basis for taxpayer standing under Flast. App. to Pet. for Cert. 33a-34a.
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 433 F. 3d 989. The majority read Flast as granting federal taxpayers standing to challenge Executive Branch programs on Establishment Clause grounds so long as the activities are “financed by a eongressional appropriation.” 433 F. 3d, at 997. This was the case, the majority concluded, even where “there is no statutory program” enacted by Congress and the funds are “from appropriations for the general administrative expenses, over which the President and other executive branch officials have a degree of discretionary power.” Id., at 994. According to the majority, a taxpayer has standing to challenge anything done by a federal agency or officer so long as “the marginal or incremental cost to the taxpaying public of the alleged violation of the establishment clause” is greater than “zero.” Id., at 995.
In dissent, Judge Ripple opined that the majority’s decision reflected a “dramatic expansion of current standing doctrine,” id., at 997, that “cuts the concept of taxpayer standing loose from its moorings,” id., at 998. Noting that “[t]he executive can do nothing without general budget appropriations from Congress,” id., at 1000, he criticized the majority for overstepping Flast’s requirement that a “plaintiff must bring an attack against a disbursement of public funds made in the exercise of Congress’ taxing and spending power,” 433 F. 3d, at 1000 (emphasis in original).
The Court of Appeals denied en bane review by a vote of 7 to 4. Freedom, From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Chao, 447 F. 3d 988 (CA7 2006). Concurring in the denial of rehearing, Chief Judge Flaum expressed doubt about the panel decision, but noted that “the obvious tension which has evolved in this area of jurisprudence... can only be resolved by the Supreme Court.” Ibid. We granted certiorari to resolve this question, 549 U. S. 1074 (2006), and we now reverse.
II
A
Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of the United States to the resolution of “Cases” and “Controversies,” and “‘Article III standing... enforces the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement.’” Daimler-Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 342 (2006) (quoting Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 11 (2004)). “ ‘No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.’” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 818 (1997) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 37 (1976)).
“[O]ne of the controlling elements in the definition of a case or controversy under Article III” is standing. ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U. S. 605, 613 (1989) (opinion of Kennedy, J.). The requisite elements of Article III standing are well established: “A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751 (1984).
The constitutionally mandated standing inquiry is especially important in a case like this one, in which taxpayers seek “to challenge laws of general application where their own injury is not distinct from that suffered in general by other taxpayers or citizens.” ASARCO, supra, at 613 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). This is because “[t]he judicial power of the United States defined by Art. Ill is not an unconditioned authority to determine the constitutionality of legislative or executive acts.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 471 (1982). The federal courts are not empowered to seek out and strike down any governmental act that they deem to be repugnant to the Constitution. Rather, federal courts sit “solely, to decide on the rights of individuals,” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170 (1803), and must “‘refrai[n] from passing upon the constitutionality of an act... unless obliged to do so in the proper performance of our judicial function, when the question is raised by a party whose interests entitle him to raise it,’ ” Valley Forge, supra, at 474 (quoting Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 279 (1919)). As we held over 80 years ago, in another case involving the question of taxpayer standing:
“We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act.... The party who invokes the power must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally,Frothingham v. Mellon, decided with Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923).
B
As a general matter, the interest of a federal taxpayer in seeing that Treasury funds are spent in accordance with the Constitution does not give rise to the kind of redressable “personal injury” required for Article III standing. Of course, a taxpayer has standing to challenge the collection of a specific tax assessment as unconstitutional; being forced to pay such a tax causes a real and immediate economic injury to the individual taxpayer. See, e. g., Follett v. Town of McCormick, 321 U. S. 573 (1944) (invalidating tax on preaching on First Amendment grounds). But that is not the interest on which respondents assert standing here. Rather, their claim is that, having paid lawfully collected taxes into the Federal Treasury at some point, they have a continuing, legally cognizable interest in ensuring that those funds are not used by the Government in a way that violates the Constitution.
We have consistently held that this type of interest is too generalized and attenuated to support Article III standing. In Frothingham, a federal taxpayer sought to challenge federal appropriations for mothers’ and children’s health, arguing that federal involvement in this area intruded on the rights reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment and would “increase the burden of future taxation and thereby take [the plaintiff’s] property without due process of law.” 262 U. S., at 486. We concluded that the plaintiff lacked the kind of particularized injury required for Article III standing:
“[I]nterest in the moneys of the Treasury... is shared with millions of others; is comparatively minute and indeterminable; and the effect upon future taxation, of any payment out of the funds, so remote, fluctuating and uncertain, that no basis is afforded for an appeal to the preventive powers of a court of equity.
“The administration of any statute, likely to produce additional taxation to be imposed upon a vast number of taxpayers, the extent of whose several liability is indefinite and constantly changing, is essentially a matter of public and not of individual concern.” Id., at 487.
Because the interests of the taxpayer are, in essence, the interests of the public at large, deciding a constitutional claim based solely on taxpayer standing “would be[,] not to decide-a judicial controversy, but to assume a position of authority over the governmental acts of another and co-equal department, an authority which plainly we do not possess.” Id., at 489; see also Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U. S. 464, 478-479 (1938).
In Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne, 342 U. S. 429, 433 (1952), we reaffirmed this principle, explaining that “the interests of a taxpayer in the moneys of the federal treasury are too indeterminable, remote, uncertain and indirect to furnish a basis for an appeal to the preventive powers of the Court over their manner of expenditure.” We therefore rejected a state taxpayer’s claim of standing to challenge a state law authorizing public school teachers to read from the Bible because “the grievance which [the plaintiff] sought to litigate... is not a direct dollars-and-cents injury but is a religious difference.” Id., at 434. In so doing, we gave effect to the basic constitutional principle that
“a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III ease or controversy.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 573-574 (1992).
C
In Flast, the Court carved out a narrow exception to the general constitutional prohibition against taxpayer standing. The taxpayer-plaintiffs in that case challenged the distribution of federal funds to religious schools under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, alleging that such aid violated the Establishment Clause. The Court set out a two-part test for determining whether a federal taxpayer has standing to challenge an allegedly unconstitutional expenditure:
“First, the taxpayer must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked. Thus, a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution. It will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute.... Secondly, the taxpayer must establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. Under this requirement, the taxpayer must show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, §8.” 392 U. S., at 102-103.
The Court held that the taxpayer-plaintiffs in Flast had satisfied both prongs of this test: The plaintiff’s “constitutional challenge [was] made to an exercise by Congress of its power under Art. I, §8, to spend for the general welfare,” and she alleged a violation of the Establishment Clause, which “operates as a specific constitutional limitation upon the exercise by Congress of the taxing and spending power conferred by Art. I, §8." Id., at 103-104.
Ill
A
Respondents argue that this case falls within the Flast exception, which they read to cover any “expenditure of government funds in violation of the Establishment Clause.” Brief for Respondents 12. But this broad reading fails to observe “the rigor with which the Flast exception to the Frothingham principle ought to be applied.” Valley Forge, 454 U. S., at 481.
The expenditures at issue in Flast were made pursuant to an express congressional mandate and a specific congressional appropriation. The plaintiff in that case challenged disbursements made under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 27. That Act expressly appropriated the sum of $100 million for fiscal year 1966, § 201(b), id., at 36, and authorized the disbursement of those funds to local educational agencies for the education of low-income students, see Flast, supra, at 86. The Act mandated that local educational agencies receiving such funds “ma[k]e provision for including special educational services and arrangements (such as dual enrollment, educational radio and television, and mobile educational services and equipment)” in which students enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools could participate, §2, 79 Stat. 30-31. In addition, recipient agencies were required to ensure that “library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials” funded through the grants “be provided on an equitable basis for the use of children and teachers in private elementary and secondary schools,” § 203(a)(3)(B), id., at 37.
The expenditures challenged in Flast, then, were funded by a specific congressional appropriation and were disbursed to private schools (including religiously affiliated schools) pursuant to a direct and unambiguous congressional mandate. Indeed, the Flast taxpayer-plaintiffs’ constitutional claim was premised on the contention that if the Government’s actions were “ ‘within the authority and intent of the Act, the Act is to that extent unconstitutional and void.’” Flast, supra, at 90. And the judgment reviewed by this Court in Flast solely concerned the question whether “if [the challenged] expenditures are authorized by the Act the statute constitutes a ‘law respecting an establishment of religion’ and a law ‘prohibiting the free exercise thereof’” under the First Amendment. Flast v. Gardner, 271 F. Supp. 1, 2 (SDNY 1967).
Given that the alleged Establishment Clause violation in Flast was funded by a specific congressional appropriation and was undertaken pursuant to an express congressional mandate, the Court concluded that the taxpayer-plaintiffs had established the requisite “logical link between [their taxpayer] status and the type of legislative enactment attacked.” In the Court’s words, “[t]heir constitutional challenge [was] made to an exercise by Congress of its power under Art. I, §8, to spend for the general welfare.” 392 U. S., at 102,103. But as this Court later noted, Flast “limited taxpayer standing to challenges directed ‘only [at] exercises of congressional power’ ” under the Taxing and Spending Clause. Valley Forge, supra, at 479.
B
The link between congressional action and constitutional violation that supported taxpayer standing in Flast is missing here. Respondents do not challenge any specific congressional action or appropriation; nor do they ask the Court to invalidate any congressional enactment or legislatively created program as unconstitutional. That is because the expenditures at issue here were not made pursuant to any Act of Congress. Rather, Congress provided general appropriations to the Executive Branch to fund its day-to-day activities. These appropriations did not expressly authorize, direct, or even mention the expenditures of which respondents complain. Those expenditures resulted from executive discretion, not congressional action.
We have never found taxpayer standing under such circumstances. In Valley Forge, we held that a taxpayer lacked standing to challenge “a decision by [the federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare] to transfer a parcel of federal property” to a religious college because this transfer was “not a congressional action.” 454 U. S., at 479. In fact, the connection to congressional action was closer in Valley Forge than it is here, because in that case, the “particular Executive Branch action” being challenged was at least “arguably authorized” by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, which permitted federal agencies to transfer surplus property to private entities. Ibid., n. 15. Nevertheless, we found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because Flast “limited taxpayer standing to challenges directed ‘only [at] exercises of congressional power’ ” under the Taxing and Spending Clause. 454 U. S., at 479 (quoting Flast, supra, at 102).
Similarly, in Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208 (1974), the taxpayer-plaintiffs contended that the Incompatibility Clause of Article I prohibited Members of Congress from holding commissions in the Armed Forces Reserve. We held that these plaintiffs lacked standing under Flast because they “did not challenge an enactment under Art. I, § 8, but rather the action of the Executive Branch in permitting Members of Congress to maintain their Reserve status.” 418 U. S., at 228. This was the case even though the plaintiffs sought to reclaim reservist pay received by those Members — pay that presumably was funded through Congress’ general appropriations for the support of the Armed Forces: “Such relief would follow from the invalidity of Executive action in paying persons who could not lawfully have been reservists, not from the invalidity of the statutes authorizing pay to those who lawfully were Reservists.” Ibid., n. 17. See also United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166, 175 (1974) (denying taxpayers standing to compel publication of accounting for the Central Intelligence Agency because “there is no ‘logical nexus’ between the asserted status of taxpayer and the claimed failure of the Congress to require the Executive to supply a more detailed report of the expenditures of that agency”).
Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U. S. 589 (1988), on which respondents rely heavily, is nbt to the contrary. In that case, we held that the taxpayer-plaintiffs had standing to mount an as-applied challenge to the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), which authorized federal grants to private community service groups including religious organizations. The Court found “a sufficient nexus between the taxpayer’s standing as a taxpayer and the congressional exercise of taxing and spending power,” notwithstanding the fact that “the funding authorized by Congress ha[d] flowed through and been administered” by an Executive Branch official. Id., at 620, 619.
But the key to that conclusion was the Court’s recognition that AFLA was “at heart a program of disbursement of funds pursuant to Congress’ taxing and spending powers,” and that the plaintiffs’ claims “call[ed] into question how the funds authorized by Congress [were] being disbursed pursuant to the AFLA’s statutory mandate.” Id., at 619-620 (emphasis added). AFLA not only expressly authorized and appropriated specific funds for grantmaking, it also expressly contemplated that some of those moneys might go to projects involving religious groups. See id., at 595-596; see also id., at 623 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (noting the “partnership between governmental and religious institutions contemplated by the AFLA”). Unlike this case, Kendrick involved a “program of disbursement of funds pursuant to Congress’ taxing and spending powers” that “Congress had created,” “authorized,” and “mandate[d].” Id., at 619-620.
Respondents attempt to paint their lawsuit as a Kendrick-style as-applied challenge, but this effort is unavailing for the simple reason that they can cite no statute whose application they challenge. The best they can do is to point to unspecified, lump-sum “Congressional budget appropriations” for the general use of the Executive Branch— the allocation of which “is a[n] administrative decision traditionally regarded as committed to agency discretion.” Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U. S. 182, 192 (1993). Characterizing this case as an “as-applied challenge” to these general appropriations statutes would stretch the meaning of that term past its breaking point. It cannot be that every legal challenge to a discretionary Executive Branch action implicates the constitutionality of the underlying congressional appropriation. When a criminal defendant charges that a federal agent carried out an unreasonable search or seizure, we do not view that claim as an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the statute appropriating funds for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Respondents have not established why the discretionary Executive Branch expenditures here, which are similarly funded by no-strings, lump-sum appropriations, should be viewed any differently.
In short, this case falls outside “the narrow exception” that Flast “created to the general rule against taxpayer standing established in Frothingham.” Kendrick, supra, at 618. Because the expenditures that respondents challenge were not expressly authorized or mandated by any specific congressional enactment, respondents’ lawsuit is not directed at an exercise of congressional power, see Valley Forge, 454 U. S., at 479, and thus lacks the requisite “logical nexus” between taxpayer status “and the type of legislative enactment attacked,” Flast, 392 U. S., at 102.
IV
A
1
Respondents argue that it is “arbitrary” to distinguish between money spent pursuant to congressional mandate and expenditures made in the course of executive discretion, because “the injury to taxpayers in both situations is the very injury targeted by the Establishment Clause and Flast — the expenditure for the support of religion of funds exacted from taxpayers.” Brief for Respondents 13. The panel majority below agreed, based on its observation that “there is so much that executive officials could do to promote religion in ways forbidden by the establishment clause.” 433 F. 3d, at 995.
But Flast focused on congressional action, and we must decline this invitation to extend its holding to encompass discretionary Executive Branch expenditures. Flast itself distinguished the “incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute,” 392 U. S., at 102, and we have subsequently rejected the view that taxpayer standing “extends to ‘the Government as a whole, regardless of which branch is at work in a particular instance,’ ” Valley Forge, supra, at 484, n. 20. Moreover, we have repeatedly emphasized that the Flast exception has a “narrow application in our precedent,” Cuno, 547 U. S., at 348, that only “slightly lowered” the bar on taxpayer standing, Richardson, 418 U. S., at 173, and that must be applied with “rigor,” Valley Forge, supra, at 481.
It is significant that, in the four decades since its creation, the Flast exception has largely been confined to its facts. We have declined to lower the taxpayer standing bar in suits alleging violations of any constitutional provision apart from the Establishment Clause. See Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672 (1971) (no taxpayer standing to sue under Free Exercise Clause of First Amendment); Richardson, 418 U. S., at 175 (no taxpayer standing to sue under Statement and Account Clause of Art. I); Schlesinger, 418 U. S., at 228 (no taxpayer standing to sue under Incompatibility Clause of Art. I); Cuno, supra, at 349 (no taxpayer standing to sue under Commerce Clause). We have similarly refused to extend Flast to permit taxpayer standing for Establishment Clause challenges that do not implicate Congress’ taxing and spending power. See Valley Forge, supra, at 479-482 (no taxpayer standing to challenge Executive Branch action taken pursuant to Property Clause of Art. IV); see also District of Columbia Common Cause v. District of Columbia, 858 F. 2d 1, 3-4 (CADC 1988); In re United States Catholic Conference, 885 F. 2d 1020, 1028 (CA2 1989). In effect, we have adopted the position set forth by Justice Powell in his concurrence in Richardson and have “limit[ed] the expansion of federal taxpayer and citizen standing in the absence of specific statutory authorization to an outer boundary drawn by the results in Flast....” 418 U. S., at 196.
2
While respondents argue that Executive Branch expenditures in support of religion are no different from legislative extractions, Flast itself rejected this equivalence: "It will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute.” 392 U. S., at 102.
Because almost all Executive Branch activity is ultimately funded by some congressional appropriation, extending the Flast exception to purely executive expenditures would effectively subject every federal action — be it a conference, proclamation, or speech — to Establishment Clause challenge by any taxpayer in federal court. To see the wide swathe of activity that respondents’ proposed rule would cover, one need look no further than the amended complaint in this action, which focuses largely on speeches and presentations made by Executive Branch officials. See, e. g., Amended Complaint ¶ 32, App. to Pet. for Cert. 73a (challenging Executive Branch officials’ “support of national and regional conferences”); id., ¶ 33, App. to Pet. for Cert. 73a-75a (challenging content of speech by Secretary of Education); id., ¶¶ 35, 36, App. to Pet. for Cert. 76a (challenging content of Presidential speeches); id., ¶ 41, App. to Pet. for Cert. 77a (challenging Executive Branch officials’ “public appearances” and “speeches”). Such a broad reading would ignore the first prong of Flast’s standing test, which requires “a logical link between [taxpayer] status and the type of legislative enactment attacked.” 392 U. S., at 102.
It would also raise serious separation-of-powers concerns. As we have recognized, Flast itself gave too little weight to these concerns. By framing the standing question solely in terms of whether the dispute would be presented in an adversary context and in a form traditionally viewed as capable of judicial resolution, Flast “failed to recognize that this doctrine has a separation-of-powers component, which keeps courts within certain traditional bounds vis-á-vis the other branches, concrete adverseness or not.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U. S. 343, 353, n. 3 (1996); see also Valley Forge, 454 U. S., at 471. Respondents’ position, if adopted, would repeat and compound this mistake.
The constitutional requirements for federal-court jurisdiction — including the standing requirements and Article III— “are an essential ingredient of separation and equilibration of powers.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 101 (1998). “Relaxation of standing requirements is directly related to the expansion of judicial power,” and lowering the taxpayer standing bar to permit challenges of purely executive actions “would significantly alter the allocation of power at the national level, with a shift away from a democratic form of government.” Richardson, supra, at 188 (Powell, J., concurring). The rule respondents propose would enlist the federal courts to superintend, at the behest of any federal taxpayer, the speeches, statements, and myriad daily activities of the President, his staff, and other Executive Branch officials. This would “be quite at odds with... Fias?s own promise that it would not transform federal courts into forums for taxpayers’ ‘generalized grievances’” about the conduct of government, Cuno, 547 U. S., at 348 (quoting Flast, supra, at 106), and would “open the Judiciary to an arguable charge of providing ‘government by injunction,’ ” Schlesinger, supra, at 222. It would deputize federal courts as “ ‘virtually continuing monitors of the wisdom and soundness of Executive action,’” and that, most emphatically, “ ‘is not the role of the judiciary.’ ” Allen, 468 U. S., at 760 (quoting Laird v. Tatum, 408 U. S. 1, 15 (1972)).
3
Both the Court of Appeals and respondents implicitly recognize that unqualified federal taxpayer standing to assert Establishment Clause claims would go too far, but neither the Court of Appeals nor respondents has identified a workable limitation. The Court of Appeals, as noted, conceded only that a taxpayer would lack standing where “the marginal or incremental cost to the taxpaying public of the alleged violation of the establishment clause” is “zero.” 433 F. 3d, at 995. Applying this rule, the Court of Appeals opined that a taxpayer would not have standing to challenge a President’s favorable reference to religion in a State of the Union address because the costs associated with the speech “would be no greater merely because the President had mentioned Moses rather than John Stuart Mill.” Ibid.
There is reason to question whether the Court of Appeals intended for its zero-marginal-cost test to be taken literally, because the court, without any apparent inquiry into the costs of Secretary Paige’s speech, went on to agree that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge that speech. Id., at 996. But if we take the Court of Appeals’ test literally— i. e., that any marginal cost greater than zero suffices — taxpayers might well have standing to challenge some (and perhaps many) speeches. As Judge Easterbrook observed: “The total cost of presidential proclamations and speeches by Cabinet officers that touch on religion (Thank
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
On March 26, 1979, the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin entered a preliminary injunction restraining petitioners from publishing or otherwise disseminating an article entitled “The H-Bomb Secret: How We Got It, Why We’re Telling It.” On June 21, 1979, one judge of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied in part petitioners’ motion for an expedited hearing of their appeal. That hearing is currently set for September 10,1979.
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to the Court of Appeals ordering it to expedite their appeal. They claim that parties who have been enjoined from engaging in constitutionally protected speech have a right to prompt appellate review of that injunction. See National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977). See also Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 423 U. S. 1319 (1975) (Blackmun, J., in chambers); Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 423 U. S. 1327 (1975) (Blackmun, J., in chambers). In view of their conduct in prosecuting their appeal before the Court of Appeals, however, we conclude that petitioners have effectively relinquished whatever right they might otherwise have had to expedited consideration.
The District Court's preliminary injunction was entered on March 26, 1979, yet petitioners waited until June 15, 1979, to file a meaningful motion for expedited review before the Court of Appeals. Prior to that time, petitioners (1) waited two weeks after the District Court entered its injunction before filing a notice of appeal, and then waited another week before proposing that the appeal be accorded special scheduling treatment; (2) in that proposal, suggested an 89-day briefing schedule that — as they knew — provided for oral argument in the case, at the earliest, 10 days after the Court of Appeals’ summer recess was to begin; (3) at a subsequent prehearing conference held by the Senior Staff Attorney of the Court of Appeals, asked that the briefing and argument schedule they had originally proposed be extended by an additional three weeks, i. e., into the latter half of July; (4) participated in a second prehearing conference in which a panel of the Court of Appeals discussed scheduling with the parties, and did not object either to the briefing schedule ordered by the court or to the September 10 hearing date; and (5) pursuant to the schedule discussed at the conference, took 81 days to file their opening brief on the merits. It was only upon the filing of that brief on June 15, 1979 (just four days before the Seventh Circuit’s scheduled recess was to begin), that they sought expedition. Accordingly, as proposed by petitioners, the onus of expedition would have fallen entirely on the Government, which would have had a severely limited opportunity to respond to petitioners’ opening brief, and on the Court of Appeals, whose conscientious attempts during the preceding two months — by way of two prehearing conferences and numerous additional discussions with the parties — to manage its docket in an orderly fashion, would have been frustrated.
It is true that between May 8,1979, and June 15,1979, petitioners were unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration by the District Court based on newly discovered information. But that information did not affect the essentials of petitioners’ legal argument in favor of expedited review of the District Court’s March 26 order — i. e., that ever since the order was issued, petitioners had been operating under an allegedly unconstitutional and irreparably injurious prior restraint against the publication of information subject to First Amendment protection. Because they chose not to make that argument to the Court of Appeals until long after it had ripened, and until they had taken close to three months to prepare their own brief on the merits, petitioners forbore any right to expedition that the Constitution might otherwise have afforded them.
The motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is
Denied.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam. .
After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record which was only partially set forth in the petition for certiorari, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
The Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed.
DECREE
For the purpose of giving effect to the opinion of this Court announced on June 10, 1980, 447 U. S. 125, and the stipulation of the parties entered into on February 5, 1982, and approved by the Special Master:
It Is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed As Follows:
1. That the location of the boundary between the States of California and Nevada is as hereafter specified:
Beginning at the Initial Point on the California-Nevada boundary as established under authority of the Act of June 10, 1872,17 Stat. 358, by Allexey W. Von Schmidt in 1872 as an eight (8) inch square wood post set in a large mound of stone at the intersection to the 42nd parallel of north latitude along the southern boundary of the State of Oregon and the 120th degree of longitude west from Greenwich, each as reported by him; thence running southerly along said 1872 boundary as surveyed and marked by Allexey W. Von Schmidt to a cast iron monument designated as Von Schmidt Milepost 191 on said boundary; thence S 00°09'15".21 W along a line directed toward a standard National Geodetic Survey brass marker cemented in a granite formation and stamped “VS 120, 1981”, located at the geographic position of: Latitude 38°53'51".59866 Longitude 120°00'20".93116, a distance of 80,191.63 feet to an intersection in Lake Tahoe with a line extending between two points, the first of which is a standard National Geodetic Survey brass marker cemented in granite and stamped “EAGLE ROCK, 1981,” which has a geographic position of: Latitude 39°06'33". 17268, Longitude 120°09'38".06504, and the second being a granite stone with copper bolt identified as No. 1 (Initial 1894), being the first monumented point on the California-Nevada Oblique 1893-1899 Boundary survey as determined and marked by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey; thence from said intersection point in Lake Tahoe S 48°46'02".80 E, 21,568.48 feet to said Monument No. 1 (Initial 1894); thence proceeding southeasterly along the oblique California-Nevada boundary line as surveyed and marked by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey under authority of the Act of August 5,1892, 27 Stat. 357, during the period 1893-1899, to Point No. 1 described in the Interstate Compact Defining the Boundary Between the States of Arizona and California executed on March 12, 1963, being a point common to Point No. 1 described in the Interstate Compact Defining A Portion of the Arizona-Nevada Boundary On The Colorado River, executed February 6, 1960. Bearings, distances, and geographic positions used hereinbefore are based upon the 1927 North American Datum and are denoted on the attached map, Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference.
2. That the intersection of the two lines described herein shall form the only angle point of the true California-Nevada state boundary within the waters of Lake Tahoe, which angle point shall be considered as satisfying the definition of the intersection of the 120th meridian west of Greenwich with the 39th parallel of north latitude as prescribed in the constitutions of California and Nevada.
3. That the necessary expenses incurred by the Special Master incident to this litigation and all other proper expenses incurred jointly by the parties shall be equally borne by the parties.
4. That, except as provided in paragraph 3 herein, each party shall bear its own expenses.
5. That any unexpended funds contributed by the parties to the Special Master for necessary expenses be returned to the parties in proportion to their contributions.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | K | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
This case grew out of a barroom affray in Columbus, Ohio, in the course of which the petitioner, an off-duty Columbus police officer, shot and killed two people and permanently disabled a third. The injured victim and the representatives of the deceased victims, who are the respondents here, brought an action against the petitioner in a Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. A jury awarded them monetary damages, and the judgment based upon that verdict was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 522 F. 2d 438.
The petition for certiorari, which we granted on April 5, 1976, 425 U. S. 910, presented a single question:
“Does the fact that an off-duty police officer, out of uniform, is required by police department regulation to carry a weapon at all times, establish that any use of that weapon against the person of another, even though the officer is engaged in private conduct at the time, [is] an act 'under color of law’ within the meaning of 42 U. S. C. § 1983?”
The case having now been fully briefed and orally argued, it appears that the question framed in the petition for certiorari is not in fact presented by the record now before us. For in addition to the said police department regulation, there was evidence before the jury that showed: (1) The petitioner had been awarded workmen’s compensation benefits for the injuries he had received in the affray, on the ground that the injuries had been incurred in the course of his employment; (2) the petitioner, after the affray, had been granted official leave on account of injuries received “in line of duty under circumstances relating to Police duties”; (3) a Board of Inquiry convened to investigate the barroom episode had determined that the petitioner’s “actions were in the line of duty.”
Now that plenary consideration has shed more light on this case than in the nature of things was afforded at the time the petition for certiorari was considered, we have concluded that the writ should be dismissed as improvidently granted. See The Monrosa v. Carbon Black, Inc., 359 U. S. 180, 183-184 (1959).
It is so ordered.
Section 1983 provides:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
At no time during this litigation has the petitioner questioned the respondents’ claim that, if the petitioner was acting “under color of .law,” there was a deprivation of the respondents’ “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” within the meaning of 42 ü. S. C. § 1983.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We address in this ease the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 327,42 U. S. C. § 12101 et seq., to persons infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We granted certiorari to review, first, whether HIV infection is a disability under the ADA when the infection has not yet progressed to the so-called symptomatic phase; and, second, whether the Court of Appeals, in affirming a grant of summary judgment, cited sufficient material in the record to determine, as a matter of law, that respondent’s infection with HIV posed no direct threat to the health and safety of her treating dentist. 522 U. S. 991 (1997).
I
Respondent Sidney Abbott (hereinafter respondent) has been infected with HIV since 1986. When the incidents we recite occurred, her infection had not manifested its most serious symptoms. On September 16,1994, she went to the office of petitioner Randon Bragdon in Bangor, Maine, for a dental appointment. She disclosed her HIV infection on the patient registration form. Petitioner completed a dental examination, discovered a cavity, and informed respondent of his policy against filling cavities of HIV-infected patients. He offered to perform the work at a hospital with no added fee for his services, though respondent would be responsible for the cost of using the hospital’s facilities. Respondent declined.
Respondent sued petitioner under state law and § 302 of the ADA, 104 Stat. 355,42 U. S. C. § 12182, alleging discrimination on the basis of her disability. The state-law claims are not before us. Section 302 of the ADA provides:
“No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who... operates a place of public accommodation.” § 12182(a).
The term “public accommodation” is defined to include the “professional office of a health care provider.” § 12181(7)(F).
A later subsection qualifies the mandate not to discriminate. It provides:
“Nothing in this subehapter shall require an entity to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of such entity where such individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.” § 12182(b)(3).
The United States and the Maine Human Rights Commission intervened as plaintiffs. After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that respondent’s HIV infection satisfied the ADA’s definition of disability. 912 F. Supp. 580, 585-587 (Me. 1995). The court held further that petitioner raised no genuine issue of material fact as to whether respondent’s HIV infection would have posed a direct threat to the health or safety of others during the course of a dental treatment. Id., at 587-591. The court relied on affidavits submitted by Dr. Donald Wayne Marianos, Director of the Division of Oral Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Marianos affidavits asserted it is safe for dentists to treat patients infected with HIV in dental offices if the dentist follows the so-called universal precautions described in the Recommended Infection-Control Practices for Dentistry issued by CDC in 1993 (1993 CDC Dentistry Guidelines). 912 F. Supp., at 589.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held respondent’s HIV infection was a disability under the ADA, even though her infection had not yet progressed to the symptomatic stage. 107 F. 3d 934, 939-943 (CA1 1997). The Court of Appeals also agreed that treating the respondent in petitioner’s office would not have posed a direct threat to the health and safety of others. Id, at 943-948. Unlike the District Court, however, the Court of Appeals declined to rely on the Marianos affidavits. Id., at 946, n. 7. Instead the court relied on the 1993 CDC Dentistry Guidelines, as well as the Policy on AIDS, HIV Infection and the Practice of Dentistry, promulgated by the American Dental Association in 1991 (1991 American Dental Association Policy on HIV). 107 F. 3d, at 945-946.
n
We first review the ruling that respondent’s HIV infection constituted a disability under the ADA. The statute defines disability as:
“(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;
“(B) a record of such an impairment; or
“(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” §12102(2).
We hold respondent’s HIV infection was a disability under subsection (A) of the definitional section of the statute. In light of this conclusion, we need not consider the applicability of subsections (B) or (C).
Our consideration of subsection (A) of the definition proceeds in three steps. First, we consider whether respondent’s HIV infection was a physical impairment. Second, we identify the life activity upon which respondent relies (reproduction and childbearing) and determine whether it constitutes a major life activity under the ADA. Third, tying the two statutory phrases together, we ask whether the impairment substantially limited the major life activity. In construing the statute, we are informed by interpretations of parallel definitions in previous statutes and the views of various administrative agencies which have faced this interpretive question.
A
The ADA’s definition of disability is drawn almost verbatim from the definition of “handicapped individual” included in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 361, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 706(8)(B) (1988 ed.), and the definition of “handicap” contained in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 102 Stat. 1619, 42 U. S. C. § 3602(h)(1) (1988 ed.). Congress’ repetition of a well-established term carries the implication that Congress intended the term to be construed in accordance with pre-existing regulatory interpretations. See FDIC v. Philadelphia Gear Corp., 476 U. S. 426, 437-438 (1986); Commissioner v. Estate of Noel, 380 U. S. 678, 681-682 (1965); ICC v. Parker, 326 U. S. 60, 65 (1945). In this case, Congress did more than suggest this construction; it adopted a specific statutory provision in the ADA directing as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U. S. C. 790 et seq.) or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to such title.” 42 U.S. C. § 12201(a).
The directive requires us to construe the ADA to grant at least as much protection as provided by the regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act.
1
The first step in the inquiry under subsection (A) requires us to determine whether respondent’s condition constituted a physical impairment. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) issued the first regulations interpreting the Rehabilitation Act in 1977. The regulations are of particular significance because, at the time, HEW was the agency responsible for coordinating the implementation and enforcement of §504 of that statute. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone, 465 U. S. 624, 634 (1984) (citing Exec. Order No. 11914,3 CFR 117 (1976-1980 Comp.)). Section 504 prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by recipients of federal financial assistance. 29 U. S. C. § 794. The HEW regulations, which appear without change in the current regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, define “physical or mental impairment” to mean:
“(A) any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculo-skeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine; or
“(B) any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.” 45 CFR §84.3(j)(2)(i) (1997).
In issuing these regulations, HEW decided against including a list of disorders constituting physical or mental impairments, out of concern that any specific enumeration might not be comprehensive. 42 Fed. Reg. 22685 (1977), reprinted in 45 CFR pt. 84, App. A, p. 834 (1997). The commentary accompanying the regulations, however, contains a representative list of disorders and conditions constituting physical impairments, including “such diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation, emotional illness, and... drug addiction and alcoholism.” Ibid.
In 1980, the President transferred responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of §504 to the Attorney General. See, e. <?., Exec. Order No. 12250, 3 CFR 298 (1981). The regulations issued by the Justice Department, which remain in force to this day, adopted verbatim the HEW definition of physical impairment quoted above. 28 CFR § 41.31(b)(1) (1997). In addition, the representative list of diseases and conditions originally relegated to the commentary accompanying the HEW regulations were incorporated into the text of the regulations. Ibid.
HIV infection is not included in the list of specific disorders constituting physical impairments, in part because HIV was not identified as the cause of AIDS until 1983. See Barré-Sinoussi et al., Isolation of a T-Lymphotropie Retrovirus from a Patient at Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), 220 Science 868 (1983); Gallo et al., Frequent Detection and Isolation of Cytopathie Retroviruses (HTLV-III) from Patients with AIDS and at Risk for AIDS, 224 Science 500 (1984); Levy et al., Isolation of Lymphoeyto-pathic Retroviruses from San Francisco Patients with AIDS, 225 Science 840 (1984). HIV infection does fall well within the general definition set forth by the regulations, however.
The disease follows a predictable and, as of today, an unalterable course. Once a person is infected with HIV, the virus invades different cells in the blood and in body tissues. Certain white blood cells, known as helper T-lymphoeytes or CD4+ cells, are particularly vulnerable to HIV. The virus attaches to the CD4 receptor site of the target cell and fuses its membrane to the cell’s membrane. HIV is a retrovirus, which means it uses an enzyme to convert its own genetic material into a form indistinguishable from the genetic material of the target cell. The virus’ genetic material migrates to the cell’s nucleus and becomes integrated with the cell’s chromosomes. Once integrated, the virus can use the cell’s own genetic machinery to replicate itself. Additional copies of the virus are released into the body and infect other cells in turn. Young, The Replication Cycle of HIV-1, in The AIDS Knowledge Base, pp. 3.1-2 to 3.1-7 (P. Cohen, M. Sande, & P. Volberding eds., 2d ed. 1994) (hereinafter AIDS Knowledge Base); Polks & Hart, The Life Cycle of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1, in AIDS: Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention 29-39 (V. DeVita et al. eds., 4th ed. 1997) (hereinafter AIDS: Etiology); Greene, Molecular Insights into HIV-1 Infection, in The Medical Management of AIDS 18-24 (M. Sande & P. Volberding eds., Sth ed. 1997) (hereinafter Medical Management of AIDS). Although the body does produce antibodies to combat HIV infection, the antibodies are not effective in eliminating the virus. Pantaleo et al., Immunopathogenesis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection, in AIDS: Etiology 79; Gardner, HIV Vaccine Development, in AIDS Knowledge Base 3.6-5; Haynes, Immune Responses to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection, in AIDS: Etiology 91.
The virus eventually kills the infected host cell. CD4+ eells play a critical role in coordinating the body’s immune response system, and the decline in their number causes corresponding deterioration of the body’s ability to fight infections from many sources. Tracking the infected individual’s CD4+ cell count is one of the most accurate measures of the course of the disease. Greene, Medical Management of AIDS 19, 24. Osmond, Classification and Staging of HIV Disease, in AIDS Knowledge Base 1.1-8; Saag, Clinical Spectrum of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Diseases, in AIDS: Etiology 204.
The initial stage of HIV infection is known as acute or primary HIV infection. In a typical case, this stage lasts three months. The virus concentrates in the blood. The assault on the immune system is immediate. The victim suffers from a sudden and serious decline in the number of white blood cells. There is no latency period. Mononucleosis-like symptoms often emerge between six days and six weeks after infection, at times accompanied by fever, headache, enlargement of the lymph nodes (lymphadenopa-thy), muscle pain (myalgia), rash, lethargy, gastrointestinal disorders, and neurological disorders. Usually these symptoms abate within 14 to 21 days. HIV antibodies appear in the bloodstream within 3 weeks; circulating HIV can be detected within 10 weeks. Carr & Cooper, Primary HIV Infection, in Medical Management of AIDS 89-91; Cohen & Volberding, Clinical Spectrum of HIV Disease, in AIDS Knowledge Base 4.1-7; Crowe & McGrath, Acute HIV Infection, in AIDS Knowledge Base 4.2-1 to 4.2-4; Saag, AIDS: Etiology 204-205.
After the symptoms associated with the initial stage subside, the disease enters what is referred to sometimes as its asymptomatic phase. The term is a misnomer, in some respects, for clinical features persist throughout, including lymphadenopathy, dermatological disorders, oral lesions, and bacterial infections. Although it varies with each individual, in most instances this stage lasts from 7 to 11 years. The virus now tends to concentrate in the lymph nodes, though low levels of the virus continue to appear in the blood. Cohen & Volberding, AIDS Knowledge Base 4.1-4, 4.1-8; Saag, AIDS: Etiology 205-206; Staprans & Eeinberg, Natural History and Immunopathogenesis of HIV-1 Disease, in Medical Management of AIDS 29, 38. It was once thought the virus became inactive during this period, but it is now known that the relative lack of symptoms is attributable to the virus’ migration from the circulatory system into the lymph nodes. Cohen & Yolberding, AIDS Knowledge Base 4.1-4. The migration reduces the viral presence in other parts of the body, with a corresponding diminution in physical manifestations of the disease. The virus, however, thrives in the lymph nodes, which, as a vital point of the body’s immune response system, represents an ideal environment for the infection of other CD4+ cells. Staprans & Feinberg, Medical Management of AIDS S3-34. Studies have shown that viral production continues at a high rate. Cohen & Yolberding, AIDS Knowledge Base 4.1-4; Stap-rans & Feinberg, Medical Management of AIDS 38. CD4+ cells continue to decline an average of 5% to 10% (40 to 80 eells/mm3) per year throughout this phase. Saag, AIDS: Etiology 207.
A person is regarded as having AIDS when his or her CD4+ count drops below 200 cells/mm3 of blood or when CD4+ cells comprise less than 14% of his or her total lymphocytes. U. S. Dept, of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, CDC, 1993 Revised Classification System for HIV Infection and Expanded Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS Among Adolescents and Adults, 41 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Rep., No. RR-17 (Dec. 18, 1992); Osmond, AIDS Knowledge Base 1.1-2; Saag, AIDS: Etiology 207; Ward, Petersen, & Jaffe, Current Trends in the Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS, in Medical Management of AIDS 3. During this stage, the clinical conditions most often associated with HIV, such as pnemnocystis caminii pneumonia, Kaposi’s sarcoma, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma, tend to appear. In addition, the general systemic disorders present during all stages of the disease, such as fever, weight loss, fatigue, lesions, nausea, and diarrhea, tend to worsen. In most cases, once the patient’s CD4+ count drops below 10 cells/mm3, death soon follows. Cohen & Yolberding, AIDS Knowledge Base 4.1-9; Saag, AIDS: Etiology 207-209.
In light of the immediacy with which the virus begins to damage the infected person’s white blood cells and the severity of the disease, we hold it is an impairment from the moment of infection. As noted earlier, infection with HIV causes immediate abnormalities in a person’s blood, and the infected person’s white cell count continues to drop throughout the course of the disease, even when the attack is concentrated in the lymph nodes. In light of these facts, HIV infection must be regarded as a physiological disorder with a constant and detrimental effect on the infected person’s hemic and lymphatic systems from the moment of infection. HIV infection satisfies the statutory and regulatory definition of a physical impairment during every stage of the disease.
2
The statute is not operative, and the definition not satisfied, unless the impairment affects a major life activity. Respondent’s claim throughout this case has been that the HIV infection placed a substantial limitation on her ability to reproduce and to bear children. App. 14; 912 F. Supp., at 586; 107 F. 3d, at 939. Given the pervasive, and invariably fatal, course of the disease, its effect on major life activities of many sorts might have been relevant to our inquiry. Respondent and a number of amici make arguments about HIV’s profound impact on almost every phase of the infected person’s life. See Brief for Respondent Abbott 24-27; Brief for American Medical Association as Amicus Curiae 20; Brief for Infectious Diseases Society of America et al. as Amici Curiae 7-11. In light of these submissions, it may seem legalistic to circumscribe our discussion to the activity of reproduction. We have little doubt that had different parties brought the suit they would have maintained that an HIV infection imposes substantial limitations on other major life activities.
From the outset, however, the case has been treated as one in which reproduction was the major life activity limited by the impairment. It is our practice to decide cases on the grounds raised and considered in the Court of Appeals and included in the question on which we granted certiorari. See, e. g., Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U. S. 329, 340, n. 3 (1997) (citing this Court’s Rule 14.1(a)); Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753, 760 (1995). We ask, then, whether reproduction is a major life activity.
We have little difficulty concluding that it is. As the Court of Appeals held, “[t]he plain meaning of the word'major’ denotes comparative importance” and “suggests] that the touchstone for determining an activity’s inclusion under the statutory rubric is its significance.” 107 F. 3d, at 939, 940. Reproduction falls well within the phrase "major life activity.” Reproduction and the sexual dynamics surrounding it are central to the life process itself.
While petitioner concedes the importance of reproduction, he claims that Congress intended the ADA only to cover those aspects of a person’s life which have a public, economic, or daily character. Brief for Petitioner 14, 28, 30, 31; see also id., at 36-37 (citing Krauel v. Iowa Methodist Medical Center, 95 F. 3d 674, 677 (CA8 1996)). The argument founders on the statutory language. Nothing in the definition suggests that activities without a public, economic, or daily dimension may somehow be regarded as so unimportant or insignificant as to fall outside the meaning of the word “major.” The breadth of the term confounds the attempt to limit its construction in this maimer.
As we have noted, the ADA must be construed to be consistent with regulations issued to implement the Rehabilitation Act. See 42 U. S. C. § 12201(a). Rather than enunciating a general principle for determining what is and is not a major life activity, the Rehabilitation Act regulations instead provide a representative list, defining the term to include "functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 45 CFR §84.3(j)(2)(ii) (1997); 28 CFR § 41.31(b)(2) (1997). As the use of the term "such as” confirms, the list is illustrative, not exhaustive.
These regulations are contrary to petitioner’s attempt to limit the meaning of the term “major” to public activities. The inclusion of activities such as caring for one’s self and performing manual tasks belies the suggestion that a task must have a public or economic character in order to be a major life activity for purposes of the ADA. On the contrary, the Rehabilitation Act regulations support the inclusion of reproduction as a major life activity, since reproduction could not be regarded as any less important than working and learning. Petitioner advances no credible basis for confining major life activities to those with a public, economic, or daily aspect. In the absence of any reason to reach a contrary conclusion, we agree with the Court of Appeals’ determination that reproduction is a major life activity for the purposes of the ADA.
3
The final element of the disability definition in subsection (A) is whether respondent’s physical impairment was a substantial limit on the major life activity she asserts. The Rehabilitation Act regulations provide no additional guidance. 45 CFR pt. 84, App. A, p. 334 (1997).
Our evaluation of the medical evidence leads us to conclude that respondent’s infection substantially limited her ability to reproduce in two independent ways. First, a woman infected with HIY who tries to conceive a child imposes on the man a significant risk of becoming infected. The cumulative results of 13 studies collected in a 1994 textbook on AIDS indicates that 20% of male partners of women with HIV became HIV-positive themselves, with a majority of the studies finding a statistically significant risk of infection. Osmond & Padian, Sexual Transmission of HIV, in AIDS Knowledge Base 1.9-8, and tbl. 2; see also Haverkos & Battjes, Female-to-Male Transmission of HIV, 268 JAMA 1855, 1856, tbl. (1992) (cumulative results of 16 studies indicated 25% risk of female-to-male transmission). (Studies report a similar, if not more severe, risk of male-to-female transmission. See, e.g., Osmond & Padian, AIDS Knowledge Base 1.9-8, tbl. 1,1.9-6 to 1.9-7.)
Second, an infected woman risks infecting her child during gestation and childbirth, i. e., perinatal transmission. Petitioner concedes that women infected with HIV face about a 25% risk of transmitting the virus to their children. 107 F. 3d, at 942; 912 F. Supp., at 587, n. 6. Published reports available in 1994 confirm the accuracy of this statistic. Report of a Consensus Workshop, Maternal Factors Involved in Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV-1, 5 J. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 1019, 1020 (1992) (collecting 13 studies placing risk between 14% and 40%, with most studies falling within the 25% to 30% range); Connor et al., Reduction of Maternal-Infant Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 with Zidovudine Treatment, 331 New England J. Med. 1173,1176 (1994) (placing risk at 25.5%); see also Staprans & Feinberg, Medical Management of AIDS 32 (studies report 13% to 45% risk of infection, with average of approximately 25%).
Petitioner points to evidence in the record suggesting that antiretroviral therapy can lower the risk of perinatal transmission to about 8%. App. 53; see also Connor, supra, at 1176 (8.3%); Sperling et al., Maternal Viral Load, Zidovudine Treatment, and the Risk of Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 from Mother to Infant, 335 New England J. Med. 1621,1622 (1996) (7.6%). The United States questions the relevance of the 8% figure, pointing to regulatory language requiring the substantiality of a limitation to be assessed without regard to available mitigating measures. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18, n. 10 (citing 28 CFR pt. 36, App. B, p. 611 (1997); 29 CFR pt. 1630, App., p. 351 (1997)). We need not resolve this dispute in order to decide this case, however. It cannot he said as a matter of law that an 8% risk of transmitting a dread and fatal disease to one’s child does not represent a substantial limitation on reproduction.
The Act addresses substantial limitations on major life activities, not utter inabilities. Conception and childbirth are not impossible for an HIV victim but, without doubt, are dangerous to the public health. This meets the definition of a substantial limitation. The decision to reproduce carries economic and legal consequences as well. There are added costs for antiretroviral therapy, supplemental insurance, and long-term health care for the child who must be examined and, tragic to think, treated for the infection. The laws of some States, moreover, forbid persons infected with HIV to have sex with others, regardless of consent. Iowa Code §§139.1, 139.31 (1997); Md. Health Code Ann. §18-601.1(a) (1994); Mont. Code Ann. §§50-18-101, 50-18-112 (1997); Utah Code Ann. §26-6-3.5(3) (Supp. 1997); id., §26-6-5 (1995); Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.011(l)(b) (Supp. 1998); see also N. D. Cent. Code §12.1-20-17 (1997).
In the end, the disability definition does not turn on personal choice. When significant limitations result from the impairment, the definition is met even if the difficulties are not insurmountable. For the statistical and other reasons we have cited, of course, the limitations on reproduction may be insurmountable here. Testimony from the respondent that her HIV infection controlled her decision not to have a child is unchallenged. App. 14; 912 F. Supp., at 587; 107 F. 3d, at 942. In the context of reviewing summary judgment, we must take it to be true. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e). We agree with the District Court and the Court of Appeals that no triable issue of fact impedes a ruling on the question of statutory coverage. Respondent’s HIV infection is a physical impairment which substantially limits a major life activity, as the ADA defines it. In view of our holding, we need not address the second question presented, i. e., whether HIV infection is a per se disability under the ADA.
B
Our holding is confirmed by a consistent course of agency interpretation before and after enactment of the ADA. Every agency to consider the issue under the Rehabilitation Act found statutory coverage for persons with asymptomatic HIV. Responsibility for ádministering the Rehabilitation Act was not delegated to a single agency, but we need not pause to inquire whether this causes us to withhold deference to agency interpretations under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 844 (1984). It is enough to observe that the well-reasoned views of the agencies implementing a statute “constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.” Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 139-140 (1944).
One comprehensive and significant administrative precedent is a 1988 opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice (OLC) concluding that the Rehabilitation Act “protects symptomatic and asymptomatic HIV-infected individuals against discrimination in any covered program.” Application of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to HIV-Infected Individuals, 12 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 264, 264-265 (Sept. 27, 1988) (preliminary print) (footnote omitted). Relying on a letter from Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stating that, “from a purely scientific perspective, persons with HIV are elearly impaired” even during the asymptomatic phase, OLC determined asymptomatic HIV was a physical impairment under the Rehabilitation Act because it constituted a “physiological disorder or condition affecting the hemic and lymphatic systems.” Id., at 271 (internal quotation marks omitted). OLC determined further that asymptomatic HIV imposed a substantial limit on the major life activity of reproduction. The opinion said:
“Based on the medical knowledge available to us, we believe that it is reasonable to conclude that the life activity of procreation... is substantially limited for an asymptomatic HIV-infected individual. In light of the significant risk that the AIDS virus may be transmitted to a baby during pregnancy, HIV-infected individuals cannot, whether they are male or female, engage in the act of procreation with the normal expectation of bringing forth a healthy child.” Id., at 273.
In addition, OLC indicated that “[t]he life activity of engaging in sexual relations is threatened and probably substantially limited by the contagiousness of the virus.” Id., at 274. Either consideration was sufficient to render asymptomatic HIV infection a handicap for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act. In the course of its opinion, OLC considered, and rejected, the contention that the limitation could be discounted as a voluntary response to the infection. The limitation, it reasoned, was the infection’s manifest physical effect. Id., at 274, and n. 13. Without exception, the other agencies to address the problem before enactment of the ADA reached the same result. Federal Contract Compliance Manual App. 6D, 8 FEP Manual 405:352 (Dec. 23,1988); In re Ritter, No. 03890089, 1989 WL 609697, *10 (EEOC, Dec. 8, 1989); see also Comptroller General’s Task Force on AIDS in the Workplace, Coping with AIDS in the GAO Workplace: Task Force Report 29 (Dec. 1987); Report of the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic 113-114,122-123 (June 1988). Agencies have adhered to this conclusion since the enactment of the ADA as well. See 5 CFR § 1636.103 (1997); 7 CFR § 15e.l03 (1998); 22 CFR §1701.103 (1997); 24 CFR §9.103 (1997); 34 CFR §1200.103 (1997); 45 CFR §§2301.103,2490.103 (1997); In re Westchester County Medical Center, [1991-1994 Transfer Binder] CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 5340, pp. 6110-6112 (Apr. 20, 1992), aff’d, id., ¶5362, pp. 6249-6250 (Dept, of Health & Human Servs. Departmental Appeals Bd., Sept. 25, 1992); In re Rosebud Sioux Tribe, No. 93-504-1, 1994 WL 603015 (Dept. of Health & Human Servs. Departmental Appeals Bd., July 14, 1994); In re Martin, No. 01954089, 1997 WL 151524, *4 (EEOC, Mar. 27, 1997).
Every court which addressed the issue before the ADA was enacted in July 1990, moreover, concluded that asymptomatic HIV infection satisfied the Rehabilitation Act’s definition of a handicap. See Doe v. Garrett, 903 F. 2d 1455, 1457 (CA11 1990), cert. denied, 499 U. S. 904 (1991); Ray v. School Dist. of DeSoto County, 666 F. Supp. 1524, 1536 (MD Fla. 1987); Thomas v. Atascadero Unified School Dist., 662 F. Supp. 376, 381 (CD Cal. 1987); District 27 Community School Bd. v. Board of Ed. of New York, 130 Misc. 2d 398, 413-415, 502 N. Y. S. 2d 325, 335-337 (Sup. Ct., Queens Cty. 1986); cf. Baxter v. Belleville, 720 F. Supp. 720, 729 (SD Ill. 1989) (Fair Housing Amendments Act); Cain v. Hyatt, 734 F. Supp. 671, 679 (ED Pa. 1990) (Pennsylvania Human. Relations Act). (For cases finding infection with HIV to be a handicap without distinguishing between symptomatic and asymptomatic HIV, see Martinez ex rel. Martinez v. School Bd. of Hillsborough Cty., 861 F. 2d 1502, 1506 (CA11 1988); Chalk v. United States Dist. Ct., 840 F. 2d 701, 706 (CA9 1988); Doe v. Dolton Elementary School Dist. No. 148, 694 F. Supp. 440, 444-445 (ND Ill. 1988); Robertson v. Granite City Community Unit School Dist. No. 9, 684 F. Supp. 1002, 1006-1007 (SD Ill. 1988); Local 1812, AFGE v. United States Dept. of
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner was a member of the crew of the Boston fishing trawler Racer, owned and operated by the respondent. On April 1, 1957, the vessel returned to her home port from a 10-day voyage to the North Atlantic fishing grounds, loaded with a catch of fish and fish spawn. After working that morning with his fellow crew members in unloading the spawn, the petitioner changed his clothes and came on deck to go ashore. He made his way to the side of the vessel which abutted the dock, and in accord with recognized custom stepped onto the ship’s rail in order to reach a ladder attached to the pier. He was injured when his foot slipped off the rail as he grasped the ladder.
To recover for his injuries he filed this action for damages in a complaint containing three counts: the first under the Jones Act, alleging negligence; the second alleging unseaworthiness; and the third for maintenance and cure. At the trial there was evidence to show that the ship’s rail where the petitioner had lost his footing was covered for a distance of 10 or 12 feet with slime and fish gurry, apparently remaining there from the earlier unloading operations.
The district judge instructed the jury that in order to allow recovery upon either the negligence or unseaworthiness count, they must find that the slime and gurry had been on the ship’s rail for a period of time long enough for the respondent to have learned about it and to have removed it. Counsel for the petitioner requested that the trial judge distinguish between negligence and unseaworthiness in this respect, and specifically requested him to instruct the jury that notice was not a necessary element in proving liability based upon unseaworthiness of the vessel. This request was denied. The jury awarded the petitioner maintenance and cure, but found for the respondent shipowner on both the negligence and unseaworthiness counts.
An appeal was taken upon the sole ground that the district judge had been in error in instructing the jury that constructive notice was necessary to support liability for unseaworthiness. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that at least with respect to “an unseaworthy condition which arises only during the progress of the voyage,” the shipowner’s obligation “is merely to see that reasonable care is used under the circumstances . . . incident to the correction of the newly arisen defect.” 265 F. 2d 426, 432. Certiorari was granted, 361 U. S. 808, to consider a question of maritime law upon which the Courts of Appeals have expressed differing views. Compare Cookingham v. United States, 184 F. 2d 213 (C. A. 3d Cir.), with Johnson Line v. Maloney, 243 F. 2d 293 (C. A. 9th Cir.), and Poignant v. United States, 225 F. 2d 595 (C. A. 2d Cir.).
In its present posture this case thus presents the single issue whether with respect to so-called “transitory” unseaworthiness the shipowner’s liability is limited by concepts of common-law negligence. There are here no problems, such as have recently engaged the Court’s attention, with respect .to the petitioner’s status as a “seaman.” Cf. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85; Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406; United Pilots Assn. v. Halecki, 358 U. S. 613, or as to the status of the vessel itself. Cf. West v. United States, 361 U. S. 118. The Racer was in active maritime operation, and the petitioner was a member of her crew.
The origin of a seaman’s right to recover for injuries caused by an unseaworthy ship is far from clear. The earliest codifications of the law of the sea provided only the equivalent of maintenance and cure — medical treatment and wages to a mariner wounded or falling ill in the service of the ship. Markedly similar provisions granting relief of this nature are to be found in the Laws of Oleron, promulgated about 1150 A. D. by Eleanor, Duchess of Guienne; in the Laws of Wisbuy, published in the following century; in the Laws of the Hanse Towns, which appeared in 1597; and in the Marine Ordinances of Louis XIV, published in 1681.
For many years American courts regarded these ancient codes as establishing the limits of a shipowner’s liability to a seaman injured in the service of his vessel. Harden v. Gordon, 2 Mason 541; The Brig George, 1 Sumner 151; Reed v. Canfield, 1 Sumner 195. During this early period the maritime law was concerned with the concept of unseaworthiness only with reference to two situations quite unrelated to the right of a crew member to recover for personal injuries. The earliest mention of unseaworthiness in American judicial opinions appears in cases in which mariners were suing for their wages. They were required to prove the unseaworthiness of the vessel to excuse their desertion or misconduct which otherwise would result in a forfeiture of their right to wages. See Dixon v. The Cyrus, 7 Fed. Cas. 755, No. 3, 930; Rice v. The Polly & Kitty, 20 Fed. Cas. 666, No. 11, 754; The Moslem, 17 Fed. Cas. 894, No. 9,875. The other route through which the concept of unseaworthiness found its way into the maritime law was via the rules covering marine insurance and the carriage of goods by sea. The Caledonia, 157 U. S. 124; The Silvia, 171 U. S. 462; The Southwark, 191 U. S. 1; I Parsons on Marine Insurance (1868) 367-400.
Not until the late nineteenth century did there develop in American admiralty courts the doctrine that seamen had a right to recover for personal injuries beyond maintenance and cure. During that period it became generally accepted that a shipowner was liable to a mariner injured in the service of a ship as a consequence of the owner’s failure to exercise due diligence. The decisions of that era for the most part treated maritime injury cases on the same footing as cases involving the duty of a shoreside employer to exercise ordinary care to provide his employees with a reasonably safe place to work. Brown v. The D. S. Cage, 4 Fed. Cas. 367, No. 2002; Halverson v. Nisen, 11 Fed. Cas. 310, No. 5970; The Noddleburn, 28 Fed. 855; The Neptuno, 30 Fed. 925; The Lizzie Frank, 31 Fed. 477; The Flowergate, 31 Fed. 762; The A. Heaton, 43 Fed. 592; The Julia Fowler, 49 Fed. 277; The Concord, 58 Fed. 913; The France, 59 Fed. 479; The Robert C. McQuillen, 91 Fed. 685.
Although some courts held shipowners liable for injuries caused by “active” negligence, The Edith Godden, 23 Fed. 43; The Frank & Willie, 45 Fed. 494, it was held in The City of Alexandria, 17 Fed. 390, in a thorough opinion by Judge Addison Brown, that the owner was not liable for negligence which did not render the ship or her appliances unseaworthy. A closely related limitation upon the owner’s liability was that imposed by the fellow-servant doctrine. The Sachem, 42 Fed. 66.
This was the historical background behind Mr. Justice Brown’s much quoted second proposition in The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, 175: “That the vessel and her owner are, both by English and American law, liable to an indemnity for injuries received by seamen in consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship, or a failure to supply and keep in order the proper appliances appurtenant to the ship.” In support of this proposition the Court’s opinion noted that “[i]t will be observed in these cases that a departure has been made from the Continental codes in allowing an indemnity beyond the expense of maintenance and cure in cases arising from unseaworthiness. This departure originated in England in the Merchants’ Shipping Act of 1876 . . . and in this country, in a general consensus of opinion among the Circuit and District Courts, that an exception should be made from the general principle before obtaining, in favor of seamen suffering injury through the unseaworthiness of the vessel. We are not disposed to disturb so wholesome a doctrine by any contrary decision of our own.” 189 U. S., at 175.
It is arguable that the import of the above-quoted second proposition in The Osceola was not to broaden the shipowner’s liability, but, rather, to limit liability for negligence to those situations where his negligence resulted in the vessel's unseaworthiness. Support for such a view is to be found not only in the historic context in which The Osceola was decided, but in the discussion in the balance of the opinion, in the decision itself (in favor of the shipowner), and in the equation which the Court drew with the law of England, where the Merchant Shipping Act of 1876 imposed upon the owner only the duty to use “all reasonable means” to “insure the seaworthiness of the ship.” This limited view of The Osceola’s pronouncement as to liability for unseaworthiness may be the basis for subsequent decisions of federal courts exonerating shipowners from responsibility for the negligence of their agents because that negligence had not rendered the vessel unseaworthy. The Henry B. Fiske, 141 Fed. 188; Tropical Fruit S. S. Co. v. Towle, 222 Fed. 867; John A. Roebling’s Sons Co. v. Erickson, 261 Fed. 986. Such a reading of the Osceola opinion also finds arguable support in several subsequent decisions of this Court. Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S. 316; Plamals v. The Pinar Del Rio, 277 U. S. 151; Pacific Co. v. Peterson, 278 U. S. 130. In any event, with the passage of the Jones Act in 1920, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688, Congress effectively obliterated all distinctions between the kinds of negligence for which the shipowner is liable, as well as limitations imposed by the fellow-servant doctrine, by extending to seamen the remedies made available to railroad workers under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.
The first reference in this Court to the shipowner’s obligation to furnish a seaworthy ship as explicitly unrelated to the standard of ordinary care in a personal injury case appears in Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255. There it was said “we think the trial court might have told the jury that without regard to negligence the vessel was unseaworthy when she left the dock . . . and that if thus unsea worthy and one of the crew received damage as the direct result thereof, he was entitled to recover compensatory damages.” 259 U. S., at 259. This characterization of unseaworthiness as unrelated to negligence was probably not necessary to the decision in that case, where the respondent’s injuries had clearly in fact been caused by failure to exercise ordinary care (putting gasoline in a can labeled “coal oil” and neglecting to provide the vessel with life preservers). Yet there is no reason to suppose that the Court’s language was inadvertent.
During the two decades that followed the Carlisle decision there came to be a general acceptance of the view that The Osceola had enunciated a concept of absolute liability for unseaworthiness unrelated to principles of negligence law. Personal injury litigation based upon unseaworthiness was substantial. See, Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty (1957), p. 316. And the standard texts accepted that theory of liability without question. See Benedict, The Law of American Admiralty (6th ed., 1940), Vol. I, §83; Robinson, Admiralty Law (1939), p. 303 et seq. Perhaps the clearest expression appeared in Judge Augustus Hand’s opinion in The H. A. Soandrett, 87 F. 2d 708:
“In our opinion the libelant had a right of indemnity for injuries arising from an unseaworthy ship even though there was no means of anticipating trouble.
“The ship is not freed from liability by mere due diligence to render her seaworthy as may be the case under the Harter Act (46 U. S. C. A. §§ 190-195) where loss results from faults in navigation, but under the maritime law there is an absolute obligation to provide a seaworthy vessel and, in default thereof, liability follows for any injuries caused by breach of the obligation.” 87 F. 2d, at 711.
In 1944 this Court decided Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., 321 U. S. 96. While it is possible to take a narrow view of the precise holding in that case, the fact is that Mahnich stands as a landmark in the development of admiralty law. Chief Justice Stone’s opinion in that case gave an unqualified stamp of solid authority to the view that The Osceola was correctly to be understood as holding that the duty to provide a seaworthy ship depends not at all upon the negligence of the shipowner or his agents. Moreover, the dissent in Mahnich accepted this reading of The Osceola and claimed no more than that the injury in Mahnich was not properly attributable to unseaworthiness. See 321 U. S., at 105-113.
In Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85, the Court effectively scotched any doubts that might have lingered after Mahnich as to the nature of the shipowner’s duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. The character of the duty, said the Court, is “absolute.” “It is essentially a species of liability without fault, analogous to other well known instances in our law. Derived from and shaped to meet the hazards which performing the service imposes, the liability is neither limited by conceptions of negligence nor contractual in character. ... It is a form of absolute duty owing to all within the range of its humanitarian policy.” 328 U. S., at 94-95. The dissenting-opinion agreed as to the nature of the shipowner’s duty. “[D]ue diligence of the owner,” it said, “does not relieve him from this obligation.” 328 U. S., at 104.
From that day to this, the decisions of this Court have undeviatingly reflected an understanding that the owner’s duty to furnish a seaworthy ship is absolute and completely independent of his duty under the Jones Act to exercise reasonable care. Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406; Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson, 347 U. S. 396; Rogers v. United States Lines, 347 U. S. 984; Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., 348 U. S. 336; Crumady v. The J. H. Fisser, 358 U. S. 423; United Pilots Assn. v. Halecki, 358 U. S. 613.
There is no suggestion in any of the decisions that the duty is less onerous with respect to an unseaworthy condition arising after the vessel leaves her home port, or that the duty is any less with respect to an unseaworthy condition which may be only temporary. Of particular relevance here is Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson, supra. In that case the Court affirmed a judgment holding the shipowner liable for injuries caused by defective equipment temporarily brought on board by an independent contractor over which the owner had no control. That decision is thus specific authority for the proposition that the shipowner’s actual or constructive knowledge of the unseaworthy condition is not essential to his liability. That decision also effectively disposes of the suggestion that liability for a temporary unseaworthy condition is different from the liability that attaches when the condition is permanent.
There is ample room for argument, in the light of history, as to how the law of unseaworthiness should have or could have developed. Such theories might be made to fill a volume of logic. But, in view of the decisions in this Court over the last 15 years, we can find no room for argument as to what the law is. What has evolved is a complete divorcement of unseaworthiness liability from concepts of negligence. To hold otherwise now would be to erase more than just a page of history.
What has been said is not to suggest that the owner is obligated to furnish an accident-free ship. The duty is absolute, but it is a duty only to furnish a vessel and appurtenances reasonably fit for their intended use. The standard is not perfection, but reasonable fitness; not a ship that will weather every conceivable storm or withstand every imaginable peril of the sea, but a vessel reasonably suitable for her intended service. Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., 348 U. S. 336.
The judgment must be reversed, and the case remanded to the District Court for a new trial on the issue of unseaworthiness. D , , , , Reversed and remanded.
In accordance with tradition, the employment agreement provided that the proceeds from the sale of the fish spawn should be divided among the members of the crew, no part thereof going to the officers or to the owner of the vessel.
The instructions on this aspect of the case were as follows: “In a case like this we have the argument presented here, which you do not have to believe, that the ship was unseaworthy because at the time of the injury there was on the rail of the ship some kind of slime. Well, if that really was there and had been there any period of time, and it caused the accident, then you would find as a matter of your conclusion of fact, that unseaworthiness caused the accident.
“I haven’t told you what unseaworthiness is. You will recognize it is somewhat overlapping and alternative to, indeed quite similar to, negligence because it is one of the obligations of the owner of a ship to see to it through appropriate captains, mates, members of the crew, or someone, that there isn’t left upon the rail of a ship, especially a rail which is going to be utilized for leaving the ship, to climb the ladder, any sort of substance such as slime.
“It doesn’t make any difference who puts it there. As far as the owner-operator of the vessel goes, it is his job to see it does not stay there too long, if he knows it is the kind of place, as he could have known here, which is used by members of the crew in getting off the ship.
"So I think it would be fair to tell you the real nub of this case which I hope has not been clouded for you, the real nub of this case is, Was there on the rail some slime; was it there for an unreasonably long period of time; was there a failure on the part of the owner-operator through appropriate agents to remove it; and was that slime the cause of the injury which the plaintiff suffered.
“Was there something there and was it there for a reasonably long period of time so that a shipowner ought to have seen that it was removed? That is the question.”
“Mr. Katz: May I make a further request ? In your charge you specifically said 'and was it there for a reasonably long period of time so that the shipowner could have had it removed.’
“I submit that would apply to the negligence count only but with respect to unseaworthiness, if there is an unseaworthy condition, there is an absolute situation, there is no time required. It is the only—
“The Court: Denied. Refer to the case in the Second Circuit.”
The trial judge instructed the jury as follows: “In this case, on the basis of rulings I made earlier, I have instructed you on the undisputed fact, Mr. Mitchell is to be regarded as being an employee of the defendant and therefore entitled to those rights if any which flow from the maritime law and flows [sic] from the act of Congress.”
In a memorandum filed almost a month after the trial, the district judge, apparently relying upon the fact that the shipowner had no direct financial interest in the spawn which had been unloaded (see note 1, supra), stated that, “[T]here should have been a directed verdict for the defendant on the unseaworthiness count. If there were slime on the rail, it was put there by an associate and joint-venturer of the plaintiff and not by a stranger or by anyone acting for the defendant. If Sailor A and his wife go on board, and each of them has a right to be there, but they are engaging in a frolic of their own, not intended for the profit or advantage of the shipowner, say, for example, that they are munching taffy, and the wife drops the taffy on the deck, and the sailor slips on it, the sailor, if he is injured, is not entitled to collect damages from the shipowner. In short, absolute as is the liability for unseaworthiness, it does not subject the shipowner to liability from articles deposited on the ship by a co-adventurer of the plaintiff.” But this theory played no part in the issues developed at the trial, where the district judge denied the respondent’s motion for a directed verdict and instructed the jury as indicated above.
All of these early maritime codes are reprinted in 30 Fed. Cas. 1171-1216. The relevant provisions are Articles VI and VII, of the Laws of Oleron, 30 Fed. Cas. 1174-1175; Articles XVIII, XIX, and XXXIII, of the Laws of Wisbuy, 30 Fed. Cas. 1191, 1192; Articles XXXIX and XLV of the Laws of the Hanse Towns, 30 Fed. Cas. 1200; and Title Fourth, Articles XI and XII, of the Marine Ordinances of Louis XIV, 30 Fed. Cas. 1209.
And, of course, the vitality of a seaman’s right to maintenance and cure has not diminished through the years. Calmar S. S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U. S. 525; Waterman S. S. Corp. v. Jones, 318 U. S. 724; Farrell v. United States, 336 U. S. 511; Warren v. United States, 340 U. S. 523.
For a more thorough discussion of the history here sketched see Tetreault, Seamen, Seaworthiness, and the Rights of Harbor Workers, 39 Cornell L. Q. 381, 382-403; Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty (1957), pp. 315-332. See also the illuminating discussion in the opinion of then Circuit Judge Harlan in Dixon v. United States, 219 F. 2d 10, 12-15.
Where it was said “[u]nseaworthiness, as is well understood, embraces certain species of negligence; while the [Jones Act] includes several additional species not embraced in that term." 278 U. S., at 138.
An earlier legislative effort to broaden recovery for injured seamen (the La Follette Act of 1915, 38 Stat. 1164, 1185) had been emasculated in Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 U. S. 372.
As one commentator has chosen to regard it. See Tetreault, op. cit., supra, note 7, at 394.
1. e., as simply overruling the decision in Plamals v. The Pinar Del Rio, 277 U. S. 151, that unseaworthiness cannot include “operating negligence.” See Gilmore and Black, op. cit., supra, at 317.
The persuasive authority of Petterson in a case very similar to this one has been recognized by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Poignant v. United States, 225 F. 2d 595.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The three petitioners were convicted in a Florida trial court for violating the state lottery laws. Their con-victims were affirmed by a Florida district court of appeal, and the Supreme Court of Florida denied further review. We granted certiorari to consider the application of § 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1103, 47 U. S. C. § 605, to the circumstances of this case. That statute provides:
“[N]o person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge . . . the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person . . .
In the summer of 1963 petitioner Lee ordered the installation of a private telephone in the house where he lived near Orlando, Florida. The local telephone company informed him that no private lines were available, and he was given a telephone on a four-party line instead. A week later, at the direction of the Orlando police department, the company connected a telephone in a neighboring house to the same party line. The police attached to this telephone an automatic actuator, a tape recorder, and a set of earphones. The equipment was connected directly to the wall outlet in such a way that the police could hear and record all conversations on the party line without the necessity of lifting the receiver on their telephone. This arrangement not only afforded the police continuous access to all of Lee’s outgoing and incoming calls, but also eliminated the telltale “click” that would otherwise have warned conversing parties that someone else on the line had picked up a receiver. Further, the arrangement insured that noises in the house occupied by the police would not be heard by anyone else on the line. For more than a week the police used this equipment to overhear and record telephone calls to and from Lee’s residence, including calls made to Lee by the other two petitioners from private as well as public telephones.
At the petitioners’ trial, several of these recordings were introduced in evidence by the prosecution over objection by defense counsel. In affirming the convictions, the state appellate court said that “there were no state or federal statutes applicable in Florida which would make wiretapping illegal and inadmissible in evidence . ...”
We disagree. There clearly is a federal statute, applicable in Florida and every other State, that made illegal the conduct of the Orlando authorities in this case. And that statute, we hold today, also made the recordings of the petitioners’ telephone conversations inadmissible as evidence in the Florida court.
I.
Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act speaks, not in terms of tapping a wire, but in terms of intercepting and divulging a communication. The State concedes that the police “divulged” the petitioners’ conversations within the meaning of the statute. But, it argues, the police cannot be deemed to have “intercepted” the telephone conversations, because people who use party lines should realize that their conversations might be overheard.
This is not a case, however, where the police merely picked up the receiver on an ordinary party line, and we need not decide whether § 605 would be applicable in those circumstances. For here the police did much more. They deliberately arranged to have a telephone connected to Lee’s line without his knowledge, and they altered that connection in such a way as to permit continuous surreptitious surveillance and recording of all conversations on the line. What was done here was a far cry from the police activity in Rathbun v. United States, 355 U. S. 107, a case heavily relied upon by the respondent. There we found no interception where “a communication [is] overheard on a regularly used telephone extension with the consent of one party to the conversation,” ibid., and where the “extension had not been installed there just for this purpose but was a regular connection, previously placed and normally used.” Id., at 108. We viewed that situation as though one of the parties to the telephone conversation had simply “held out his handset so that another could hear out of it.” Id., at 110-111. In the present case, by contrast, there was neither “the consent of one party” nor a “regularly used” telephone “not . . . installed . . . just for [the] purpose” of surveillance. The conduct of the Orlando police, deliberately planned and carried out, clearly amounted to interception of the petitioners’ communications within the meaning of § 605 of the Federal Communications Act.
II.
The remaining question is whether the recordings that the police obtained by intercepting the petitioners’ telephone conversations were admissible in evidence in the Florida trial court, notwithstanding the express prohibition of federal law against divulgence of recordings so procured.
Section 605 was enacted as part of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1103, six years after the Court had said in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 465, that “Congress may of course [legislate to] protect the secrecy of telephone messages by making them, when intercepted, inadmissible in evidence . . . .” In Nardone v. United States, 302 U. S. 379, the Court was first called upon to decide whether § 605 had indeed served to render evidence of intercepted communications inadmissible in a federal trial. In that case the Government urged that “a construction be given the section which, would exclude federal agents since it is improbable Congress intended to hamper and impede the activities of the government in the detection and punishment of crime.” 302 U. S., at 383. In reversing the judgment of conviction, the Court’s answer to that argument was unequivocal:
“[T]he plain words of § 605 forbid anyone, unless authorized by the sender, to intercept a telephone message, and direct in equally clear language that ‘no person’ shall divulge or publish the message or its substance to ‘any person.’ To recite the contents of the message in testimony before a court is to divulge the message. The conclusion that the act forbids such testimony seems to us unshaken by the government’s arguments.
“Congress may have thought it less important that some offenders should go unwhipped of justice than that officers should resort to methods deemed inconsistent with ethical standards and destructive of personal liberty. The same considerations may well have moved the Congress to adopt § 605 as evoked the guaranty against practices and procedures vio-lative of privacy, embodied in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution.” 302 U. S., at 382, 383.
Fifteen years later, in Schwartz v. Texas, 344 U. S. 199, the Court considered the question whether, despite § 605, telephone communications intercepted by state officers could lawfully be received in evidence in state criminal trials. That case was decided in the shadow of Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, which shortly before had held that “in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.” 338 U. S., at 33. The Court in Schwartz recognized that the problem before it was “somewhat different” from the one that had been presented in Wolf, “because the introduction of the intercepted communications would itself be a violation” of federal law. 344 U. S., at 201. But the Court nonetheless concluded that state .trial courts were not required to reject evidence violative of § 605. For if, as Wolf had held, state courts were free to accept evidence obtained in violation of the Federal Constitution, the Court reasoned that they could not be required to reject evidence obtained and divulged in violation of a federal statute. That was the thrust of the Schwartz opinion:
“Although the intercepted calls would be inadmissible in a federal court, it does not follow that such evidence is inadmissible in a state court. Indeed, evidence obtained by a state officer by means which would constitute an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution is nonetheless admissible in a state court, Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, while such evidence, if obtained by a federal officer, would be clearly inadmissible in a federal court. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383.” Ibid.
The fact that a state official would be violating the express terms of the federal statute by the very act of divulging the intercepted communications as evidence for the prosecution at the trial, the Court in Schwartz said, was “simply an additional factor for a state to consider in formulating a rule of evidence for use in its own courts.” Ibid. But in Benanti v. United States, 355 U. S. 96, five years later, the Court returned to the teaching of Nardone in giving emphatic recognition to the language of the statute that itself makes illegal the divulgence of intercepted communications. In Benanti the Court held inadmissible in a federal trial communications that had been intercepted by state officers. “Section 605,” the Court said, “contains an express, absolute prohibition against the divulgence of intercepted communications.” 355 U. S., at 102.
After the Benanti decision, therefore, the only remaining support for Schwartz v. Texas, supra, was the holding in Wolf v. Colorado, supra, that state courts, unlike federal courts, were free to decide for themselves whether to condone violations of federal law by accepting the products of such violations as evidence. That doctrinal underpinning of the Schwartz decision was, of course, completely removed by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, which overruled Wolf and squarely held that evidence obtained by state officers in an unreasonable search is inadmissible in a state criminal trial.
In view of the Nardone and Benanti decisions, the doctrine of Schwartz v. Texas cannot survive the demise of Wolf v. Colorado, supra. In the Mapp case, the Court in overruling Wolf imposed a judicially devised exclusionary rule in order to insure that a State could not adopt rules of evidence calculated to permit the invasion of rights protected by federal organic law. In the present case the federal law itself explicitly protects intercepted communications from divulgence, in a court or any other place.
But the decision we reach today is not based upon language and doctrinal symmetry alone. It is buttressed as well by the “imperative of judicial integrity.” Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 222. Under our Constitution no court, state or federal, may serve as an accomplice in the willful transgression of “the Laws of the United States,” laws by which “the Judges in every State [are] bound . . . .”
Finally, our decision today is counseled by experience. The hope was expressed in Schwartz v. Texas that “[enforcement of the statutory prohibition in § 605 can be achieved under the penal provisions” of the Communications Act. 344 U. S., at 201. That has proved to be a vain hope. Research has failed to uncover a single reported prosecution of a law enforcement officer for violation of § 605 since the statute was enacted. We conclude, as we concluded in Elkins and in Mapp, that nothing short of mandatory exclusion of the illegal evidence will compel respect for the federal law “in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it.” Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S., at 217.
Reversed.
Lee v. State, 191 So. 2d 84.
389 U. S. 1033. Issues under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were also presented in the petition for certiorari. We do not reach those issues.
The record does not show how or why this house was made available to the Orlando police.
191 So. 2d, at 85. The court went on to say that “wiretapping is illegal in Florida” by reason of the Florida Constitution. However, the court found that what the police did in this ease did not amount to “wiretapping” within the scope of the state constitutional prohibition. The court based its conclusions upon several previous Florida cases: Perez v. State, 81 So. 2d 201; Williams v. State, 109 So. 2d 379; Griffith v. State, 111 So. 2d 282; Barber v. State, 172 So. 2d 857.
A party-line user’s privacy is obviously vulnerable, but it does not necessarily follow that his telephone conversations are completely unprotected by § 605. In many areas of the country private telephone lines are not available; in other areas they are available only at higher rates than party lines. There is nothing in the language or history of § 605 to indicate that Congress meant to afford any less protection to those who, by virtue of geography or financial hardship, must use party-line telephones.
Section 605 prohibits interception and divulgence of intrastate as well as interstate communications. Weiss v. United States, 308 U. S. 321.
It was not until two Terms later, in Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, that the Court repudiated the “silver platter doctrine,” under which evidence obtained by state officers in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments could be received as evidence in federal courts.
See also the second Nardone case, Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338.
“[I]t cannot be lawful to authorize what is an illegal act. . . . [I]f the police officer violates the Federal statute by tapping wires notwithstanding a warrant issued out of this court pursuant to New York law — if that act be illegal — those who set the act in motion have condoned if not instigated illegality. . . . [T]he warrant itself partakes of the breach, willful or inadvertent, of the Federal law. Such breach may not find sanction in the orders of courts charged with the support of the law of the land and with enforcing that law!” In re Telephone Communications, 9 Misc. 2d 121, 126, 170 N. Y. S. 2d 84, 89 (N. Y. Sup. Ct.).
See also Application for Interception of Telephone Communications, 23 Misc. 2d 543, 198 N. Y. S. 2d 572 (N. Y. Ct. Gen. Sess.).
Compare Judge Waterman's concurring opinion in Pugach v. Dollinger, 277 F. 2d 739 (denying injunction against state officer for violating § 605), aff’d per curiam, 365 U. S. 458:
“It is therefore presumptuous to assume that any New York State trial judge will acquiesce to the commission of a crime against the United States in his presence in his courtroom by a witness testifying under oath.” 277 F. 2d, at 745.
“[T]he Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, U. S. Const.
Compare Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, at 30-31.
In Pugach v. Klein, 193 F. Supp. 630, a defendant in a state criminal case attempted unsuccessfully to initiate a criminal prosecution against state officers for violations of § 605. See also Simons v. O’Connor, 187 F. Supp. 702 (denying damages in action against state officer for violation of § 605).
There seem to be only three reported prosecutions of private individuals for violations of § 605. United States v. Gruber, 123 F. 2d 307; United States v. Gris, 247 F. 2d 860; Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, arising from an order of the State Corporation Commission which concerned the correlative rights of owners of natural gas drawn from a common source.
Since 1913, Oklahoma has regulated the extraction of natural gas, partly to prevent waste and partly to avoid excessive drainage as between producers sharing the same pool. The legislation provided that owners might take from a common source amounts of gas proportionate to the natural flow of their respective wells, but not more than 25% of that natural flow without the consent of the Corporation Commission; that any person taking gas away from a gas field, except for certain specified purposes, “shall take ratably from each owner of the gas in proportion to his interest in said gas”; and that such ratable taking was to be upon terms agreed upon by the various well owners, or, in the event of failure to agree, upon terms fixed by the Corporation Commission.
The Hugoton Gas Field is one of the largest in the United States, covering a vast area in several States, including Oklahoma. It was discovered in 1924 or 1925, but the Oklahoma portion was not developed until 1937. Republic, a Delaware corporation, obtained permission to do business in Oklahoma in 1938, purchased gas leases in this field and drilled wells, removing the gas in its own pipelines. In 1944, the Peerless Oil and Gas Company completed a well in a portion of the gas field otherwise tapped only by Republic. It had no market for the gas obtained from this well, nor means of transporting such gas to any market. It offered to sell the gas to Republic, which refused it. Peerless then applied to the Corporation Commission for an order requiring Republic to take such gas from it “ratably” — that is, to take the same proportion of the natural flow of Peerless’ well as Republic took of the natural flow of its own wells. After a hearing, the Commission found that the production of natural gas in the Hugoton field was in excess of the market demand; that Republic had qualified to do business in Oklahoma with full knowledge of the existing legislation requiring the ratable taking of natural gas; and that Republic was taking more than its ratable share of gas from that portion of the field tapped both by its wells and that belonging to Peerless, thereby draining gas away from Peerless’ tract and, in effect, taking property belonging to Peerless. The Commission ordered Republic:
“1. . . . to take gas ratably from applicant’s [Peerless’] well . . ., and to make necessary connection as soon as applicant lays a line connecting said well with respondent’s [Republic’s] line, and to continue to do so until the further order of this Commission ; provided that, applicant shall lay its line from its well to the lines of respondent at some point designated by the respondent, but in said Section 14 in which said well of Peerless Oil and Gas Company has been drilled; and said respondent is required to make said designation immediately and without unreasonable delay, and in event of failure of respondent so to do, respondent shall no longer be permitted to produce any of its wells located in the Hugoton Oklahoma Gas Field.
“2. The terms and conditions of such taking of natural gas by Republic Natural Gas Company from said Peerless Oil and Gas Company’s well shall be determined and agreed upon by and between applicant and respondent; and in the event said parties are unable to agree, applicant and respondent are hereby granted the right to make further application to the Commission for an order fixing such terms and conditions; and the Commission retains jurisdiction hereof for said purpose.”
On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Republic, having been given leave to enter the State on the basis of the legislation governing natural gas production, might not challenge its validity, and that neither the order nor the legislation on which it is based runs counter to asserted constitutional rights. 198 Okla. 350. The court interpreted the Commission’s order as giving Republic “a choice between taking the gas from Peerless and paying therefor direct, or marketing the gas and accounting to Peerless therefor, or to shut in its own production from the same common source of supply.” 198 Okla. at 356. Invoking both the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, Republic appealed to this Court.
This case raises thorny questions concerning the regulation of fugacious minerals, of moment both to States whose economy is especially involved and to the private enterprises which develop these natural resources. Cf. Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp., 300 U. S. 55; Railroad Commission v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 310 U. S. 573, 311 U. S. 570. Before reaching these constitutional issues, we must determine whether or not we have jurisdiction to do so.
Ever since 1789, Congress has granted this Court the power of review in State litigation only after “the highest court of a State in which a decision in a suit could be had” has rendered a “final judgment or decree.” § 237 of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 344, rephrasing § 25 of the Act of September 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 85. Designed to avoid the evils of piecemeal review, this reflects a marked characteristic of the federal judicial system, unlike that of some of the States. This prerequisite for the exercise of the appellate powers of this Court is especially pertinent when a constitutional barrier is asserted against a State court’s decision .on matters peculiarly of local concern. Close observance of this limitation upon the Court is not regard for a strangling technicality. History bears ample testimony that it is an important factor in securing harmonious State-federal relations.
No self-enforcing formula defining when a judgment is “final” can be devised. Tests have been indicated which are helpful in giving direction and emphasis to decision from case to case. Thus, the requirement of finality has not been met merely because the major issues in a case have been decided and only a few loose ends remain to be tied up — for example, where liability has been determined and all that needs to be adjudicated is the amount of damages. Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U. S. 18; Martinez v. International Banking Corp., 220 U. S. 214, 223; Mississippi Central R. Co. v. Smith, 295 U. S. 718. On the other hand, if nothing more than a ministerial act remains to be done, such as the entry of a judgment upon a mandate, the decree is regarded as concluding the case and is immediately reviewable. Board of Commissioners v. Lucas, 93 U. S. 108; Mower v. Fletcher, 114 U. S. 127.
There have been instances where the Court has entertained an appeal of an order that otherwise might be deemed interlocutory, because the controversy had proceeded to a point where a losing party would be irreparably injured if review were unavailing. Cf. Clark v. Williard, 294 U. S. 211; Gumbel v. Pitkin, 113 U. S. 545; and compare Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 204, with Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How. 650, 657. For related reasons, an order decreeing immediate transfer of possession of physical property is final for purposes of review even though an accounting for profits is to follow. In such cases the accounting is deemed a severed controversy and not part of the main case. Forgay v. Conrad, supra; Carondelet Canal Co. v. Louisiana, 233 U. S. 362; Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120. But a decision that a taking by eminent domain is for a public use, where the amount of compensation has not been determined, is not deemed final, certainly where the property will not change hands until after the award of compensation. Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co., 243 U. S. 251; cf. Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 147 U. S. 337; Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229. One thing is clear. The considerations that determine finality are not abstractions but have reference to very real interests — not merely those of the immediate parties but, more particularly, those that pertain to the smooth functioning of our judicial system.
On which side of the line, however faint and faltering at times, dividing judgments that were deemed “final” from those found not to be so, does the judgment before us fall? The order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, as affirmed below, terminates some but not all issues in this proceeding. Republic is required to take ratably from Peerless, but it may do so in any one of three ways. If, as is most probable, Republic would choose not to close down its own wells, under the Commission’s order it must allow Peerless to connect its well to Republic’s pipeline. But there has been left open for later determination, in event of failure to reach agreement, the terms upon which Republic must take the gas, the rates which it must pay on purchase, or may charge if it sells as agent of Peerless. Does either its alternative character, or the fact that it leaves matters still open for determination, so qualify the order as to make it short of “final” for present review?
We turn first to the latter point. Certainly what remains to be done cannot be characterized as merely “ministerial.” Whether or not the amount of gas to be taken by Republic from Peerless can be ascertained through application of a formula, the determination of the price to be paid for the gas if purchased, or the fees to be paid to Republic for marketing it if sold on behalf of Peerless, clearly requires the exercise of judgment. Nor is there any immediate threat of irreparable damage to Republic, rendering postponed review so illusory as to make the decree “final” now or never. The Commission’s order requires Republic to designate a point on its pipeline at which Peerless might attach a line, and after Peerless had done so to connect it immediately. But it does not appear that the order requires Republic to commence taking Peerless’ gas before the terms of taking have either been agreed upon or ordered by the Commission. Nor does it appear that Republic would have to bear the expense of connecting the pipeline, nor that such expense would be substantial. Indeed, the incurring of some loss, before a process preliminary to review here is exhausted, is not in itself sufficient to authorize our intervention. Cf. Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41, 50-52. But even i>f the Commission’s order were construed to require Republic to take and dispose of Peerless’ gas immediately — and we are not so advised by the State court — there is no ground for assuming that any loss that Republic might incur could not be recovered should the completed direction of the Oklahoma Commission, on affirmance by that State’s Supreme Court, ultimately be found to be unconstitutional. Merely because a party to a litigation may be temporarily out of pocket, is not sufficient to warrant immediate review of an incomplete State judgment. Appellant, of course, has the burden of affirmatively establishing this Court’s jurisdiction. Memphis Natural Gas Co. v. Beeler, 315 U. S. 649, 651. The policy against premature constitutional adjudications demands that any doubts in maintaining this burden be resolved against jurisdiction. See citation of cases in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Brandéis in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 341, 345, 348.
The condemnation precedents attract this case more persuasively than do the accounting cases. Where it is claimed that a decree transferring property overrides an asserted federal right, as in Forgay v. Conrad, supra, and Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, supra, no disposition of the subsequent accounting proceeding can possibly make up for the defeated party’s loss, since the party who has lost the property must also pay to his opponent what the accounting decrees. Hence his desire to appeal the issue of the right to the property will almost certainly persist. On the other hand, in an eminent domain case, as in a case like this, the fate of the whole litigation may well be affected by the fate of the unresolved contingencies of the litigation. An adequate award in an eminent domain case or a profitable rate in the case before us might well satisfy the losing party to acquiesce in the disposition of the earlier issue. It is of course not our province to discourage appeals. But for the soundest of reasons we ought not to pass on constitutional issues before they have reached a definitive stop. Another similarity between this case and the condemnation cases calls for abstention until what is organically one litigation has been concluded in the State. It is that the matters left open may generate additional federal questions. This brings into vivid relevance the policy against fragmentary review. In accounting cases, that which still remains to be litigated can scarcely give rise to new federal questions. The policy against fragmentary review has therefore little bearing. But contests over valuation in eminent domain cases, as price-fixing in this type of case, are inherently provocative of constitutional claims. This potentiality of additional federal questions arising out of the same controversy has led this Court to find want of the necessary finality of adjudicated constitutional issues in condemnation decrees before valuation has been made. Like considerations are relevant here.
In short, the guiding considerations for determining whether the decree of the court below possesses requisite finality lead to the conclusion that this case must await its culmination in the judicial process of the State before we can assume jurisdiction. “Only one branch of the case has been finally disposed of below, therefore none of it is ripe for review by this court.” Collins v. Miller, 252 U. S. 364, 371. This makes it unnecessary to consider whether the mere fact that the decree gave alternative commands precluded it from being final. Cf. Paducah v. East Tennessee Tel. Co., 229 U. S. 476; Jones’s Adm’r v. Craig, 127 U. S. 213; Note, 48 Harv. L. Rev. 302, 305-306. Since the judgment now appealed from lacks the necessary finality, we cannot consider the merits. All of Republic’s constitutional objections are of course saved.
Appeal dismissed.
L. 1913, e. 198, §§ 1-3 (Okla. Stat. (1941) tit. 52, §§ 231-33):
“Section 1. All natural gas under the surface of any land in this state is hereby declared to be and is the property of the owners, or gas lessees, of the surface under which gas is located in its original state.
“Section 2. Any owner, or oil and gas lessee, of the surface, having the right to drill for gas shall have the right to sink a well to the natural gas underneath the same and to take gas therefrom until the gas under such surface is exhausted. In case other parties, having the right to drill into the common reservoir of gas, drill a well or wells into the same, then the amount of gas each owner may take therefrom shall be proportionate to the natural flow of his well or wells to the natural flow of the well or wells of such other owners of the same common source of supply of gas, such natural flow to be determined by any standard measurement at the beginning of each calendar month; provided, that not more than twenty-five per cent of the natural flow of any well shall be taken, unless for good cause shown, and upon notice and hearing the Corporation Commission may, by proper order, permit the taking of a greater amount. The drilling of a gas well or wells by any owner or lessee of the surface shall be regarded as reducing to possession his share of such gas as is shown by his well.
“Section 3. Any person, firm or corporation, taking gas from a gas field, except for purposes of developing a gas or oil field, and operating oil wells, and for the purpose of his own domestic use, shall take ratably from each owner of the gas in proportion to his interest in said gas, upon such terms as may be agreed upon between said owners and the party taking such, or in case they cannot agree at such a price and upon such terms as may be fixed by the Corporation Commission after notice and hearing; provided, that each owner shall be required to deliver his gas to a common point of delivery on or adjacent to the surface overlying such gas.”
See also L. 1915, c. 197, §§ 4, 5 (Okla. Stat. (1941) tit. 52, §§ 239, 240):
“Section 4. That whenever the full production from any common source of supply of natural gas in this state is in excess of the market demands, then any person, firm or corporation, having the right to drill into and produce gas from any such common source of supply, may take therefrom only such proportion of the natural gas that may be marketed without waste, as the natural flow of the well or wells owned or controlled by any such person, firm or corporation bears to the total natural flow' of such common source of supply having due regard to the acreage drained by each well, so as to prevent any such person, firm or corporation securing any unfair proportion of the gas therefrom; provided, that the Corporation Commission may by proper order, permit the taking of a greater amount whenever it shall deem such taking reasonable or equitable. The said commission is authorized and directed to prescribe rules and regulations for the determination of the natural flow of any such well or wells, and to regulate the taking of natural gas from any or all such common sources of supply within the state, so as to prevent waste, protect the interests of the public, and of all those having a right to produce therefrom, and to prevent unreasonable discrimination in favor of any one such common source of supply as against another.
“Section 5. That every person, firm or corporation, now or hereafter engaged in the business of purchasing and selling natural gas in this state, shall be a common purchaser thereof, and shall purchase all of the natural gas which may be offered for sale, and which may reasonably be reached by its trunk lines, or gathering lines without discrimination in favor of one producer as against another, or in favor of any one source of supply as against another save as authorized by the Corporation Commission after due notice and hearing; but if any such person, firm or corporation, shall be unable to purchase all the gas so offered, then it shall purchase natural gas from each producer ratably. It shall be unlawful for any such common purchaser to discriminate between like grades and pressures of natural gas, or in favor of its own production, or of production in which it may be directly or indirectly interested, either in whole or in part, but for the purpose of prorating the natural gas to be marketed, such production shall be treated in like manner as that of any other producer or person, and shall be taken only in the ratable proportion that such production bears to the total production available for marketing. The Corporation Commission shall have authority to make regulations for the delivery, metering and equitable purchasing and taking of all such gas and shall have authority to relieve any such common purchaser, after due notice and hearing, from the duty of purchasing gas of an inferior quality or grade.”
In the Catlin case our decision was based on the general rule that condemnation orders prior to determination of just compensation are not appealable. The wartime statutes there involved were urged by the claimants as a reason for not applying the general rule. We rejected this contention.
This case is unlike those in which a rate had been fixed, subject to a continuing jurisdiction to modify it later. Cf. Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 324 U. S. 548; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R. Co. v. Southern Express Co., 108 U. S. 24. Here, no rates have been set, and their future establishment has been left open.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Douglas,
announced by Mr. Justice Black.
These cases present the question whether the Emergency Price Control Act, 56 Stat. 23, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. Supp. V, § 901 et seq., authorizes the Administrator to delegate to district directors authority to sign and issue subpoenas. In the first of these cases the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that such authority did not exist, 156 F. 2d 891; in the second, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that it did. 81 U. S. App. D. C. 156, 156 F. 2d 561. The cases are here on petitions for writs of certiorari which we granted to resolve the conflict.
First. After we granted the petitions we ordered, on motion of the Acting Solicitor General, that Philip B. Fleming, Temporary Controls Administrator, be substituted as a party in each case in place of Paul A. Porter, Administrator, Office of Price Administration, resigned. Thereafter respondents in the first of these cases filed a motion to vacate the order of substitution, a motion which we deferred to the hearing on the merits. The question has now been briefed and argued and we conclude that the motion to vacate the order of substitution should be denied.
The Act was amended in 1946 to provide for its termination not later than June 30, 1947, saving, however, rights and liabilities incurred prior to the termination date. By November 12, 1946, almost all commodities (including services) were by administrative order made exempt from price control. Price control had thus entered a temporary transition period. On December 12, 1946, the President issued an Executive Order “for the purpose of further effectuating the transition from war to peace and in the interest of the internal management of the Government.” That order consolidated the Office of Price Administration and three other agencies into the Office of Temporary Controls — an agency in the Office for Emergency Management of the Executive Office of the President. The latter had previously been established pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1939. The Executive Order provided a Temporary Controls Administrator, appointed by the President, to head the Office of Temporary Controls and vested in him, inter alia, the functions of the Price Administrator, including the authority to maintain in his own name civil proceedings, whether or not then pending, relating to matters theretofore under the jurisdiction of the Price Administrator. Petitioner is the Temporary Controls Administrator appointed by the President.
It is argued that the President had no authority to transfer the functions of the Price Administrator to another agency and to vest in an officer appointed by the President the power which the Emergency Price Control Act, § 201, had conferred upon an Administrator appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. And it is said that even though such authority existed, it came to an end with the cessation of hostilities.
By § 1 of the First War Powers Act of 1941, 55 Stat. 838, 50 U. S. C. App. Supp. V, § 601, the President is
“authorized to make such redistribution of functions among executive agencies as he may deem necessary, including any functions, duties, and powers hitherto by law conferred upon any executive department, commission, bureau, agency, governmental corporation, office, or officer, in such manner as in his judgment shall seem best fitted to carry out the purposes of this title, and to this end is authorized to make such regulations and to issue such orders as he may deem necessary . . .”
That power may be exercised “only in matters relating to the conduct of the present war,” § 1, and expires six months after “the termination of the war.” § 401.
On December 31, 1946, after the creation of the Office of Temporary Controls, the President, while recognizing that “a state of war still exists,” by proclamation declared that hostilities had terminated. The cessation of hostilities does not necessarily end the war power. It was stated in Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & W. Co., 251 U. S. 146, 161, that the war power includes the power “to remedy the evils which have arisen from its rise and progress” and continues during that emergency. Stewart v. Kahn, 11 Wall. 493, 507. Whatever may be the reach, of that power, it is plainly adequate to deal with problems of law enforcement which arise during the period of hostilities but do not cease with them. No more is involved here.
Section 1 of the First War Powers Act does not explicitly provide for creation of a new agency which consolidates the functions and powers previously exercised by one or more other agencies. But the Act has been repeatedly construed by the President to confer such authority. Such construction by the Chief Executive, being both contemporaneous and consistent, is entitled to great weight. See United States v. Jackson, 280 U. S. 183, 193; Billings v. Truesdell, 321 U. S. 542, 552-553. And the appropriation by Congress of funds for the use of such agencies stands as confirmation and ratification of the action of the Chief Executive. Brooks v. Dewar, 313 U. S. 354, 361.
Nor do we think there is merit in the contention that the First War Powers Act gave the President authority to transfer functions only from agencies in existence when that Act became law. It is true that § 1 authorizes the President “to make such redistribution of functions among executive agencies as he may deem necessary, including any functions, duties, and powers hitherto by law conferred upon” any agency. But the latter clause is only an illustration of the authority granted, not a limitation on it. It makes clear that the authority extends to existing agencies as well as to others. That construction is supported by § 5 of the Act which states that upon its termination all executive and administrative agencies “shall exercise the same functions, duties, and powers as heretofore or as hereafter by law may be provided, any authorization of the President under this title to the contrary notwithstanding.” As stated by the Emergency Court of Appeals, unless § 1 authorizes the President to redistribute functions of agencies created after the passage of the Act, the reference in § 5 to functions “hereafter” provided by law is “wholly meaningless.” California Lima Bean Growers Assn. v. Bowles, 150 F. 2d 964, 967. Nor is that result affected by the subsequent enactment of the Emergency Price Control Act which in § 201 (b) authorized the President to transfer any of the powers and functions of the Office of Price Administration “with respect to a particular commodity or commodities” to any government agency having other functions relating to such commodities. Whatever effect that provision may have, it does not purport to deal with general enforcement functions and so restricts in no way the authority of the President under the First War Powers Act to transfer them. Yet enforcement functions are all that are involved in the present cases.
We need not decide whether under the First War Powers Act the President had authority to transfer functions of an officer who need be confirmed by the Senate to one appointed by the President without Senate confirmation. For § 2 of that Act provides:
“That in carrying out the purposes of this title the President is authorized to utilize, coordinate, or consolidate any executive or administrative commissions, bureaus, agencies, governmental corporations, offices, or officers now existing by law, to transfer any duties or powers from one existing department, commission, bureau, agency, governmental corporation, office, or officer to another, to transfer the personnel thereof or any part of it either by detail or assignment, together with the whole or any part of the records and public property belonging thereto.”
The authority to “utilize . . . offices, or officers now existing by law” is sufficient to sustain the transfer of functions under the Executive Order from Porter, resigned, to Fleming. For prior to the Act Fleming had been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate as Federal Works Administrator. He thus was the incumbent of an office “existing by law” at the time of the passage of the Act and by virtue of § 2 could be the lawful recipient through transfer by the President of the functions of other agencies as well. To hold that an officer, previously confirmed by the Senate, must be once more confirmed in order to exercise the powers transferred to him by the President would be quite inconsistent with the broad grant of power given the President by the First War Powers Act. Any doubts on this score would, moreover, be removed by the recognition by Congress in a recent appropriation of the status of the Temporary Controls Administrator. That recognition was an acceptance or ratification by Congress of the President’s action in Executive Order No. 9809. Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States, 300 U. S. 297, 301-302; Brooks v. Dewar, supra.
For these reasons Fleming is a successor in office of Porter and may be substituted as a party under Rule 25, Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule requires a showing of “substantial need” for continuing and maintaining the action. Though most of the controls have been lifted, the Act is still in effect. Liabilities incurred prior to the lifting of controls are not thereby washed out. United States v. Hark, 320 U. S. 531, 536; Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, 328 U. S. 39, 44; Collins v. Porter, 328 U. S. 46, 49. And Congress has explicitly provided that accrued rights and liabilities under the Emergency Price Control Act are preserved whether or not suit is started prior to the termination date of the Act. If investigation were foreclosed at this stage, such rights as may exist would be defeated, contrary to the policy of the Act.
Second. We come then to the merits. The Administrator, by order, delegated the function of signing and issuing subpoenas to regional administrators and district directors. Section 201 (a) of the Emergency Price Control Act provides in part:
“The Administrator may, subject to the civil-service laws, appoint such employees as he deems necessary in order to carry out his functions and duties under this Act, and shall fix their compensation in accordance with the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.”
Section 201 (b) of the Act provides:
“The principal office of the Administrator shall be in the District of Columbia, but he or any duly authorized representative may exercise any or all of his powers in any place.”
Practically identical provisions were included in § 4 (b) and (c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 52 Stat. 1060, 1061-1062, 29 U. S. C. § 204. The Court held in Cudahy Packing Co. v. Holland, 315 U. S. 357, that the latter provisions did not authorize the Administrator under that Act, to delegate his power to sign and issue subpoenas. Accordingly the main controversy here is whether the Cudahy decision controls this case. We do not think it does.
The legislative history of the Act involved in the Cudahy case showed that a provision granting authority to delegate the subpoena power had been eliminated when the bill was in Conference. On the other hand, the Senate Committee in reporting the bill that became the Emergency Price Control Act described § 201 (a) as authorizing the Administrator to “perform his duties through such employees or agencies by delegating to them any of the powers given to him by the bill.” And it said that § 201 (b) authorized him or “any representative or other agency to whom he may delegate any or all of his powers, to exercise such powers in any place.” S. Rep. No. 931, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 20-21. In the Cudahy case the Act made expressly delegable the power to gather data and make investigations, thus lending support to the view that when Congress desired to give authority to delegate, it said so explicitly. In the present Act, there is no provision which specifically authorizes delegation as to a particular function. In the Cudahy case, the Act made applicable to the powers and duties of the Administrator the subpoena provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, §§ 9 and 10, 38 Stat. 722, 723, 15 U. S. C. §§ 49 and 50, which only authorized either the Commission or its individual members to sign subpoenas. The subpoena power under the present Act is found in § 202 (b) and is not dependent on the provisions of another Act having a history of its own. The Act involved in the Cudahy case granted no broad rule-making power. Section 201 (d) of the present Act, however, provides:
“The Administrator may, from time to time, issue such regulations and orders as he may deem necessary or proper in order to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Act.”
Such a rule-making power may itself be an adequate source of authority to delegate a particular function, unless by express provision of the Act or by implication it has been withheld. See Plapao Laboratories v. Farley, 67 App. D. C. 304, 92 F. 2d 228. There is no provision in the present Act negativing the existence of such authority, so far as the subpoena power is concerned. Nor can the absence of such authority be fairly inferred from the history and content of the Act. Thus the presence of the rule-making power, together with the other factors differentiating this case from the Cudahy case, indicates that the authority granted by § 201 (a) and (b) should not be read restrictively.
As stated by the court in Porter v. Murray, 156 F. 2d 781, 786-787, the overwhelming nature of the price control program entrusted to the Administrator suggests that the Act should be construed so as to give it the administrative flexibility necessary for prompt and expeditious action on a multitude of fronts. The program of price control inaugurated probably the most comprehensive legal controls over the economy ever attempted. We would hesitate to conclude that all the various functions granted the Administrator need be performed personally by him or under his personal direction. Certainly, so far as the investigative functions were concerned, he could hardly be expected, in view of the magnitude of the task, to exercise his personal discretion in determining whether a particular investigation should be launched. Delay might do injury beyond repair. The pyramiding in Washington of all decisions on law enforcement would be apt to end in paralysis. To tempt the Administrator to solve the problem by supplying all his offices with subpoenas signed in blank would not further the development of orderly and responsible administration. These considerations reinforce the construction of the Act which allows the Administrator authority to delegate his subpoena power.
The other objections to the subpoenas are without merit.
We reverse the judgment in Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co., and affirm the judgment in Raley v. Fleming.
So ordered.
Compare Porter v. American Distilling Co., 71 F. Supp. 483; Porter v. Bowers, 70 F. Supp. 751, and Bowles v. Ell-Carr Co., Inc., 71 F. Supp. 482, with Porter v. Wilson, 69 F. Supp. 447, and Porter v. Hirahara, 69 F. Supp. 441.
60 Stat. 664. Section 1 (b) now provides:
“The provisions of this Act, and all regulations, orders, price schedules, and requirements thereunder, shall terminate on June 30, 1947, or upon the date of a proclamation by the President, or upon the date specified in a concurrent resolution by the two Houses of the Congress, declaring that the further continuance of the authority granted by this Act is not necessary in the interest of the national defense and security, whichever date is the earlier; except that as to offenses committed, or rights or liabilities incurred, prior to such termination date, the provisions of this Act and such regulations, orders, price schedules, and requirements shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper suit, action, or prosecution with respect to any such right, liability, or offense.”
Express provisions for decontrol were added by the 1946 amendments. See, for example, § la (b)-(h).
See Supplementary Order 193, November 12, 1946, 11 Fed. Reg. 13464, as amended November 19, 1946, 11 Fed. Reg. 13637.
Exec. Order No. 9809,11 Fed. Reg. 14281.
See Reorganization Plan I, 5 U. S. C. § 133t (note); 4 Fed. Reg. 3864; 6 Fed. Reg. 192.
Proclamation 2714,12 Fed. Reg. 1.
Each of the following agencies was a new agency created by Executive Order to exercise powers formerly vested in other agencies or to perform new functions: National Housing Agency, Exec. Order No. 9070, 7 Fed. Reg. 1529; War Food Administration, Exec. Order No. 9334, 8 Fed. Reg. 5423; Office of War Mobilization, Exec. Order No. 9347, 8 Fed. Reg. 7207; Office of Economic Warfare, Exec. Order No. 9361, 8 Fed. Reg. 9861; Foreign Economic Administration, Exec. Order No. 9380, 8 Fed. Reg. 13081; Surplus War Property Administration, Exec. Order No. 9425, 9 Fed. Reg. 2071.
December 4,1941. See 87 Cong. Rec. 9413.
61 Stat. 14, 16, under the heading “Executive Office of the President, Office for Emergency Management,” the following:
“Office of Temporary Controls
“Salaries and expenses: For an additional amount, fiscal year 1947, for the Office of Price Administration transferred by Executive Order 9809 of December 12, 1946, to the Office of Temporary Controls, $7,051,752, to be available for the payment of terminal leave only: Provided, That it is the intent of the Congress that the funds heretofore and herein appropriated shall include all expenses incident to the closing and liquidation of the Office of Price Administration and the Office of Temporary Controls by June 30,1947.”
See § 1 (b) supra, note 2. And for the general statute preventing the extinguishment of liability under a repealed statute, unless the repealing act expressly provides for it, see Rev. Stat. § 13, as amended, 58 Stat. 118,1 U. S. C. Supp. V, § 29.
Revised General Order 53, May 13, 1944, 9 Fed. Reg. 5191.
Section 202 (b) provides in part:
“The Administrator may administer oaths and affirmations and may, whenever necessary, by subpena require any such person to appear and testify or to appear and produce documents, or both, at any designated place.”
The following statistics indicate the volume of litigation and investigations involved:
1943 1944 1945 1946
Civil Cases commenced by United States in District Courts under Emergency Price Control Act.* (Fiscal years ending June 30)... 2,219 6, 524 28,283 31,094
Investigations completed by Office of Price Administration.** (Calendar years). 652,851 333,151 193,348 106,240†
*(Rep. Dir. Adm. Off. U. S. Courts (1943) Table 7; Id. 1944 Table 7; Id. (1945) Table C3; Id. (1946) Table C3.)
**(Quarterly Rep. O. P. A.: Eighth, p. 71; Twelfth, p. 75; Seventeenth, p. 104; Eighteenth, p. 82; Nineteenth, p. 95.)
fFirst nine months only.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted of selling material which had been judicially declared obscene. At his trial he was not permitted to litigate the obscenity vel non of the publication which was the basis of his prosecution, even though he had not been a party to the earlier civil adjudication in which it was held obscene. We granted certiorari, 422 U. S. 1040 (1975), to consider whether this procedure comported with our decisions delineating the safeguards which must attend attempts by the States to prohibit dissemination of expression asserted to be protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments against such interference. We reverse.
I
Pursuant to the authority conferred upon him by Ala. Code, Tit. 14, c. 64A (Supp. 1973), the District Attorney of the 13th Judicial Circuit of Alabama instituted an action in equity in the Circuit Court of Mobile County seeking an adjudication of the obscenity of certain mailable matter. On February 26, 1970, the Circuit Court entered a decree which announced that the four magazines named in the action were “judicially declared to be obscene.” Twelve days later two officers of the State Attorney General's office went to the Paris Bookstall in Birmingham, Ala., a place of business operated by petitioner. They personally delivered to petitioner a letter from the Attorney General informing him of the decree of the Circuit Court of Mobile County and specifying the magazines which had been declared obscene.
On March 31, these officers returned to the Paris Bookstall and there purchased, from petitioner, a copy of the magazine New Directions, which had been specified in the Circuit Court decree and listed in the letter delivered to petitioner. Petitioner was thereafter charged with violating Ala. Code, Tit. 14, § 374 (4) (Supp. 1973), by selling “mailable matter known ... to have been judicially found to be obscene.”
At petitioner’s trial for this offense he asserted as a defense his claim that the magazine was not obscene and sought to have this issue submitted to the jury. Petitioner claimed that he could not be found guilty unless the trier of fact in his case made its own determination that the magazine was obscene according to contemporary community standards. The trial court declined to submit this issue to the jury and instructed the jurors that they were not to be concerned with any determination of obscenity, and that they need only decide whether petitioner had sold material judicially declared to be obscene. The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed this judgment to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, whereupon the Alabama Supreme Court granted his petition for certio-rari. That court, by a divided vote, also affirmed the judgment of conviction. It ruled that the trial court had properly restricted the issues presented to the jury because the decree of the Mobile County Circuit Court was one in rem, conclusively establishing the obscenity of the magazines against all the world. The determination of obscenity in that action was therefore held binding upon petitioner in his subsequent criminal prosecution even though he had not been a party to the earlier equity proceeding. 292 Ala. 484, 296 So. 2d 228 (1974).
II
Petitioner contends that the procedures utilized by the State of Alabama, insofar as they precluded him from litigating the obscenity vel non of New Directions as a defense to his criminal prosecution, violated the First and Fourteenth Améndments. We agree. While there can be no doubt under our cases that obscene materials are beyond the protection of the First Amendment, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973); those decisions have also consistently recognized that the procedures by which a State ascertains whether certain materials are obscene must be ones which ensure “the necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression,” Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 58 (1965); Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 489 (1973). The Alabama statutory scheme at issue here, as applied to petitioner, fails to meet this requirement.
It is undisputed that petitioner received no notice of the Mobile Circuit Court equity proceeding, and that he therefore had no opportunity to be heard therein regarding the adjudication of the obscenity vel non of New Directions. Yet the State nevertheless seeks to finally bind him, as well as all other potential purveyors of the magazines described in the Mobile proceeding, to the result reached in that proceeding. There is nothing in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama indicating that petitioner had available to him any judicial avenue for initiating a challenge to the Mobile declaration as to the obscenity of New Directions. Decrees resulting from in rem proceedings initiated under Chapter 64A of the Alabama Code ¡could in some cases therefore have the same effect as would the ex parte determination of a state censorship authority which unilaterally found material offensive and proscribed its distribution. Such a procedure, without any provision for subsequent re-examination of the determination of the censor, would clearly be constitutionally infirm.
The State asserts, however, that the Mobile proceeding was an “adversary judicial proceeding” as contemplated by our decisions, Freedman, supra, at 58; Heller, supra, at 489, and that relevant First Amendment values have thereby been adequately safeguarded. We cannot agree. The Chapter 64A proceeding was indeed “judicial” in the sense that it was presided over by a judge rather than an administrative official. But the State's claim regarding the adversary nature of the in rem proceeding is somewhat wide of the mark.
It is not altogether clear from this record precisely what transpired at the hearing in which New Directions was declared obscene. It does appear that there were, in addition to the several magazines named as “respondents” in the proceeding, an individual and a corporate respondent: “Chris Zarocastas, individually and d/b/a Nelson’s News Stand; [and] Nelson’s News Stand, Inc., a Corporation, d/b/a Nelson’s News Stand.” The State contends that the existence of these named parties provides sufficient adverseness in the proceedings to permit its use of the adjudication thus obtained to bind non-parties such as petitioner.
Our difficulty with this argument is its assumption that the named parties’ interests are sufficiently identical to those of petitioner that they will adequately protect his First Amendment rights. There is no indication that they are in privity with him, as that term is used in determining the binding effects of judgments. See Litchfield v. Goodnow’s Adm’r, 123 U. S. 549, 551 (1887). And we recognized in Freedman that‘individual exhibitors as well as distributors may be unwilling, for various reasons, to oppose a state claim of obscenity regarding certain material. 380 U. S., at 59. Such parties may, of course, make their own determination whether and how vigorously to assert their own First Amendment rights. The Constitution obviously cannot force anyone to exercise the freedom of expression which it guarantees. Those who are accorded an opportunity to be heard in a judicial proceeding established for determining the extent of their rights are properly bound by its outcome, either because they chose not to contest the State’s claim or because they chose to do so and lost.
But it does not follow that a decision reached in such proceedings should conclusively determine the First Amendment rights of others. Nonparties like petitioner may assess quite differently the strength of their constitutional claims and may, of course, have very different views regarding the desirability of disseminating particular materials. We think they must be given the opportunity to make these assessments themselves, as well as the chance to litigate the issues if they so choose.
The State asserts that invalidation of petitioner’s conviction will seriously undermine the use of civil proceedings to examine the protected character of specific materials, procedures which according to respondent offer marked advantages for all concerned over dealing with obscenity only in case-by-case criminal prosecutions. Petitioner, however, was convicted and sentenced in a criminal proceeding wherein the issue of obscenity vel non was held to be concluded against him by the decree in a civil proceeding to which he was not a party and of which he had no notice. Thus we need not condemn civil proceedings in general, see Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 55 (1973), to conclude that this procedure fails to meet the standards required where First Amendment interests are at stake.
Petitioner’s conviction must be vacated so that he may be afforded the opportunity to litigate in some forum the issue of the obscenity of New Directions before he may be convicted of selling obscene material. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Me. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Chapter 64A provides in pertinent part:
“§ 374 (5). Equitable action to adjudicate obscenity of mailable matter imported, sold or possessed. — Whenever the solicitor for any judicial circuit or county solicitor has reasonable cause to believe that any person, with knowledge of its contents, is (1) engaged in sending or causing to be sent, bringing or causing to be brought, into this state for sale or commercial distribution, or is (2) in this state, preparing, selling, exhibiting or commercially distributing or giving away, or offering to give away, or has in his possession with intent to sell, or commercially distribute, or to exhibit or give away or offer to give away, any obscene mailable matter, the solicitor for the judicial circuit or county into which such mailable matter is sent or caused to be sent, brought or caused to be brought, or in which it is prepared, sold, exhibited or commercially distributed or given away or offered to be given away, or possessed, may institute an action in equity in the circuit court or any court having equity jurisdiction of the affected county for an adjudication of the obscenity of the mailable matter.
“§374 (6). Same; complaint. — The action authorized by section 374 (5) shall be commenced by the filing of a complaint to which shall be attached, as an exhibit, a true copy of the allegedly obscene mailable matter. The complaint shall:
“(a) be directed against the mailable matter by name or description;
“(b) allege its obscene nature;
“(c) designate as respondents and list the names and addresses, as known, of its author, publisher and any other person sending or causing it to be sent, bringing or causing it to be brought into this state for sale or commercial distribution, and of any person in this state preparing, selling, exhibiting or commercially distributing it, or giving it away or offering to give it away, or possessing it with the intent to sell or commercially distribute or exhibit or give away or offer to give it away;
“(d) pray for an adjudication that it is obscene;
“(e) pray for a permanent injunction against any person sending or causing it to be sent, bringing or causing it to be brought, into this State for sale or commercial distribution, or in this state preparing, selling, exhibiting or commercially distributing it, giving away or offering to give it away, or possessing it with the intent to sell or commercially distribute or exhibit or give away or offer to give it away; and
“(f) pray for its surrender, seizure and destruction.”
"§ 374 (4). Importation, sale or possession of obscene printed or written matter; penalties. — (1) Every person who, with knowledge of its contents, sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or commercial distribution, or in this state prepares, sells, exhibits or commercially distributes, or gives away or oifers to give away, or has in his possession with intent to sell or commercially distribute, or to give away or offer to give away, any obscene printed or written matter or material, other than mailable matter, or any mailable matter known by such person to have been judicially found to be obscene , under this chapter, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than one year, and may be fined not more than two thousand dollars for each offense, or be both so imprisoned and fined in the discretion of the court.
“(2) Every person who,-with knowledge of its contents, has in his possession any obscene printed or written matter or material, other than mailable matter, or any mailable matter known by such person to have been judicially found to be obscene under this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than six months, or may be fined not more than five hundred dollars for each offense, or be both so imprisoned and fined in the discretion of the court.”
Indeed, there is nothing in the record to indicate that he even possessed any copies of that magazine at the time the equity proceeding was commenced. If he did not, it would certainly be quixotic to expect him to anticipate later developing such an interest in the outcome of those proceedings as to prompt him to seek an opportunity to be heard therein.
The publishers of the named magazines were presumably served with notice of the injunctive action in accordance with Ala. Code, Tit. 14, §374 (7) (Supp. 1973).
The decree recites that “all parties [were] present and represented by counsel,” but does not name them, and the record does not otherwise indicate the extent of their participation. App. 100.
Because we conclude that the obscenity vel non of the publication for the sale of which petitioner was convicted has not yet been properly considered by the state courts, we need not pass upon petitioner’s claims that the publication was not obscene as a matter of law and that the Alabama statute defining obscenity is imper-missibly vague.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner, who was then an inmate of the Arizona Department of Corrections Reception and Treatment Center, filed a crudely written complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, in which he alleged, inter alia, that he had been placed in solitary confinement on March 3, 1980, without any notice of charges or any hearing, that he was threatened with violence when he asked what the charges were, and that he was still in “the hole” a week later. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the case was moot because petitioner had been transferred to another facility.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals did not endorse the District Court’s mootness rationale, and rightfully so, since the transfer did not moot the damages claim. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals affirmed, 642 F. 2d 455 (1981), concluding that first, district courts have “especially broad” discretion to dismiss frivolous actions against prison officials under 28 U. S. C. § 1915(d), and second, petitioner’s action is frivolous because it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We need not address the permissible contours of the Court of Appeals’ first conclusion, for its second conclusion is erroneous as a matter of law. Construing petitioner’s inartful pleading liberally, as Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972), instructs the federal courts to do in pro se actions, it states a cause of action. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 555-572 (1974). On the basis of the record before us, we cannot find a sufficient ground for affirming the dismissal of the complaint.
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pau-peris and the petition for certiorari are granted, 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.
Neither the Court of Appeals nor the District Court relied upon the argument advanced in the dissenting opinion. Indeed, the dissent’s information that petitioner had attempted to file a dozen previous civil rights actions is not disclosed in the record, the opinions below, or the briefs filed with this Court. We recognize that 28 U. S. C. § 1915(d) vests the federal courts with broad discretion to take judicial notice of such information and to identify and dismiss frivolous complaints, but it does not appear from the papers before us that any such discretion was exercised by either the Court of Appeals or the District Court; both courts relied solely upon erroneous legal grounds for dismissing the complaint. We are in no position to decide, on the basis of these legal errors and this record, whether the argument advanced in the dissenting opinion would have “satisfied [the District Court] that the action is frivolous or malicious.” 28 U. S. C. § 1915(d). A question of that character must be addressed in the first instance by the District Court. If a dismissal is to be based on the ground that petitioner failed to comply with the local rule, or that his prior filings justify the conclusion that his action is frivolous or malicious, a brief statement explaining that ground should be made by the District Court to facilitate intelligent appellate review.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves financial instruments commonly known as “Ginnie Maes.” These instruments are issued by private financial institutions, which are obliged to make timely payment of the principal and interest as set forth in the certificates. The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) guarantees that the payments will be made as scheduled. The question presented today is whether these instruments are exempt from state taxation under the constitutional principle of intergovernmental tax immunity, or under the relevant immunity statute.
Prior to 1979 changes in Illinois’ tax law, Rockford Life Insurance Company (Rockford) paid an annual property tax on the assessed value of its capital stock. In 1978, the Illinois taxing authorities included the value of Rockford’s portfolio of Ginnie Maes in their calculation of the corporation’s net assets. Rockford challenged the assessment in the Illinois courts and the County Treasurer filed an action to collect the full amount of the assessment ($723,053.70). The Illinois courts uniformly rejected Rockford’s contention that the securities were exempt from state property taxes, reasoning that “the securities in question here were not ‘other obligations of the United States’ within the meaning of § 3701,” and that the constitutional and statutory inquiries were identical in this case. 112 Ill. 2d 174, 176-184, 492 N. E. 2d 1278, 1279-1283 (1986). We noted probable jurisdiction, 479 U. S. 947 (1986), and now affirm.
I
The instruments involved here are standard securities bearing the title “Mortgage Backed Certificate Guaranteed by Government National Mortgage Association.” App. 56. True to that title, the instruments contain a provision in which GNMA pledges the “full faith and credit of the United States” to secure the timely payment of the interest and principal set forth in the instrument. The purpose of the guarantee, and the function of GNMA, which is a wholly owned government corporation within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is to attract investors into the mortgage market by minimizing the risk of loss. See 12 U. S. C. § 1716(a). There is uncontradicted evidence in the record supporting the conclusion that GNMA’s guarantee is responsible for the ready marketability of these securities. That guarantee is not the primary obligation described in the instrument, however. The duty to make monthly payments of principal and interest to the investors falls squarely on the issuer of the certificate.
The issuer of the certificate is a private party, generally a financial institution, that posesses a pool of federally guaranteed mortgages. Those individual mortgages are the product of transactions between individual borrowers and private lending institutions. It is this pool of private obligations that provides the source of funds, as well as the primary security, for the principal and interest that the issuer promises to pay to the order of the holder of the instrument. After a pool of qualified mortgages is assembled by a qualified issuer, the issuer enters into an agreement with GNMA authorizing the issuer to sell one or more certificates, each of which is proportionately based on and backed by all the mortgages in the designated pool, and each of which is also guaranteed by GNMA. The issuer thereafter may sell the “mortgage-backed certificates” to holders such as Rockford. The issuer administers the pool by collecting principal and interest from the individual mortgagors and remitting the amounts specified in the certificates to the holders. GNMA’s costs for the regulatory duties is covered by a fee charged to the issuer. Unless the issuer defaults in its payments to the holder of a certificate, no federal funds are used in connection with the issuance and sale of these securities, the administration of the pool of mortgages, or the payments of principal and interest set forth in the certificates.
Under the type of Ginnie Maes involved in this case, see n. 5, supra, the issuer is required to continue to make payments to the holders even if an individual mortgage in the pool becomes delinquent. In such event, the issuer may pursue its remedies against the individual mortgagor, or the guarantor of the mortgage, but the issuer does not have any rights against GNMA. GNMA’s guarantee is implicated only if the issuer fails to meet its obligations to the holders under the certificates. In that event the holder proceeds directly against GNMA, and not against the issuer. But the risk of actual loss to GNMA is minimal because its guarantee is secured not only by the individual mortgages in the pool but also by the separate guarantee of each of those mortgages, and by a fidelity bond which the issuer is required to post. See 24 CFR § 390.1 (1986).
rH
The GNMA guarantee of payment that is contained m the mortgage-backed certificates held by Rockford is a pledge of the “full faith and credit of the United States.” But that does not mean that it is the type of “obligation” of the United States which is subject to exemption under the Constitution or the immunity statute. Because the statutory immunity provision now codified at 31 U. S. C. § 3124(a) is “principally a restatement of the constitutional rule,” see Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner, 459 U. S. 392, 397 (1983), we shall first decide whether the statute requires that Ginnie Maes be exempted from state property taxes, and then consider whether the constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity requires any broader exemption.
At the time relevant to this case, Rev. Stat. §3701, as amended, 31 U. S. C. §742 (1976 ed.), provided that “all stocks, bonds, Treasury notes, and other obligations of the United States, shall be exempt from taxation by or under State or municipal or local authority” (emphasis added). The full text of the sentence in which these words appear, rules of statutory construction, and the earlier legislation that was codified by the enactment of this statute, are all consistent with the conclusion that the phrase “other obligations” refers “only to obligations or securities of the same type as those specifically enumerated.” Smith v. Davis, 323 U. S. 111, 117 (1944). This longstanding interpretation resolves the statutory question before us. GNMA certificates are fundamentally different from the securities specifically named in the statute. Most significantly, they are neither direct nor certain obligations of the United States. As the certificate provides, it is the issuer that bears the primary obligation to make timely payments — the United States’ obligation is secondary and contingent. In short, the United States is the guarantor — not the obligor. This distinction is more than adequate to support our conclusion that Ginnie Maes do not qualify as “other obligations of the United States” for the purposes of this statute.
Nor does the constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity exempt these instruments from state property taxes. In Smith v. Davis, supra, the United States owed money to a construction company for work that the company had performed on open account. In computing its assets for state tax purposes, the company sought to exclude the amount owed to it by the Federal Government, but a unanimous Court held that the debt was not exempt. The Court concluded that “a unilateral, unliquidated creditor’s claim, which by itself does not bind the United States and which in no way increases or affects the public debt, cannot be said to be a credit instrumentality of the United States for the purposes of tax immunity,” 323 U. S., at 114, and went on to explain that the claim differed
“vitally from the type of credit instrumentalities which this Court in the past has recognized as constitutionally exempt from state and local taxation. Such instrumen-talities in each instance have been characterized by (1) written documents, (2) the bearing of interest, (3) a binding promise by the United States to pay specified sums at specified dates and (4) specific Congressional authorization, which also pledged the full faith and credit of the United States in support of the promise to pay.” Id., at 114-115.
With respect to Ginnie Maes, the third element described in Smith v. Davis is clearly lacking, and its absence is critical in view of the purposes behind the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine. That doctrine is based on the proposition that the borrowing power is an essential aspect of the Federal Government’s authority and, just as the Supremacy Clause bars the States from directly taxing federal property, it also bars the States from taxing federal obligations in a manner which has an adverse effect on the United States’ borrowing ability. See Weston v. City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449 (1829); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). The lack of a fixed and certain obligation by the United States in the Ginnie Mae context makes this concern far too attenuated to support constitutional immunity. Cf. Willcuts v. Bunn, 282 U. S. 216, 225 (1931); Hibernia Sav ings Society v. San Francisco, 200 U. S. 310, 315 (1906); Plummer v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115, 136 (1900). Moreover, none of the proceeds of the issuance and sale of the GNMA certificates are received by the Federal Government or used to finance any governmental function. Indeed, given the fixed fees that GNMA charges issuers, and the lack of any GNMA profit sharing, it has not been suggested here that the federal fisc would at all benefit from a holding that Ginnie Maes are exempt from state taxation.
Appellant asserts that Congress authorized the GNMA’s guarantee for the salutary purpose of facilitating the financing of private mortgages, and that an exemption from state taxation will further this purpose. But our job is neither to assess the underlying merits of the program, nor to opine on whether Congress would be wise to exempt Ginnie Maes from state taxation. Our task is simply to decide whether the indirect, contingent, and unliquidated promise that GNMA is authorized to make is the type of federal obligation for which the Constitution, in Congress’ silence, imposes an exemption from state taxation. We hold that it is not.
H — < 1 — i
A court must proceed carefully when asked to recognize an exemption from state taxation that Congress has not clearly established. We do well to remember the concluding words in Smith, which although spoken in reference to the statute, are relevant to our role in applying the constitutional doctrine as well:
“All of these related statutes are a clear indication of an intent to immunize from state taxation only the interest-bearing obligations of the United States which are needed to secure credit to carry on the necessary functions of government. That intent, which is largely codified in § 3701, should not be expanded or modified in any degree by the judiciary.” 323 U. S., at 119.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
At the time relevant to this case, that statute was Rev. Stat. § 3701, as amended, and provided:
“Except as otherwise provided by law, all stocks, bonds, Treasury notes, and other obligations of the United States, shall be exempt from taxation by or under State or municipal or local authority. This exemption extends to every form of taxation that would require that either the obligations or the interest thereon, or both, be considered, directly or indirectly, in the computation of the tax, except nondiscriminatory franchise or other non-property taxes in lieu thereof imposed on corporations and except estate taxes or inheritance taxes.” 31 U. S. C. §742 (1976 ed.).
The 1982 reformulation of the statute was “without substantive change” see Pub. L. 97-258, § 4(a), 96 Stat. 1067, and now appears at 31 U. S. C. § 3124(a) with some minor variations in its language, which are not relevant to this case. As in First National Bank of Atlanta v. Bartow County Tax Assessors, 470 U. S. 583 (1985), the tax at issue here was levied prior to the recodification, and “the pre-1982 form of the statute technically controls this case.” Id., at 585, n. 1.
Appellant’s state-court action also involved a variety of state-law claims, and claims that some other federally guaranteed securities were exempt from state taxation. See 112 Ill. 2d 174, 177, 185-187, 492 N. E. 2d 1278, 1279, 1283-1284 (1986). These claims are not at issue here.
The issue presented is not the type that would usually merit our attention if presented in a petition for certiorari. The issue has divided neither the federal courts of appeals nor the state courts. Indeed, aside from the Illinois courts, no court has ever considered whether Ginnie Maes are exempt from state taxes. Nor does it appear that this case presents an overly important question of federal law “which has not been, but should be, settled by this Court. ” This Court’s Rule 17.1(c). The fact is that the Illinois property tax imposed here was repealed in 1979. Nonetheless, this case arises under our mandatory jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2), and Congress has not allowed us to consider these factors in deciding whether to rule on this case on its merits.
“The Mortgage-Backed Securities Program provides a means for channeling funds from the Nation’s securities markets into the housing market. The U. S. Government full faith and credit guaranty of securities makes them widely accepted in those sectors of the capital markets that otherwise would not be likely to supply funds to the mortgage market. The funds raised through the securities issued are used to make residential and other mortgage loans. Through this process, the program serves to increase the overall supply of credit available for housing and helps to assure that this credit is available at reasonable interest rates.” Dept, of Housing and Urban Development, Handbook GNMA 5500.1 Rev. 6, GNMA I Mortgage Backed Securities Guide 1-1 (1984) (hereinafter GNMA Guide).
The promises set forth in the representative GNMA certificate in the record read as follow:
“THE ISSUER, NAMED BELOW, PROMISES TO PAY TO THE ORDER OF:
“ROCKFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
“36 1695690 F
“(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE HOLDER) The sum of $1,018,717 DOLS 20 CTS in principal amount, together with interest thereon and on portions thereof outstanding from time to time at the fixed rate set forth hereon, such payment to be in monthly installments, adjustable as set forth below. All monthly installments shall be for application first to interest at such fixed rate and then in reduction of principal balance then outstanding, and shall continue until payment in full of the principal amount, and of all interest accruing thereon.
“[T]he issuer shall pay to the holder, whether or not collected by the issuer, and shall remit as set forth below, monthly payments of not less than the amounts of principal being due monthly on the mortgages and apportioned to the holder by reason of the aforesaid base and backing, together with any apportioned prepayments or other early recoveries of principal and interest at the fixed rate.” App. 56-57.
Sample certificates are published in the GNMA Guide, at App. 39-43.
The Ginnie Maes held by Rockford, are “modified pass-through securities” that provide for the payment of specific amounts whether or not timely collections are made from the individual mortgagors in the pool. See 128 Ill. App. 3d 302, 313, 470 N. E. 2d 596, 603 (2d Dist. 1984). GNMA also guarantees “straight pass-through securities” which provide that the issuer shall pay the holders of the securities the amounts collected from the pool, “as collected,” less specified administrative costs. See 24 CFR § 390.5(a) (1986); GNMA Guide, at 1-1.
The issuer must satisfy various financial requirements imposed by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and GNMA. See 24 CFR § 390.3 (1986). In addition each of the individual mortgages in the pool must be guaranteed by the FHA, the Veterans Administration, or another Government agency. Ibid.
GNMA is authorized to make this guarantee under 12 U. S. C. § 1721(g). The fact that the guarantee is executed by a federal agency, rather than by the United States itself, does not avoid the application of the immunity doctrine and statute. See Memphis Bank & Trust v. Garner, 459 U. S. 392, 396 (1983).
See n. 1, supra.
Appellant contends that the issuer is not an obligor at all because the certificate provides that the holder’s sole recourse is against the GNMA. We disagree. That GNMA is willing to pay the investor in case of default and then pursue its own remedies against the issuer does not detract from the reality that the primary obligor is in fact the issuer, and not the GNMA. While the holder of the certificate may not enforce the obligation through a direct action against the issuer, GNMA may, upon default, institute a claim against the issuer’s fidelity bond or extinguish the issuer’s interest in the underlying mortgages thereby making the mortgages the absolute property of GNMA “subject only to unsatisfied rights therein of the holders of the securities.” 24 CFR § 390.15(b) (1986); see also 12 U. S. C. § 1721(g); New York Guardian Mortgagee Corp. v. Cleland, 473 F. Supp. 409, 411 (SDNY 1979). As the GNMA Guide provides: An “issuer of GNMA-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities is responsible for . . . making the full and timely payment of all amounts due to securities holders.” GNMA Guide, at 2-1. This statement is supported by the regulations which prohibit GNMA from guaranteeing securities “if the pool arrangement proposed by the issuer does not satisfactorily provide for . . . [t]imely payment of principal and interest, in accordance with the terms of the guaranteed securities.” 24 CFR § 390.9(c) (1986). See also GNMA Guide, at App. 19, §4.01 (issuer’s contractual agreement with GNMA binds issuer to “remit to the holders all payments ... in a timely manner”).
“But when effort is made, as is the case here, to establish the un-constititional character of a particular tax by claiming that its remote effect will be to impair the borrowing power of the government, courts in overturning statutes, long established and within the ordinary sphere of state legislation, ought to have something more substantial to act upon than mere conjecture. The injury ought to be obvious and appreciable.” Plummer v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115, 137-138 (1900).
The proposition that a federal guarantee of a loan does not preclude state taxation is a “long established” one. See Board of Comm’rs of Montgomery County v. Elston, 32 Ind. 27, 32 (1869); S.S. Silberblatt, Inc. v. Tax Comm’n of New York, 5 N. Y. 2d 635, 641, 159 N. E. 2d 195, 197-198, cert. denied, 361 U. S. 912 (1959); see also 47 Op. N. C. Atty. Gen. 19 (1977) (concluding that Ginnie Maes are not “obligation of the United States” for these purposes, and indicating that the Assistant Director of GNMA agreed with this position). In fact, during the debate on one of the predecessors to the current immunity statute, Senator Sherman assured the Senate that bonds of the Pacific Railroad, which had been guaranteed by the United States, were not subject to immunity. See Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 2d Sess., 1591 (1870), discussing Act of July 14, 1870, 16 Stat. 272.
Even if there were a somewhat more certain effect, state taxation of these privately issued instruments would not necessarily be invalid. See Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1 (1941); Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U. S. 466 (1939); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134 (1937). Immunity from taxation “may not be conferred simply because the tax has an effect on the United States.” United States v. New Mexico, 455 U. S. 720, 734 (1982).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us is whether the maintenance and enforcement of a patent obtained by fraud on the Patent Office may be the basis of an action under § 2 of the Sherman Act, and therefore subject to a treble damage claim by an injured party under § 4 of the Clayton Act. The respondent, Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (hereafter Food Machinery), filed this suit for infringement of its patent No. 2,328,655 covering knee-action swing diffusers used in aeration equipment for sewage treatment systems. Petitioner, Walker Process Equipment, Inc. (hereafter Walker), denied the infringement and counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that the patent was invalid. After discovery, Food Machinery moved to dismiss its complaint with prejudice because the patent had expired. Walker then amended its counterclaim to charge that Food Machinery had “illegally monopolized interstate and foreign commerce by fraudulently and in bad faith obtaining and maintaining ... its patent . . . well knowing that it had no basis for ... a patent.” It alleged fraud on the basis that Food Machinery had sworn before the Patent Office that it neither knew nor believed that its invention had been in public use in the United States for more than one year prior to filing its patent application when, in fact, Food Machinery was a party to prior use within such time. The counterclaim further asserted that the existence of the patent had deprived Walker of business that it would have otherwise enjoyed. Walker prayed that Food Machinery’s conduct be declared a violation of the antitrust laws and sought recovery of treble damages.
The District Court granted Food Machinery’s motion and dismissed its infringement complaint along with Walker’s amended counterclaim, without leave to amend and with prejudice. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, 335 F. 2d 315. We granted cer-tiorari, 379 U. S. 957. We have concluded that the enforcement of a patent procured by fraud on the Patent Office may be violative of § 2 of the Sherman Act provided the other elements necessary to a § 2 case are present. In such event the treble damage provisions of § 4 of the Clayton Act would be available to an injured party.
I.
As the case reaches us, the allegations of the counterclaim, as to the fraud practiced upon the Government by Food Machinery as well as the resulting damage suffered by Walker, are taken as true. We, therefore, move immediately to a consideration of the legal issues presented.
Both Walker and the United States, which appears as amicus cunde, argue that if Food Machinery obtained its patent by fraud and thereafter used the patent to exclude Walker from the market through “threats of suit” and prosecution of this infringement suit, such proof would establish a prima facie violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. On the other hand, Food Machinery says that a patent monopoly and a Sherman Act monopolization cannot be equated; the removal of the protection of a patent grant because of fraudulent procurement does not automatically result in a § 2 offense. Both lower courts seem to have concluded that proof of fraudulent procurement may be used to bar recovery for infringement, Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U. S. 806 (1945), but not to establish invalidity. As the Court of Appeals expressed the proposition, “only the government may ‘annul or set aside’ a patent,” citing Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 434 (1872). It went on to state that no case had “decided, or hinted that fraud on the Patent Office may be turned to use in an original affirmative action, instead of as an equitable defense. . . . Since Walker admits that its anti-trust theory depends on its ability to prove fraud on the Patent Office, it follows that . . . Walker’s second amended counterclaim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” 335 F. 2d, at 316.
II.
We have concluded, first, that Walker’s action is not barred by the rule that only the United States may sue to cancel or annul a patent. It is true that there is no statutory authority for a private annulment suit and the invocation of the equitable powers of the court might often subject a patentee “to innumerable vexatious suits to set aside his patent.” Mo wry, supra, at 441. But neither reason applies here. Walker counterclaimed under the Clayton Act, not the patent laws. While one of its elements is the fraudulent procurement of a patent, the action does not directly seek the patent’s annulment. The gist of Walker’s claim is that since Food Machinery obtained its patent by fraud it cannot enjoy the limited exception to the prohibitions of § 2 of the Sherman Act, but must answer under that section and § 4 of the Clayton Act in treble damages to those injured by any monopolistic action taken under the fraudulent patent claim. Nor can the interest in protecting patentees from “innumerable vexatious suits” be used to frustrate the assertion of rights conferred by the antitrust laws. It must be remembered that we deal only with a special class of patents, i. e., those procured by intentional fraud.
Under the decisions of this Court a person sued for infringement may challenge the validity of the patent on various grounds, including fraudulent procurement. E. g., Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U. S. 806 (1945); Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U. S. 238 (1944); Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U. S. 240 (1933). In fact, one need not await the filing of a threatened suit by the patentee; the validity of the patent may be tested under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201 (1964 ed.). See Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U. S. 180, 185 (1952). At the same time, we have recognized that an injured party may attack the misuse of patent rights. See, e. g., Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U. S. 661 (1944). To permit recovery of treble damages for the fraudulent procurement of the patent coupled with violations of § 2 accords with these long-recognized procedures. It would also promote the purposes so well expressed in Precision Instrument, supra, at 816:
“A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. ... [It] is an exception to the general rule against monopolies and to the right to access to a free and open market. The far-reaching social and economic consequences of a patent, therefore, give the public a paramount interest in seeing that patent monopolies spring from backgrounds free from fraud or other inequitable conduct and that such monopolies are kept within their legitimate scope.”
III.
Walker’s counterclaim alleged that Food Machinery obtained the patent by knowingly and willfully misrepresenting facts to the Patent Office. Proof of this assertion would be sufficient to strip Food Machinery of its exemption from the antitrust laws. By the same token, Food Machinery’s good faith would furnish a complete defense. This includes an honest mistake as to the effect of prior installation upon patentability — so-called “technical fraud.”
To establish monopolization or attempt to monopolize a part of trade or commerce under § 2 of the Sherman Act, it would then be necessary to appraise the exclusionary power of the illegal patent claim in terms of the relevant market for the product involved. Without a definition of that market there is no way to measure Food Machinery’s ability to lessen or destroy competition. It may be that the device — knee-action swing diffusers — used in sewage treatment systems does not comprise a relevant market. There may be effective substitutes for the device which do not infringe the patent. This is a matter of proof, as is the amount of damages suffered by Walker.
As respondent points out, Walker has not clearly articulated its claim. It appears to be based on a concept of per se illegality under § 2 of the Sherman Act. But in these circumstances, the issue is premature. As the Court summarized in White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U. S. 253 (1963), the area of per se illegality is carefully limited. We are reluctant to extend it on the bare pleadings and absent examination of market effect and economic consequences.
However, even though the per se claim fails at this stage of litigation, we believe that the case should be remanded for Walker to clarify the asserted violations of § 2 and to offer proof thereon. The trial court dismissed its suit not because Walker failed to allege the relevant market, the dominance of the patented device therein, and the injurious consequences to Walker of the patent’s enforcement, but rather on the ground that the United States alone may “annul or set aside” a patent for fraud in procurement. The trial court has not analyzed any economic data. Indeed, no such proof has yet been offered because of the disposition below. In view of these considerations, as well as the novelty of the claim asserted and the paucity of guidelines available in the decided cases, this deficiency cannot be deemed crucial. Fairness requires that on remand Walker have the opportunity to make its § 2 claims more specific, to prove the alleged fraud, and to establish the necessary elements of the asserted § 2 violation.
Reversed and remanded.
26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. § 2 (1964 ed.):
“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor . . . .”
38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 15 (1964 ed.):
“Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
The patent in question was issued in the name of the inventor, Lannert. But he had previously assigned the patent rights to his employer, Chicago Pump Company, a division of Food Machinery.
See, e. g., United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc., 342 U. S. 371, 376 (1952).
This conclusion applies with equal force to an assignee who maintains and enforces the patent with knowledge of the patent’s infirmity.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1956 Congress enacted the Bank Holding Company-Act to control the future expansion of bank holding companies and to require divestment of their nonbanking interests. The Act, however, authorizes the Federal Reserve Board (Board) to allow holding companies to acquire or retain ownership in companies whose activities are “so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.” In 1972 the Board amended its regulations to enlarge the category of activities that it would regard as “closely related to banking” and therefore permissible for bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries. Specifically, the Board determined that the services of an investment adviser to a closed-end investment company may be such a permissible activity. The question presented by this case is whether the Board had the statutory authority to make that determination.
The Board’s determination, which was implemented by an amendment to its “Regulation Y,” permits bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries to act as an investment adviser as that term is defined by the Investment Company Act of 1940. Although the statutory definition is a detailed one, the typical relationship between an investment adviser and an investment company can be briefly described. Investment companies, by pooling the resources of small investors under the guidance of one manager, provide those investors with diversification and expert management. Investment advisers generally organize and manage investment companies pursuant to a contractual arrangement with the company. In return for a management fee, the adviser selects the company’s investment portfolio and supervises most aspects of its business.
The Board issued an interpretive ruling in connection with its amendment to Regulation Y. That ruling distinguished “open-end” investment companies (commonly referred to as “mutual funds”) from “closed-end” investment companies. The ruling explained that “a mutual fund is an investment company, which, typically, is continuously engaged in the issuance of its shares and stands ready a.t any time to redeem the securities as to which it is the issuer; a closed-end investment company typically does not issue shares after its initial organization except at infrequent intervals and does not stand ready to redeem its shares.” Because open-end investment companies will redeem their shares, they must constantly issue securities to prevent shrinkage of assets. In contrast, the capital structure of a closed-end company is similar to that of other corporations; if its shareholders wish to sell, they must do so in the marketplace. Without any obligation to redeem, closed-end companies need not continuously seek new capital.
The Board's interpretive ruling expressed the opinion that a bank holding company may not lawfully sponsor, organize, or control an open-end investment company, but the Board perceived no objection to sponsorship of a closed-end investment company provided that certain restrictions are observed. Among those restrictions is a requirement that the investment company may not primarily or frequently engage in the issuance, sale, and distribution of securities; a requirement that the investment adviser may not have any ownership interest in the investment company, or extend credit to it; and a requirement that the adviser may not underwrite or otherwise participate in the sale or distribution of the investment company’s securities.
Respondent Investment Company Institute, a trade association of open-end investment companies, commenced this litigation challenging as in excess of the Board’s statutory authority the determination that investment adviser services are “closely related” to banking. Both in proceedings before the Board and in a direct review proceeding in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, respondent based this challenge on the Banking Act of 1933, commonly known as the Glass-Steagall Act, in which Congress placed restrictions on the securities-related business of banks in order to protect their depositors.
The Court of Appeals rejected respondent’s argument that Regulation Y, as amended, violated the Glass-Steagall Act, relying on the fact that the prohibitions of §§16 and 21 of that Act apply only to banks rather than to bank holding companies or their nonbanking subsidiaries. 196 U. S. App. D. C. 97, 606 F. 2d 1004. The court nevertheless concluded that § 4 (c) (8) of the Bank Holding Company Act did not authorize the regulation. The court reasoned that the legislative history of the Act demonstrates that Congress did not intend the Bank Holding Company Act to restrict the scope of the Glass-Steagall Act. Because the court read the legislative history to indicate that Congress perceived the Glass-Steagall Act as an effort to effect as complete a separation as possible between the securities business and the commercial banking business, the court read a similar intent into the Bank Holding Company Act. The Court of Appeals believed that activities permitted by the challenged regulation were not consistent with the congressional intent to effect this separation.
We granted certiorari because of the importance of the Court of Appeals holding. 444 U. S. 1070. We are persuaded that the language of both the Bank Holding Company Act and the Glass-Steagall Act, as well as our interpretation of the Glass-Steagall Act in Investment Company Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617 (1971), supports the Board. Moreover, contrary to the view of the Court of Appeals, we are persuaded that the regulation is consistent with the legislative history of both statutes.
I
The services of an investment adviser are not significantly different from the traditional fiduciary functions of banks. The principal activity of an investment adviser is to manage the investment portfolio of its advisee — to invest and reinvest the funds of the client. Banks have engaged in that sort of activity for decades. As executor, trustee, or managing agent of funds committed to its custody, a bank regularly buys and sells securities for its customers. Bank trust, departments manage employee benefits trusts, institutional and corporate agency accounts, and personal trust and agency accounts. Moreover, for over 50 years banks have performed these tasks for trust funds consisting of commingled funds of customers. These common trust funds administered by banks would be regulated as investment companies by the Investment Company Act of 1940 were they not exempted from the Act’s coverage. The Board’s conclusion that the services performed by an investment adviser are “so closely related to banking... as to be a proper incident thereto” is therefore supported by banking practice and by a normal reading of the language of § 4 (c)(8).'
The Board’s determination of what activities are “closely related” to banking is entitled to the greatest deference. Such deference is particularly appropriate in this case because the regulation under attack is merely a general determination that investment advisory services which otherwise satisfy the restrictions imposed by the Board’s interpretive ruling constitute an activity that is so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto. Because the authority for any specific investment advisory relationship must be preceded by a further determination by the Board that the relationship can be expected to provide benefits for the public, the Board will have the opportunity to ensure that no bank holding company exceeds the bounds of a bank’s traditional fiduciary function of managing customers’ accounts. Thus unless the Glass-Steagall Act requires a contrary conclusion, the Board’s interpretation of the plain language of the Bank Company Holding Act must be upheld.
II
Respondent’s principal attack on the Board’s general determination that investment adviser services are so closely related as to be a proper incident to banking proceeds from the premise that if such services were performed by a bank, the bank would violate §§16 and 21 of the Glass-Steagall Act. Respondent therefore argues that such services may never be regarded as a “proper incident” that could be performed by a bank affiliate. We reject both the premise and the conclusion of this argument. The performance of investment advisory services by a bank would not necessarily violate § 16 or § 21 of the Glass-Steagall Act. Moreover, bank affiliates may be authorized to engage in certain activities that are prohibited to banks themselves.
It is familiar history that the Glass-Steagall Act was enacted in 1933 to protect bank depositors from any repetition of the widespread bank closings that occurred during the Great Depression. Congress was persuaded that speculative activities, partially attributable to the connection between commercial banking and investment banking, had contributed to the rash of bank failures. The legislative history reveals that securities firms affiliated with banks had engaged in perilous underwriting operations, stock speculation, and maintaining a market for the bank’s own stock, often with the bank’s resources. Congress sought to separate national banks, as completely as possible, from affiliates engaged in such activities.
Sections 16 and 21 of the Glass-Steagall Act approach the legislative goal of separating the securities business from the banking business from different directions. The former places a limit on the power of a bank to engage in securities transactions; the latter prohibits a securities firm from engaging in the banking business. Section 16 expressly prohibits a bank from “underwriting” any issue of a security or purchasing any security for its own account. The Board’s interpretive ruling here expressly prohibits a bank holding company or its subsidiaries from participating in the “sale or distribution” of securities of any investment company for which it acts as investment adviser. 12 CFR § 225.125 (h) (1980). The ruling also prohibits bank holding companies and their subsidiaries from purchasing securities of the investment company for which it acts as investment adviser. § 225.125 (g). Therefore, if the restrictions imposed by the Board’s interpretive ruling are followed, investment advisory services — even if performed by a bank — would not violate the requirements of § 16.
We are also satisfied that a bank’s performance of such services would not necessarily violate § 21. In contrast to § 16, § 21 prohibits certain kinds of securities firms from engaging in banking. The § 21 prohibition applies to any organization “engaged in the business of issuing, underwriting, selling, or distributing” securities. Such a securities firm may not engage at the same time “to any extent whatever in the business of receiving deposits.” The management of a customer’s investment portfolio — even when the manager has the power to sell securities owned by the customer — is not the kind of selling activity that Congress contemplated when it enacted § 21. If it were, the statute would prohibit banks from continuing to manage investment accounts in a fiduciary capacity or as an agent for an individual. We do not believe Congress intended that such a reading be given § 21. Rather, § 21 presented the converse situation of § 16 and was intended to require securities firms such as underwriters or brokerage houses to sever their banking connections. It surely was not intended to require banks to abandon an accepted banking practice that was subjected to regulation under § 16.
Even if we were to assume that a bank would violate the Glass-Steagall Act by engaging in certain investment advisory services, it would not follow that a bank holding company could never perform such services. In both the Glass-Steagall Act itself and in the Bank Holding Company Act, Congress indicated that a bank affiliate may engage in activities that would be impermissible for the bank itself. Thus, § 21 of Glass-Steagall entirely prohibits the same firm from engaging in banking and in the underwriting business, whereas § 20 does not prohibit bank affiliation with a securities firm unless that firm is “engaged principally” in activities such as underwriting. Further, §4(c)(7)of the Bank Holding Company Act, which authorizes holding companies to purchase and own shares of investment companies, permits investment activity by a holding company that is impermissible for a bank itself. Finally, inasmuch as the Bank Holding Company Act requires divestment only of nonbanking interests, the §4(c)(8) exception would be unnecessary if it applied only to services that a bank could legally perform. Thus even if the Glass-Steagall Act did prohibit banks from acting as investment advisers, that prohibition would not necessarily preclude the Board from determining that such adviser services would be permissible under §4 (c)(8).
In all events, because all that is presently at issue is the Board’s preliminary authorization of such services, rather than approval of any specific advisory relationship, speculation about possible conflicts with the Glass-Steagall Act is plainly not a sufficient basis for totally rejecting the Board’s carefully considered determination.
Ill
Our conclusions with respect to the Glass-Steagall Act are in no way altered by consideration of our decision in Invest ment Company Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617 (1971). The Court there held that a regulation issued by the Comptroller of the Currency purporting to authorize banks to operate mutual funds violated §§16 and 21 of the Glass-Steagall Act. The mutual fund under review in that case was the functional equivalent of an open-end investment company. Because the authorization at issue in this case is expressly limited to closed-end investment companies, the holding in Camp is clearly not dispositive. Respondent argues, however, that both the Court’s reasoning in Camp and its description of the “more subtle hazards” created by the performance of investment advisory services by a bank are inconsistent with the Board’s action. We disagree.
In Camp the Court relied squarely on the literal language of §§ 16 and 21 of the Glass-Steagall Act. After noting that § 16 prohibited the underwriting by a national bank of any issue of securities and the purchase for its own account of shares of stock of any corporation, and that § 21 prohibited corporations from both receiving deposits and engaging in issuing, underwriting, selling, or distributing securities, the Court recognized that the statutory language plainly applied to a bank’s sale of redeemable and transferable “units of participation” in a common investment fund operated by the bank. 401 U. S., at 634. Because the Court held that the bank was the underwriter of the fund’s units of participation within the meaning of the Investment Company Act of 1940, id., at 622-623, the Comptroller attempted to avoid the reach of § 16 by arguing that the units of participation were not “securities” within the meaning of the Glass-Steagall Act. The Court’s contrary determination led inexorably to the conclusion that § 16 had been violated.
This case presents an entirely different issue. No one could dispute the fact that the shares in a closed-end investment company are securities. But as we have indicated, such securities are not issued, sold, or underwritten by the investment adviser. In contrast to the bank’s activities in issuing, underwriting, selling, and redeeming the units of participation in the Camp case, in this case the Board’s interpretive ruling expressly prohibits such activity.
The Court in Camp recognized that in enacting the Glass-Steagall Act, Congress contemplated other hazards in addition to the danger of banks using bank assets in imprudent securities investments. But none of these “more subtle hazards” would be present were a bank to act as an investment adviser to á closed-end investment company subject to the restrictions imposed by the Board. Those restrictions would prevent the bank from extending credit to the investment company and would also preclude the promotional pressures that are inherent in the investment banking business. In addition to the fact that the bank could not underwrite or sell the stock of the closed-end investment company, that company, unlike a mutual fund, would not be constantly involved in the search for new capital to cover the redemption of other stock. The advisory fee earned by the bank would provide little incentive to the bank or its holding company to engage in promotional activities.
Our obligation to accord deference to the Board’s interpretive ruling provides added support to our conclusion that the Board’s regulation avoids the potential hazards involved in any association between a bank affiliate and a closed-end investment company. In Camp the Court emphasized that the Comptroller of the Currency had provided no guidance as to the effect of the Glass-Steagall Act on the proposed activity. Whereas in Camp the Court was deprived of administrative “expertise that can enlighten and rationalize the search for the meaning and intent of Congress,” 401 U. S., at 628, in this case the regulatory action by the Board recognized and addressed the concerns that led to the enactment of the Glass-Steagall Act. Contrary to respondent’s argument, the Camp decision therefore affirmatively supports the Board’s action in this case.
IV
The Court of Appeals rested its conclusion that the Board had exceeded its statutory authority on a review of the legislative history of §4 (c)(8). As originally enacted in 1966 the section referred to activities “closely related to the business of banking.” In 1970, when the Act was amended to extend its coverage to holding companies controlling just one bank, the words “business of” were deleted from §4 (c)(8), thereby making the section refer merely to activities “closely related to banking.” The conclusion of the Court of Appeals did not, however, place special reliance on this modest change. Rather, the Court of Appeals was persuaded that in 1956 Congress believed that the Glass-Steagall Act had been enacted in 1933 to “divorc[e] investment from commercial banking” and that the 1970 amendment to § 4 (c) (8) did not alter the intent expressed by the 1956 Congress. 196 U. S. App. D. C., at 110, 606 F. 2d, at 1017.
Congress did intend the Bank Holding Company Act to maintain and even to strengthen Glass-Steagall’s restrictions on the relationship between commercial and investment banking. Part of the motivation underlying the requirement that bank holding companies divest themselves of nonbanking interests was the desire to provide a measure of regulation missing from the Glass-Steagall Act. In 1956, the only provision of the Glass-Steagall Act which regulated bank holding companies was § 19 (e) of the Act, which provided that a bank holding company could not obtain a permit from the Federal Reserve Board entitling it to vote the shares of a bank subsidiary unless it agreed to divest itself within five years of any interest in a company formed for the purpose of, or “engaged principally” in, the issuance or underwriting of securities. This provision was largely ineffectual, because bank holding companies were not subject to the divestiture requirement as long as they did not vote their bank subsidiary shares. Thus bank holding companies were able to avoid Glass-SteagalPs general purpose of separating as completely as possible commercial from investment banking in a way not available to other bank affiliates or banks themselves. The inadequacy of § 19 (e) therefore lay not in the type of affiliation with securities-related firms permitted to bank holding companies but in the ability of holding companies to avoid any restrictions on affiliation by simply not voting their shares. To the extent that Congress strengthened the Glass-Steagall Act, it did so by closing this loophole rather than by imposing further restrictions on the permissible securities-related business of bank affiliates. The clear evidence of a congressional purpose in 1956 to remedy the inadequacy of § 19 (e) of the 1933 Act does not support the conclusion that Congress also intended §4 (c)(8) to be read as totally prohibiting bank holding companies from being “engaged” in any securities-related activities; on the contrary it is more accurately read as merely completing the job of severing the connection between bank holding companies and affiliates “principally engaged” in the securities business.
To invalidate the Board’s regulation, the Court of Appeals had to assume that the activity of managing investments for a customer had been regarded by Congress as an aspect of investment banking rather than an aspect of commercial banking. But the Congress that enacted the Glass-Steagall Act did not take such an expansive viewr of investment banking. Investment advisers and closed-end investment companies are not “principally engaged” in the issuance or the underwriting of securities within the meaning of the Glass-Steagall Act, even if they are so engaged within the meaning of §§16 and 21. Nothing in the legislative history of the Bank Holding Company Act persuades us that Congress in 1956 intended to effect a more complete separation between commercial and investment banking than the separation that the Glass-Steagall Act had achieved with respect to banks in §§16 and 21 and had sought unsuccessfully to achieve with respect to bank holding companies in § 19 (e).
A review of the 1970 Amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act only strengthens this conclusion. On its face the 1970 amendment to § 4 (c) (8) would appear to have broadened the Board’s authority to determine when an activity is sufficiently related to banking to be permissible for a nonbanking subsidiary of a bank holding company. The initial versions of both the House and the Senate bills changed the “closely related” test of § 4 (c) (8) to a “functionally related” test. The Conference Committee’s final version of the bill, however, retained the “closely related” language of the 1956 Act. Whether this indicated that §4 (c)(8) was to have the same scope as it did under the 1956 Act is difficult to discern. For purposes of this case, however, we need not reconcile the conflicting views as to whether the 1970 amendment expanded the scope of § 4 (c)(8), because no one disputes that the Board’s discretion is at least as broad under the 1970 Amendments as it was under the 1956 Act. Therefore, our conclusion that nothing in the 1956 Act or its legislative history indicates that Congress intended to prohibit bank holding companies from acting as investment advisers to closed-end investment companies should also apply to the 1970 Amendments unless Congress specifically indicated that such services should not be authorized by the Board. Not only is there no such specific, evidence, there is affirmative evidence to the contrary.
The legislative history of the 1970 Amendments indicates that Congress did not intend the 1970 Amendments to have any effect on the prohibitions of the Glass-Steagall Act. The Senate chairman of the Conference Committee assured his fellow Senators that the conference bill was intended neither to enlarge nor to restrict the prohibitions contained in the Glass-Steagall Act. Moreover, the Senate Report refers to investment services but declines to state that the Board could not approve under § 4 (c) (8) “bank sponsored mutual funds.” The House’s version of the bill rigidly confined the Board’s discretion in certain areas by including a “laundry list” of activities which the Board could not approve. Included in this list was a prohibition of bank holding company acquisition of shares of any company engaged in “the issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution,” of securities, “whether or not any such interests are redeemable.” The Conference Committee deleted this list. This deletion indicates a rejection of the House’s restrictive approach in favor of the Senate’s more flexible attitude toward the Board’s exercise of its discretion. Thus as we read the legislative history of the 1970 Amendments, Congress did not intend the Bank Holding Company Act to limit the Board’s discretion to approve securities-related activity as closely related to banking beyond the prohibitions already contained in the Glass-Steagall Act. This case is therefore one that is best resolved by deferring to the Board’s expertise in determining what activities are encompassed within the plain language of the statute.
Because we have concluded that the Board’s decision to permit bank holding companies to act as investment advisers for closed-end investment companies is consistent with the language of the Bank Holding Company Act, and because such services are not prohibited by the Glass-Steagall Act, we hold that the amendment to Regulation Y does not exceed the Board’s statutory authority. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Justice Stewart and Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Justice Powell took no part in the decision of this case.
The stated purpose of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 was “[t]o define bank holding companies, control their future expansion, and require divestment of their nonbanking interests.” 70 Stat. 133.
Section 4 of the statute, as originally enacted, provided in pertinent part:
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no bank holding company shall—
“(1) after the date of enactment of this Act acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of any company which is not a bank....
“(c) The prohibitions in this section shall not apply—
“(6) to shares of any company all the activities of which are of a financial, fiduciary, or insurance nature and which the Board after due notice and hearing, and on the basis of the record made at such hearing, by order has determined to be so closely related to the business of banking or of managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto and as to make it unnecessary for the prohibitions of this section to apply in order to carry out the purposes of this Act....” 70 Stat. 135-137.
The relevant exemption is now found in § 4 (c) (8) which allows holding company ownership of:
“(8) shares of any company the activities of which the Board after due notice and opportunity for hearing has determined (by order or regulation) to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. In determining whether a particular activity is a proper incident to banking or managing or controlling banks the Board shall consider whether its performance by an affiliate of a holding company can reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or unsound banking practices. In orders and regulations under this subsection, the Board may differentiate between activities commenced de novo and activities commenced by the acquisition, in whole or in part, of a going concern.” 12 U. S. C. § 1843 (c)(8).
See 36 Fed. Reg. 16695, 17514 (1971); 37 Fed. Reg. 1463 (1972); 12 CFR § 225.4 (a) (5) (ii) (1980). The 1972 amendment to Regulation Y made the following addition to the list of permissible activities:
“ (ii) serving as investment adviser, as defined in section 2 (a) (20) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, to an investment company registered under that Act.”
The definition of an investment adviser in § (2) (a) (20) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 reads as follows:
“(20) 'Investment adviser’ of an investment company means (A) any person (other than a bona fide officer, director, trustee, member of an advisory board, or employee of such company, as such) who pursuant to contract with such company regularly furnishes advice to such company with respect to the desirability of investing in, purchasing or selling securities or other property, or is empowered to determine what securities or other property shall be purchased or sold by such company, and (B) any other person who pursuant to contract with a person described in clause (A) of this paragraph regularly performs substantially all of the duties undertaken by such person described in said clause (A); but does not include (i) a person whose advice is furnished solely through uniform publications distributed to subscribers thereto, (ii) a person who furnishes only statistical and other factual information, advice regarding economic factors and trends, or advice as to occasional transactions in specific securities, but without generally furnishing advice or making recommendations regarding the purchase or sale of securities, (iii) a company furnishing such services at cost to one or more investment companies, insurance companies, or other financial institutions, (iv) any person the character and amount of whose compensation for such services must be approved by a court, or (v) such other persons as the Commission may by rules and regulations or order determine not to be within the intent of this definition.” 15 U. S. C. § 80a-2 (20).
1 T. Frankel, The Regulation of Money Managers, I-A, § 2, p. 6 (1978).
Id., at I-B, § 4, pp. 9-10; see Wharton School Study of Mutual Funds, H. R. Rep. No. 2274, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 467-477 (1962) (hereinafter Wharton School Study); Burks v. Lasker, 441 U. S. 471, 480-481 (1979).
Securities and Exchange Commission Report on the Public Policy Implications of Investment Company Growth, H. R. Rep. No. 2337, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 8 (1966).
12 CFR §225.125 (c) (1980).
Hearings on S. 3580 before a Senate Subcommittee on Banking and Currency, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 43 (1940) (hereinafter 1940 Senate Hearings) (statement of Robert E. Healy). As the SEC Report on the Public Policy Implications of Investment Company Growth recognized with respect to open-end funds:
“Since there will always be some shareholders who want to sell, an open-end company must comply with continuous demands for cash from selling stockholders. To offset the resulting cash outflow and because of the strong incentives for growth created by the structure of the industry, the managers of virtually all open-end companies vigorously promote sales of new shares at all times.” H. R. Rep. No. 2337, supra, at 42-43.
Id., at 42.
The ruling would apparently permit a bank holding company to provide investment advice to an open-end investment company if the holding company does not have the authority to make investment decisions or otherwise to control investments of such an advisee. Respondent has not specifically challenged the legality of a relationship that is purely advisory in character.
“(f) In the Board’s opinion, the Glass-Steagall Act provisions, as interpreted by the U. S. Supreme Court, forbid a bank holding company to sponsor, organize or control a mutual fund. However, the Board does not believe that such restrictions apply to closed-end investment companies as long as such companies are not primarily or frequently engaged in the issuance, sale and distribution of securities.” 12 CFR § 225.125 (f) (1980).
Pertinent parts of the interpretive ruling read as follows:
“In no case, however, should a bank holding company act as investment adviser to an investment company which has a name that is similar to, or a variation of, the name of the holding company or any of its subsidiary banks.
“(g) In view of the potential conflicts of interests that may exist, a bank holding company and its bank and nonbank subsidiaries should not (1) purchase for their own account securities of any investment company for which the bank holding company acts as investment adviser; (2) purchase in their sole discretion, any such securities in a fiduciary capacity (including as managing agent); (3) extend credit to any such investment company; or (4) accept the securities of any such investment company as collateral for a loan which is for the purpose of purchasing securities of the investment company.
“ (h) A bank holding company should not engage, directly or indirectly, in the sale or distribution of securities of any investment company for which it acts as investment adviser. Prospectuses or sales literature should not be distributed by the holding company, nor should any literature be made available to the public at any offices of the holding company. In addition, officers and employees of bank subsidiaries should be instructed not to express any opinion with respect to advisability of purchase of securities of any investment company for which the bank holding company acts as investment adviser. Customers of banks in a bank holding company system who request information on an unsolicited basis regarding any investment company for which the bank holding company acts as investment adviser may be furnished the name and address of the fund and its underwriter or distributing company, but the names of bank customers should not be furnished by the bank holding company to the fund or its distributor. Further, a bank holding company should not act as investment adviser to a mutual fund which has offices in any building which is likely to be identified in the public’s mind with the bank holding company.” 12 CFR §§225.125 (f), (g), (h) (1980).
The stated purpose of the 1933 Act was “[t]o provide for the safer and more effective use of the assets of banks, to regulate interbank control, to prevent the undue diversion of funds into speculative operations, and for other purposes.” 48 Stat. 162.
Section 16, as originally enacted, provided in pertinent part:
“The business of dealing in investment securities by [a national bank] shall be limited to purchasing and selling such securities without recourse, solely upon the order, and for the account of, customers, and in no case for its own account, and [a national bank] shall not underwrite any issue of securities: Provided, That [a national bank] may purchase for its own account investment securities under such limitations and restrictions as the Comptroller of the Currency may by regulation prescribe 48 Stat. 184.
Section 16, as amended, is now codified at 12 U. S. C. § 24 (Seventh).
Section 21, provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful
“[f]or any person, firm, corporation, association, business trust, or other similar organization, engaged in the business of issuing, underwriting, selling, or distributing, at wholesale or retail, or through syndicate participation, stocks, bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities, to engage at the same time to any extent whatever in the business of receiving deposits subject to check or to repayment upon presentation of a passbook,, certificate of deposit, or other evidence of debt, or upon request of the depositor...." 48 Stat. 189, 12 U. S. C. § 378.
A memorandum submitted to the Board on behalf of the American Bankers Association states, in part: “For well over a century, banks and trust companies in every state have managed and administered customers’ investment funds in the form of trusts, estates and agency accounts.” App. 20. The accuracy of that statement is not challenged.
See Securities Exchange Commission Institutional Investor Study Report Summary, H. R. Doc. No. 92-64, pt. 8, pp. 34-35 (1971).
As we recognized in Investment Company Institute v. Camp, 401 ü. S. 617 (1971):
“National banks were granted trust powers in 1913. Federal Reserve Act, § 11, 38 Stat. 261. The first common trust fund was organized in 1927, and such funds were expressly authorized by the Federal Reserve Board by Regulation F promulgated in 1937. Report on Commingled or Common Trust Funds Administered by Banks and Trust Companies, H. R. Doe. No. 476, 76th Cong., 2d Sess., 4r-5 (1939). For at least a generation, therefore, there has been no reason to doubt that a national bank can, consistently with the banking laws, commingle trust funds on the one hand, and act as a managing agent on the other. No provision of the banking law suggests that it is improper for a national bank to pool trust assets, or to act as a managing agent for individual customers, or to purchase stock for the account of its customers.” Id., at 624^625.
See also Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 307-308 (1950).
See 15 U. S. C. § 80a-3 (c) (3). As David Schenker, an attorney for the SEC, explained at the 1940 Senate Hearings: “We have exempted any common trust fund.... Those common trust funds are a sort of investment trust in which trustees can participate, and they are managed by banks and trust companies.” 1940 Senate Hearings, at 181.
The normal reading of the language of § 4 (c) (8) takes on additional significance in light of the fact, recognized by the Court of Appeals, that the legislative history of the section provides no real guidance as to the scope of the1 exception contained therein. 196 U. S. App.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for further consideration in light of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Clark dissent for the reason that the judgment rests on an adequate state ground.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner’s husband, Frank J. Gondeck, was killed as a result of a jeep accident on San Salvador Island outside a defense base at which he was employed. The accident took place in the evening as Gondeck and four others were returning from a nearby town. The Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation, United States Department of Labor, awarded death benefits to petitioner in accordance with the terms of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq. (1958 ed.), as extended by the Defense Base Act, 55 Stat. 622, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1651 et seq. (1958 ed.). In support of the award, the Deputy Commissioner found, among other things, that, although Gondeck had completed his day’s work, he was subject to call for emergencies while off duty and was returning from reasonable recreation when the accident occurred. The District Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s order, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. United States v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 299 F. 2d 74. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Gondeck was subject to call, id., at 75, but found no benefit to the employer in Gondeck’s trip, and “no evidence that furnishes a link by which the activity in which Gondeck was engaged was related to his employment.” Id., at 77.
On June 11, 1962, we denied certiorari. 370 U. S. 918. On October 8, 1962, we denied a petition for rehearing. 371 U. S. 856. We are now apprised, however, of “intervening circumstances of substantial . . . effect,” justifying application of the established doctrine that “the interest in finality of litigation must yield where the interests of justice would make unfair the strict application of our rules.” United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U. S. 98,99. Subsequent to our orders in the present case, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld an award to the survivors of another employee killed in the same accident. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. O’Hearne, 335 F. 2d 70. In upholding the award, the court cited our decision in O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U. S. 504. In a subsequent case the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit itself expressed doubt whether its decision in the present case had been consistent with Brown-Pacific-Maxon. O’Keeffe v. Pan American World Airways, 338 F. 2d 319, 325. The court also noted that, “The Gondeck case stands alone, except for a per curiam opinion.” Id., at 325. This Court reversed that per curiam judgment last Term, O’Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc., 380 U. S. 359, so that the present case now stands completely alone.
In O’Keeffe we made clear that the determinations of the Deputy Commissioner are subject only to limited judicial review, and we reaffirmed the Brown-Pacific-Maxon holding that the Deputy Commissioner need not find a causal relation between the nature of the victim’s employment and the accident, nor that the victim was engaged in activity of benefit to the employer at the time of his injury or death. No more is required than that the obligations or conditions of employment create the “zone of special danger” out of which the injury or death arose. Since the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit misinterpreted the Brown-Pacific-Maxon standard in this case, and since, of those eligible for compensation from the accident, this petitioner stands alone in not receiving it, “the interests of justice would make unfair the strict application of our rules.” United States v. Ohio Power Co., supra, at 99.
We therefore grant the motion for leave to file the petition for rehearing, grant the petition for rehearing, vacate the order denying certiorari, grant the petition for certio-rari, and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Clark,
joining in the judgment.
I fully agree with my Brother Harlan “that litigation must at some point come to an end” and “that this decision holds seeds of mischief for the future orderly administration of justice . . . .” But with Cahill v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 351 U. S. 183 (1956), on our books, no other conclusion can be reached.
Up until Cahill I thought that successive petitions for rehearing would not be received by the Court under its Rule 58 (4). This rule took the place of the old “end of Term” rule of Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410, 415 (1882), abolished by the Congress in 1948, 28 U. S. C. § 452 (1958 ed.). Indeed, I doubted that the Court had the power to grant a successive petition for rehearing under a factual situation, as here, where a petition for certiorari had been denied over three years ago, 370 U. S. 918 (1962); a petition for rehearing had been denied, 371 U. S. 856 (1962); the mandate had issued more than three years before; and where petitioner had, about the same date, cancelled her appeal bond and been discharged of all liability thereunder. In Cahill, however, the Court through the device of a “motion to recall and amend the judgment” permitted a successive petition not only to be received but granted, despite the fact that the judgment thereby reopened had been previously paid. This paved the way for the grant of a successive petition for rehearing in United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U. S. 98 (1957), to make its judgment conform with this Court’s decision that same Term in United States v. Allen-Bradley Co., 352 U. S. 306 (1957), a companion case of Ohio Power in the Court of Claims.
The vice, of course, is the granting of successive petitions for rehearing in violation of Rule 58 (4), which was done for the first time in Cahill. It makes no difference that the rejection of finality be to correct alleged errors of our own or those below. Nor does it matter that the errors be corrected in the same Term, as in Cahill, or four Terms later, as here. In each instance the action violates Rule 58 (4) and that is the basis of my position.
I, too, as my Brother Harlan said in Ohio Power, “can think of nothing more unsettling to lawyers and litigants, and more disturbing to their confidence in the evenhand-edness of the Court’s processes, than to be left in . . . uncertainty ... as to when their cases may be considered finally closed in this Court.” At p. Ill (dissenting opinion). However, Cahill opened up this practice. It may be that Ohio Power and the present case are more objectionable on their facts, but they merely condone Cahill’s original vice. Until we can gain the vote of the majority to the contrary we are stuck with the practice. The outlook for this appears dim. We can only hope that this rule of “no finality,” which the Court varnishes with the charms of reason, will be sparingly used, or overruled by Congress, as was the “end of Term” rule. I, therefore, join in the judgment of the Court.
U. S. Supreme Ct. Rule 58 (2).
“Consecutive petitions for rehearings, and petitions for rehearing that are out of time under this rule, will not be received.”
Mr. Justice Black, joined by The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas and myself, dissented.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the regulation by the State of Kansas of the price of natural gas sold at wellhead in the intrastate market. It presents a federal Contract Clause issue and a statutory issue.
I
On September 27, 1975, The Kansas Power & Light Company (KPL), a public utility and appellee here, entered into two intrastate natural gas supply contracts with Clinton Oil Company, the predecessor-in-interest of appellant Energy Reserves Group, Inc. (ERG). Under the first contract, KPL agrees to purchase gas directly at the wellhead on the Spivey-Grabs Field in Kingman and Harper Counties in southern Kansas. The second contract obligates KPL to purchase from the same field residue gas, that is, gas remaining after certain recovery and processing steps are completed. The original contract price was $1.50 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) of gas. The contracts continue in effect for the life of the field or for the life of the processing plants associated with the field.
A
Each contract contains two clauses known generically as indefinite price escalators. The first is a governmental price escalator clause; this provides that if a governmental authority fixes a price for any natural gas that is higher than the price specified in the contract, the contract price shall be increased to that level. The second is a price redetermination clause; this gives ERG the option to have the contract price redetermined no more than once every two years. The new price is then set by averaging the prices being paid under three other gas contracts chosen by the parties.
When the price is increased pursuant to either of these clauses, each contract requires KPL to seek from the Kansas Corporation Commission (Commission) approval to pass the increase through to consumers. App. to Juris. Statement 69a. The application for approval is to be submitted within 5 days after a price increase resulting from governmental action, or no fewer than 60 days before a price redetermination increase is to become effective. Ibid. If the Commission refuses to permit the pass-through and KPL elects not to pay the increase, ERG has the option to terminate the agreement on 30 days’ written notice.
Each contract states that the purpose of the price escalator clauses is “solely” to compensate ERG for “anticipated” increases in its operating costs and in the value of its gas. Id., at 70a. Each contract also provides: “Neither party shall be held in default for failure to perform hereunder if such failure is due to compliance with,” ibid., any “relevant present and future state and federal laws.” Id., at 69a.
In 1977, ERG invoked the price redetermination clause, and the parties agreed on a price of $1.77 per Mcf, effective November 27 of that year. The Commission approved the pass-through of this increase to consumers. KPL paid the new price through 1978.
B
On December 1, 1978, the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (Act), Pub. L. 95-621, 92 Stat. 3350, 15 U. S. C. §3301 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. V), designed in principal part to encourage increased natural gas production, became effective. The Act replaced the federal price controls that had been established under the Natural Gas Act, ch. 556, 52 Stat. 821, with price ceilings that rise monthly based on “an inflation adjustment factor” and other considerations. Different ceilings are set for different types of gas. Section 102 of the Act, 15 U. S. C. §3312 (1976 ed., Supp. V), sets a gradually increasing ceiling price for newly discovered or newly produced natural gas. The December 1978 ceiling price under § 102 was $2,078 per million British thermal units. Section 104 sets ceiling prices for “old” interstate gas, that is, gas from already discovered and producing wells. Section 109 sets another ceiling price for categories of natural gas not covered by the other sections of the Act. As of December 1978, the § 109 ceiling price was $1.63 per million Btu’s.
In another departure from the 1938 Natural Gas Act, the new Act extended federal price regulation to the intrastate gas market. See S. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1126, pp. 67-68 (1978); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1752, pp. 67-68 (1978). Section 105 of the Act establishes the rule for applying price ceilings to intrastate gas, described as gas not committed to interstate commerce on November 8, 1978. It provides, in its subsection (b)(1), that the maximum lawful price of such gas “shall be the lower of... the price under the terms of the existing contract, to which such natural gas was subject on [November 9, 1978],... or... the maximum lawful price... computed for such month under section 102 (relating to new natural gas).” The parties agree that § 105(b)(1) governs these contracts.
The Act, by § 602(a), also permits a State “to establish or enforce any maximum lawful price for the first sale of natural gas produced in such State which does not exceed the applicable maximum lawful price, if any, under title I of this Act.”
C
In direct response to the Act, the Kansas Legislature promptly imposed price controls on the intrastate gas market. In May 1979, the Kansas Natural Gas Price Protection Act (Kansas Act), 1979 Kan. Sess. Laws, ch. 171, codified as Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 55 — 1401 to 55-1415 (Supp. 1982), was enacted. The Kansas Act applies only to natural gas contracts executed before April 20, 1977, § 55-1403, and controls natural gas prices until December 31, 1984, § 55-1411. Section 55-1404 prohibits consideration either of ceiling prices set by federal authorities or of prices paid in Kansas under other contracts in the application of governmental price escalator clauses and price redetermination clauses. Section 55-1405 of the Kansas Act, however, permits indefinite price escalator clauses to operate after March 1, 1979, to raise the price of old intrastate gas up to the federal Act’s § 109 ceiling price. Section §55-1406 exempts new gas and gas from stripper wells.
D
On November 20, 1978, ERG and other gas suppliers having similar contracts with KPL notified KPL that gas prices would be escalated to the § 102 price on December 1, pursuant to the governmental price escalator clause. KPL sought pass-through approval from the Commission for this increase by an application filed December 7, one day too late to satisfy the 5-day contractual requirement. KPL never elected to pay the higher price.
On June 5, 1979, ERG notified KPL that it would terminate the contracts within 30 days because KPL had failed to apply to the Commission for pass-through authority within five days of December 1, 1978, had failed to obtain Commission approval, and had failed to pay the increased price ERG contends was required by the governmental price escalator clause. KPL’s response was that the clause was not triggered by the Act and that the Kansas Act prohibited its activation. ERG then filed an action in the District Court of Harper County, Kan., praying for a declaratory judgment that it had the contractual right to terminate the contracts.
On July 24, in light of KPL’s refusal to terminate, ERG requested an increase up to the Act’s § 102 ceiling price under the price redetermination clause. The increase was to be effective in November 1979, the next redetermination date possible under the contracts. KPL conceded that the price redetermination clause permitted such an increase, but contended that § 55-1404 of the Kansas Act had extinguished the utility’s obligation to comply with that clause. ERG then filed an amended complaint, alleging that it was entitled to terminate the contracts because of KPL’s refusal to redetermine the price. KPL counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that the contracts were still in effect.
On the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the state trial court held that the Act’s imposition of price ceilings on intrastate gas did not trigger the governmental escalator clause. It also found that the Kansas Act did not violate the Contract Clause, reasoning that Kansas has a legitimate interest in addressing and controlling the serious economic dislocations that the sudden increase in gas prices would cause, and that the Kansas Act reasonably furthered that interest. App. to Juris. Statement 25a, 42a, 45a. The Supreme Court of Kansas, by unanimous vote, affirmed. 230 Kan. 176, 630 P. 2d 1142 (1981). We noted probable jurisdiction. 456 U. S. 904 (1982).
HH t — 1
ERG raises both statutory and constitutional issues in challenging the ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court. The constitutional issue is whether the Kansas Act impairs ERG’s contracts with KPL in violation of the Contract Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §10, cl. I. The statutory issue is whether the federal enactment of §105 triggered the governmental price escalator clause. As to the latter issue, if § 105’s enactment did have that effect, ERG was entitled to a price increase on December 1,1978. If not, ERG could rely only on the price redetermination clause for any increase. That clause could not be exercised until November 1979. The statutory issue thus controls the timing of any increase. The constitutional issue, on the other hand, affects the price that ERG may claim under either clause. If ERG prevails, the price may be escalated to the § 102 ceiling; if ERG does not prevail, the price may be escalated only to the § 109 ceiling. We consider the Contract Clause issue first.
A
Although the language of the Contract Clause, is facially absolute, its prohibition must be accommodated to the inherent police power of the State “to safeguard the vital interests of its people.” Home Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 434 (1934). In Blaisdell, the Court approved a Minnesota mortgage moratorium statute, even though the statute retroactively impaired contract rights. The Court balanced the language of the Contract Clause against the State’s interest in exercising its police power, and concluded that the statute was justified.
The Court in two recent cases has addressed Contract Clause claims. In United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U. S. 1 (1977), the Court held that New Jersey could not retroactively alter a statutory bond covenant relied upon by bond purchasers. One year later, in Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U. S. 234 (1978), the Court invalidated a Minnesota statute that required an employer who closed its office in the State to pay a “pension funding charge” if its pension fund at the time was insufficient to provide full benefits for all employees with at least 10 years’ seniority. Although the legal issues and facts in these two cases differ in certain ways, they clarify the appropriate Contract Clause standard.
The threshold inquiry is “whether the state law has, in fact, operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship.” Allied Structural Steel Co., 438 U. S., at 244. See United States Trust Co., 431 U. S., at 17. The severity of the impairment is said to increase the level of scrutiny to which the legislation will be subjected. Allied Structural Steel Co., 438 U. S., at 245. Total destruction of contractual expectations is not necessary for a finding of substantial impairment. United States Trust Co., 431 U. S., at 26-27. On the other hand, state regulation that restricts a party to gains it reasonably expected from the contract does not necessarily constitute a substantial impairment. Id., at 31, citing El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U. S. 497, 515 (1965). In determining the extent of the impairment, we are to consider whether the industry the complaining party has entered has been regulated in the past. Allied Structural Steel Co., 438 U. S., at 242, n. 13, citing Veix v. Sixth Ward Bldg. & Loan Assn., 310 U. S. 32, 38 (1940) (“When he purchased into an enterprise already regulated in the particular to which he now objects, he purchased subject to further legislation upon the same topic”). The Court, long ago observed: “One whose rights, such as they are, are subject to state restriction, cannot remove them from the power of the State by making a contract about them.” Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 357 (1908).
If the state regulation constitutes a substantial impairment, the State, in justification, must have a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation, United States Trust Co., 431 U. S., at 22, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem. Allied Structural Steel Co., 438 U. S., at 247, 249. Furthermore, since Blaisdell, the Court has indicated that the public purpose need not be addressed to an emergency or temporary situation. United States Trust Co., 431 U. S., at 22, n. 19; Veix v. Sixth Ward Bldg. & Loan Assn., 310 U. S., at 39-40. One legitimate state interest is the elimination of unforeseen windfall profits. United States Trust Co., 431 U. S., at 31, n. 30. The requirement of a legitimate public purpose guarantees that the State is exercising its police power, rather than providing a benefit to special interests.
Once a legitimate public purpose has been identified, the next inquiry is whether the adjustment of “the rights and responsibilities of contracting parties [is based] upon reasonable conditions and [is] of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying [the legislation’s] adoption.” United States Trust Co., 431 U. S., at 22. Unless the State itself is a contracting party, see id., at 23, “[a]s is customary in reviewing economic and social regulation,... courts properly defer to legislative judgment as to the necessity and reasonableness of a particular measure.” Id., at 22-23.
B
The threshold determination is whether the Kansas Act has impaired substantially ERG’s contractual rights. Significant here is the fact that the parties are operating in a heavily regulated industry. See Veix v. Sixth Ward Bldg. & Loan Assn., 310 U. S., at 38. State authority to regulate natural gas prices is well established. See Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co., 340 U. S. 179 (1950). At the time of the execution of these contracts, Kansas did not regulate natural gas prices specifically, but its supervision of the industry was extensive and intrusive. Moreover, under the authority of §5(a) of the 1938 Natural Gas Act, the Federal Power Commission (FPC) set “just and reasonable” rates for prices of gas both at the wellhead and in pipelines. Although prices in the intrastate market have diverged somewhat from those in the interstate market due to the recent shortage of natural gas, the regulation of interstate prices effectively limits intrastate price increases.
It is in this context that the indefinite escalator clauses at issue here are to be viewed. In drafting each of the contracts, the parties included a statement of intent, which made clear that the escalator clause was designed to guarantee price increases consistent with anticipated increases in the value of ERG’s gas. App. to Juris. Statement 70a. While it is not entirely inconceivable that ERG in September 1975 anticipated the deregulation of gas prices introduced by the Act in 1978, we think this is highly unlikely, and we read the statement of intent to refer to nothing more than changes in value resulting from changes in the federal regulator’s “just and reasonable” rates. In exchange for these anticipated increases, KPL agreed to accept gas from the Spivey-Grabs field for the lifetime of that field. Thus, at the time of the execution of the contracts, ERG did not expect to receive deregulated prices. The very existence of the governmental price escalator clause and the price redetermination clause indicates that the contracts were structured against the background of regulated gas prices. If deregulation had not occurred, the contracts undoubtedly would have called for a much smaller price increase than that provided by the Kansas Act’s adoption of the § 109 ceiling.
Moreover, the contracts expressly recognize the existence of extensive regulation by providing that any contractual terms are subject to relevant present and future state and federal law. This latter provision could be interpreted to incorporate all future state price regulation, and thus dispose of the Contract Clause claim. Regardless of whether this interpretation is correct, the provision does suggest that ERG knew its contractual rights were subject to alteration by state price regulation. Price regulation existed and was foreseeable as the type of law that would alter contract obligations. Reading the Contract Clause as ERG does would mean that indefinite price escalator clauses could exempt ERG from any regulatory limitation of prices whatsoever. Such a result cannot be permitted. Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S., at 357. In short, ERG’s reasonable expectations have not been impaired by the Kansas Act. See El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U. S., at 515.
C
To the extent, if any, the Kansas Act impairs ERG’s contractual interests, the Kansas Act rests on, and is prompted by, significant and legitimate state interests. Kansas has exercised its police power to protect consumers from the escalation of natural gas prices caused by deregulation. The State reasonably could find that higher gas prices have caused and will cause hardship among those who use gas heat but must exist on limited fixed incomes.
The State also has a legitimate interest in correcting the imbalance between the interstate and intrastate markets by permitting intrastate prices to rise only to the § 109 level. By slowly deregulating interstate prices, the Act took the cap off intrastate prices as well. The Kansas Act attempts to coordinate the intrastate and interstate prices by supplementing the federal Act’s regulation of intrastate gas. Congress specifically contemplated such action:
“The conference agreement provides that nothing in this Act shall affect the authority of any State to establish or enforce any maximum lawful price for sales of gas in intrastate commerce which does not exceed the applicable maximum lawful price, if any, under Title I of this Act. This authority extends to the operation of any indefinite price escalator clause.” S. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1126, pp. 124-125 (1978); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1752, pp. 124-125 (1978).
There can be little doubt about the legitimate public purpose behind the Act.
Nor are the means chosen to implement these purposes deficient, particularly in light of the deference to which the Kansas Legislature’s judgment is entitled. On the surface, the State’s Act seems limited to altering indefinite price escalation clauses of intrastate contracts that affect less than 10% of the natural gas consumed in Kansas. Tr. of Oral Arg. 16. To analyze properly the Kansas Act’s effect, however, we must consider the entire state and federal gas price regulatory structure. Only natural gas subject to indefinite price escalator clauses poses the danger of rapidly increasing prices in Kansas. Gas under contracts with fixed escalator clauses and interstate gas purchased by the utilities subject to § 109 would not escalate as would intrastate gas subject to indefinite price escalator clauses. The Kansas Act simply brings the latter category into line with old interstate gas prices by limiting the operation of the indefinite price escalator clauses.
The Kansas Act also rationally exempts the types of new gas the production of which Congress sought to encourage through the higher § 102 prices. Finally, the Act is a temporary measure that expires when federal price regulation of certain categories of gas terminates. The Kansas statute completes the regulation of the gas market by imposing gradual escalation mechanisms on the intrastate market, consistent with the new national policy toward gas regulation.
We thus resolve the constitutional issue against ERG.
rH HH I — I
We turn to ERG’s statutory contention that the Kansas courts misconstrued § 105 as fixing the contract price at the November 9,1978, level. While, on this point, the opinion of the Kansas Supreme Court is not entirely clear to us, it does not appear so to construe § 105. And KPL, in fact, does not contend that it did. Instead, the court recognized that § 105 permits the indefinite price escalator clauses to continue to operate to raise the contract price up to the lawful ceiling. See Pennzoil Co. v. FERC, 645 F. 2d 360, 379 (CA5 1981) (“[T]he NGPA does not preclude escalation of area rate clauses [a type of indefinite price escalators] to NGPA prices”), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 1142 (1982).
The actual point of dispute is whether the governmental price escalator clauses in these contracts were triggered by the enactment of §105. The Kansas Supreme Court acknowledged that the Act could trigger a governmental price escalator clause. 230 Kan., at 184, 630 P. 2d, at 1149. In this case, however, it held that “[t]he NGPA did not trigger a price increase because the contracts herein did not contain a sufficient escalation mechanism.” Id., at 185, 630 P. 2d, at 1150. We agree that, as a matter of federal statutory interpretation, the Act does not trigger such clauses automatically. See 44 Fed. Reg. 16895, 16904 (1979). Section 105(b)(1) provides that the ceiling price shall be the lower of the § 102 price and “the price under the terms of the existing contract, to which such natural gas was subject on [November 9, 1978], as such contract was in effect on such date.” By this language, Congress set a ceiling for the operation of contractual provisions; it did not prescribe a price:
“[T]he price under the contract may escalate through the operation of both fixed price escalator clauses and indefinite price escalator clauses in existence as of the date of enactment, but the price may not exceed the new gas price [provided by § 102].
“... The conferees do not intend that the mere establishment of the ceiling prices under this Act shall trigger indefinite price escalator clauses in existing intrastate contracts.” S. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1126, pp. 82-83 (1978); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1752, pp. 82-83 (1978).
See Pennzoil Co. v. FERC, 645 F. 2d, at 379.
The Kansas Supreme Court relied on its prior decision in Mesa Petroleum Co. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 229 Kan. 631, 629 P. 2d 190, clarified, 230 Kan. 166, 630 P. 2d 1129 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 928 (1982), which interpreted the effect of § 105 on a similar contract provision. In that decision, it read § 105 to set the lawful ceiling at the lower price provided by the contract. In light of our discussion above, we view this reading of the federal statute as unassailable. The Kansas Supreme Court’s further holding in this case that these particular governmental price escalator clauses were insufficient to escalate the gas price is an interpretation of state law to which, of course, we defer.
HH C
The regulation of energy production and use is a matter of national concern. Congress set out on a new path with the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. In pursuing this path, Congress explicitly envisioned that the States would regulate intrastate markets in accordance with the overall national policy. The Kansas Natural Gas Price Protection Act is one State’s effort to balance the need to provide incentives for the production of gas against the need to protect consumers from hardships brought on by deregulation of a traditionally regulated commodity. We see no constitutional or statutory infirmity in Kansas’ attempt. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Kansas is therefore
Affirmed.
The governmental price escalator provision states:
“If any federal or Kansas regulatory or governmental authority having jurisdiction in the premises shall at any time hereafter fix a price per MCF applicable to any natural gas of any vintage produced in Kansas, higher than the contract price then in effect under this gas contract, the price to he paid for gas thereafter shall be increased to equal such regulated price. In that event, the increased price shall be effective as of the date of action of the governmental or regulatory authority establishing the regulated price, or its effective date, whichever is later....” App. to Juris. Statement 66a.
The price redetermination provision states in relevant part:
“SELLER shall have the option to cause the price being paid for its gas by BUYER to be redetermined every two years, beginning in 1977. The request for a price redetermination shall be given in writing by SELLER to BUYER not later than 120 days prior to the beginning of the Contract Year for which the price redetermination is requested....
“... Within the same one hundred twenty (120) days following SELLER’S request for a price redetermination, the parties shall mutually redetermine the price by considering three (3) contracts under which the highest prices are actually being paid for flowing gas ninety (90) days prior to the date the redetermined price is to be effective. The contracts to be considered shall, (a) have a primary term of one (1) or more years, (b) be for gas produced in Kansas, (c) be for gas purchased by an interstate or intrastate company selling or using an average daily volume of 5,000 MCF or more of gas for the twelve (12) months period ending ninety (90) days prior to the date the redetermined price is to be effective, (d) not be for the purchase of Spivey-Grabs Field gas by BUYER under contracts dated in 1975, (e) not include more than one contract of any one purchaser in any one field, and (f) not be for a price then subject to regulatory suspense or refunds....
“After the BUYER and SELLER have decided on the three contracts and appropriate prices to be used from each one for this redetermination, the weighted average price per MCF being paid under the three contracts shall be calculated. This price shall become the redetermined price to be paid by BUYER to SELLER.” Id., at 67a-68a.
On June 9, 1978, the Commission gave KPL permission to implement a purchased-gas price adjustment. This authorized an automatic pass-through to consumers of wholesale gas cost increases upon written notice to the Commission. The Commission retained authority to review and revoke any pass-through under its normal standards for reviewing rate increases.
In pertinent part, § 105 provides:
“(a) Application. — The maximum lawful price computed under subsection (b) shall apply to any first sale of natural gas delivered during any month in the case of natural gas, sold under any existing contract or any successor to an existing contract, which was not committed or dedicated to interstate commerce on the day before the enactment of this Act.
“(b) Maximum lawful price.—
“(1) General rule. — Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the maximum lawful price under this section shall be the lower of—
“(A) the price under the terms of the existing contract, to which such natural gas was subject on the date of the enactment of this Act [November 9, 1978], as such contract was in effect on such date; or
“(B) the maximum lawful price, per million Btu’s, computed for such month under section 102 (relating to new natural gas).”
Section 105(b)(2) applies to contracts under which the price of gas on November 9, 1978, exceeded the § 102 price.
ERG asserts that the Kansas Act is special interest legislation designed to permit KPL to avoid gas price increases and to aid KPL in this and other litigation. ERG notes that KPL supported the bill, that the Special Joint Committee approved the bill by only a narrow margin, and that several members of the Committee’s minority believed the bill to be special interest legislation. Brief for Appellant 9-12. The bill, however, was supported by the Governor, labor unions, farmers, and municipal representatives, and was passed by substantial margins in both Houses of the Kansas Legislature. Although KPL purchases a sizable portion of the gas affected by the Kansas Act, there are other purchasers as well. Moreover, as indicated in n. 3, swpra, KPL already had obtained from the Commission a purchased-gas price adjustment that allowed it to pass through to its customers any gas cost increase.
Section 55-1404 provides, with certain exceptions, that “on or after December 1, 1978, the price allowed to be paid pursuant to federal legislation or any regulation by an agency implementing such legislation, or the price paid or to be paid for any sale of natural gas in the state of Kansas shall not be taken into account in applying any indefinite price escalator clause contained in any gas purchase contract subject to this act, to the extent that such contract provides for the sale in the state of Kansas, of gas produced within this state which was not committed or dedicated to interstate commerce on November 8, 1978. This section shall not require a reduction of any price contained in any gas purchase contract subject to this act below the price actually paid prior to the date of enactment of this act.”
The court held that an emergency situation existed because the anticipated sudden escalation of intrastate gas prices threatened to boost dramatically both gas and electricity utility rates. The court suggested that because ERG had not attempted to exercise the price redetermination clause prior to the date of enactment, the Kansas Act was being applied only prospectively. The court concluded, however, that the State’s interest and chosen means could justify a retroactive application. 230 Kan., at 189-190, 630 P. 2d, at 1153.
“No State shall... pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...
If fairly possible, we of course construe a statute so as to avoid a constitutional question. Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740, 749-750 (1961). Because, however, the statutory issue affects only the operation of the governmental price escalator clause, its resolution in no way obviates the need to scrutinize the Kansas Act under the Contract Clause.
The Court listed five factors that were then deemed to be significant in its analysis: whether the Act (1) was an emergency measure; (2) was one to protect a basic societal interest, rather than particular individuals; (3) was tailored appropriately to its purpose; (4) imposed reasonable conditions; and (5) was limited to the duration of the emergency. 290 U. S., at 444-447.
See also Malone v. White Motor Corp., 444 U. S. 911 (1979), summarily aff’g 599 F. 2d 283 (CA8).
In Allied, Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, the Court held that the Minnesota pension law severely impaired established contractual relations between employers and employees. The State had not acted to meet an important general social problem. The pension statute had a very narrow focus: it was aimed at specific employers. Indeed, it even may have been directed at one particular employer planning to terminate its pension plan when its collective-bargaining agreement expired. See 438 U. S., at 247-248, and n. 20.
See generally Note, A Process-Oriented Approach to the Contract Clause, 89 Yale L. J. 1623, 1647-1648 (1980) (distinguishing public from private contracts). In United States Trust Co., but not in Allied Structural Steel Co., the State was one of the contracting parties. When a State itself enters into a contract, it cannot simply walk away from its financial obligations. In almost every case, the Court has held a governmental unit to its contractual obligations when it enters financial or other markets. See United States Trust Co., 431 U. S., at 25-28; W. B. Worthen Co. v. Kavanaugh, 295 U. S. 56 (1935); Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432 (1878). But see Faitoute Iron & Steel Co. v. City of Asbury Park, 316 U. S. 502 (1942). When the State is a party to the contract, “complete deference to a legislative assessment of reasonableness and necessity is not appropriate because the State’s self-interest is at stake.” United States Trust Co., 431 U. S., at 26. In the present case, of course, the stricter standard of United States Trust Co. does not apply because Kansas has not altered its own contractual obligations.
In addition to the Kansas and federal regulations, 38 States regulate various aspects of gas production and sale. See Interstate Oil Compact Commission, Summary of State Statutes and Regulations for Oil and Gas Production (1979).
For some time, the Court has recognized the validity of state regulation of the production and sale of natural gas in furtherance of conservation goals. See Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, 177 U. S. 190, 210 (1900); see also 5 E. Kuntz, Law of Oil and Gas § 70.2, p. 307 (1978); cf. Henderson Co. v. Thompson, 300 U. S. 258, 266 (1937) (state statute retrospectively regulating the contractual sale of natural gas containing different amounts of hydrogen sulfide does not violate Contract Clause of Texas Constitution). On several occasions, the Court has approved state price regulation of natural gas that did not interfere with interstate commerce. See, e. g., Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Oklahoma, 340 U. S. 190 (1950); Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co., 340 U. S. 179 (1950); Pennsylvania Gas Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 252 U. S. 23 (1920); 5 E. Kuntz, supra, § 75.2, p. 371.
Kansas in the past has regulated the wellhead price of natural gas. See Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm’n, 355 U. S. 391 (1958), rev’g 180 Kan. 454, 304 P. 2d 528 (1956). Although this Court struck down the Commission’s earlier attempt to set a wellhead price, it apparently did so because the price regulation extended to gas in interstate commerce. See 355 U. S., at 392, citing Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672 (1954), and Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Panoma Corp., 349 U. S. 44 (1955); see n. 16, supra. The instant case does not raise a Commerce Clause issue because the parties agree that the gas is not in interstate commerce and because Congress, by
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Despite the seemingly complex factual composition of the two cases consolidated herein, this opinion deals with a relatively simple question of taxation: The extent to which a taxpayer may deduct, through amortization under the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the premium he has paid in purchasing corporate bonds. In 1953, prior to December 1, the petitioners purchased fully taxable utility bonds at a premium above maturity value. The bonds were callable at the option of the issuer at either a general or special call price, and at either price they were callable upon 30 days’ notice. The term “general call price” is used to designate the price at which the issuer may freely and unconditionally redeem all or any portion of the outstanding bonds from its general funds. The lower, “special call price,” is the amount the issuer would pay if the bonds were redeemed with cash from certain specially designated funds.
In computing net income, the 1939 Code permits a taxpayer to deduct, through amortization, the premium he has paid in purchasing corporate bonds. Section 125 of the Code, set forth in pertinent part in the margin, provides that the amount of bond premium to be amortized “shall be determined . . . with reference to the amount payable on maturity or on earlier call date.” Pursuant to this Section, the petitioners elected to claim on their 1953 income tax returns a deduction for bond premium amortization computed with reference to the special redemption price and to the 30-day redemption period appearing in the bond indentures. The respondent did not question the petitioners’ use of the 30-day amortization period, but he disallowed the computation based upon the special redemption price and recomputed the amount of bond premium using the higher, general call price. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s orders sustaining the Commissioner’s deficiency determination. 289 F. 2d 69. However, in eases presenting the identical legal issue, the Courts of Appeals for the Third (Evans v. Dudley, 295 F. 2d 713) and Sixth (United States v. Parnell, 272 F. 2d 943, affirming 187 F. Supp. 576) Circuits allowed amortization taken with reference to the special redemption prices. To resolve this conflict, we granted certiorari. 368 U. S. 812.
Bond premium is the amount a purchaser pays in buying a bond that exceeds the face or call value of the bond. When a bond sells at a premium, it is generally because the interest it bears exceeds the rate of return on similar securities in the current market. For the right to receive this higher interest rate the purchaser of a bond pays a premium price when making the investment. However, interest is taxable to the recipient, and when a premium has been paid the actual interest received is not a true reflection of the bond’s yield, but represents in part a return of the premium paid. It was to give effect to this principle that Congress in 1942 enacted Section 125 of the 1939 Code, which for the first time provided for amortization of bond premium for tax purposes.
By providing that amortization could be taken with reference to the “amount payable on maturity or on earlier call date” (emphasis added), Congress recognized that bonds are generally subject to redemption by the issuer prior to their maturity. In electing to allow amortization with reference to the period the bonds might actually be outstanding, Congress, through the words to which we have lent emphasis, provided that a bondholder could amortize bond premium with reference to any date named in the indenture at which the bond might be called.
A bond indenture might contain any number of possible call dates, but we need only to be concerned in this case with the issuer’s right to call the bonds on 30 days’ notice at either a general or special call price. Unquestionably, both general and special redemption provisions have a legitimate, though distinct, business purpose, and both were in widespread use well before the enactment of Section 125. The general call price is employed when the issuer finds that the current rate of interest on marketable securities is substantially lower than what it is paying on an outstanding issue. The issuer may then call the bonds at the general price and, following redemption, may refinance the obligation at the lower, prevailing rate of interest. In contrast, the provision for special funds from which bonds may be redeemed at the special call price, serves an entirely different purpose. Bond indentures normally require the issuer to protect the underlying security of the bonds by maintaining the mortgaged property and by insuring that its value is not impaired. This is done, first, through the maintenance of a special sinking fund, to which the issuer is obligated to make periodic payments, and, secondly, through the maintenance of other special funds, to which are added the proceeds from a sale or destruction of mortgaged property, or from its loss through a taking by eminent domain. Although the issuer normally reserves an alternative to maintaining these special funds with cash, circumstances may dictate that the only attractive option from a business standpoint is the payment of cash and, to prevent the accumulation of this idle money, the indenture provides that the issuer may use it to redeem outstanding bonds at a special call price. It is evident that just as prevailing market conditions may render redemption at the special call price unlikely at a given time, the same or different market conditions may also cause redemption at the general call price equally unlikely, particularly in an expanding industry such as utilities. During the period the petitioners held their bonds, none were called at either price, but the risk incurred that they would be called was present with equal force as to both the general and special call provisions. The market for bonds reflects that risk, and the Section of the Code we are asked to interpret takes cognizance of that market reality.
Turning to the specific problem in the instant case, we are asked to determine whether the special price at which the bonds may be redeemed by the issuer from the limited sinking fund account and from the other special funds made available upon the occurrence of certain contingent events (see note 3, supra) is an “amount payable ... on earlier call date” within the meaning of Section 125. For the reasons stated below, we answer this question affirmatively and hold that there is no basis either in the statute, in the legislative history, or in the respondent’s own prior interpretations of the statute, for a distinction between reference to a general or special call price in computing amortizable bond premiums under the 1939 Code.
First, we note that the Government has made certain important concessions which lighten considerably the task before us. It does not question the right of the petitioners to amortize bond premium with reference to the 30-day call period, nor does it question amortization to the general call price. In addition, in requesting a rule which will apply to the “generality of cases/’ it professes to have abandoned its argument below which became the rationale of the Second Circuit in holding against the taxpayers, that the statute calls for an analysis into the “likelihood of redemption” before amortization at a special call price will be permitted. Moreover, the Government does not contend that the transactions entered into by the petitioners were a sham without any business purpose except to gain a tax advantage. Rather, the Government’s position in this Court is that before an “earlier call date” is established with reference to the special call price, the taxpayer must show that “there is an ascertainable date on which the issuer will become entitled to redeem [a particular] bond at its option.” The Government asserts that it is not enough that the issuer has the right to call some bonds at the special redemption price. Rather, “[i]t must have the right to call the particular bond for which amortization is claimed, for otherwise that bond has no 'earlier call date.’ ” The Government’s primary reason for urging this interpretation of Section 125 is that the statute has created a tax loophole of major dimension that should be closed short of allowing the deduction sought in this case. While this assertion might have been persuasive in securing enactment of the amendments to the statute made subsequent to the time the transactions involved here took place (see discussion, infra), it may not, of course, have any impact upon our interpretation of the statute under review. We are bound by the meaning of the words used by Congress, taken in light of the pertinent legislative history. In neither do we find support for the Government’s interpretation.
This Court was first called upon to construe Section 125 in 1950 in Commissioner v. Korell, 339 U. S. 619. The taxpayer there had purchased bonds at a premium which reflected in large part not a higher yield of interest, but, rather, the attractiveness of the convertible feature of the bonds. The bonds were callable on 30 days’ notice and the taxpayer amortized the premium accordingly. In contesting the deduction thus taken, the Commissioner contended that Section 125, in establishing a deduction for “amortizable bond premium,” did not include premium paid for the conversion privilege. In rejecting this contention, the Court made it clear that Section 125 was not enacted solely to enable a bondholder to amortize “true premium,” but that by “the clear and precise avenue of expression actually adopted by the Congress” (339 U. S., at 625), the legislation was adopted with “no distinctions based upon the inducements for paying the premium.” (Id., at 628.)
The decision in Korell led to congressional re-examination of Section 125, and the enactment of Section 217 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 906), which eliminated amortization of bond premiums attributable to a conversion feature. However, response to the Korell decision was specifically limited to the convertible bond situation; no further change was made in the statute which would reflect on its interpretation in the case before us.
In 1954, in enacting the successor to Section 125, Section 171 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U. S. C., 1958 ed.), Congress again took cognizance of the tax benefit in question, and determined to eliminate the abuses inherent in permitting amortization with reference to 30-day call periods. Thus Congress further narrowed the loophole by providing that the premium on callable bonds could be amortized to the nearest call date only if such date was more than three years from the date of the original issue of the securities. With particular relevance to the Government’s argument in the instant case, it is worthy of note that Congress understood the operation of the statute to the taxpayer’s advantage, but limited correction of the abuses inherent in it to elimination of the quick write-off. The House Report accompanying H. R. 8300, which was to become the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, stated (H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 26):
“Under existing law, a bond premium may be amortized with reference to the amount payable on maturity or on earlier call date, at the election of the taxpayer. In the case of bonds with a very short call feature, such as those providing for call at any time on 30-day notice, the entire premium may be deducted in the year of purchase.
“This provision has given rise to tax-avoidance opportunities. Substantial bond issues have been made subject to a 30-day call, permitting the purchaser to take an immediate deduction for the entire premium against ordinary income. Where the call feature is nominal or inoperative this permits a deduction for an unreal loss, since the market value of the bonds ordinarily remains fairly stable over considerable periods. The bonds may then be resold after 6 months subject to long-term capital gain treatment. The writeoff of premium thus affords a gratuitous tax saving, equivalent to the conversion of a corresponding amount of ordinary income into capital gain. This process may be repeated indefinitely.
“To curb this type of abuse, your committee’s bill provides that the premium on callable bonds may be amortized to the nearest call date only if such date is more than 3 years from the date of original issue of the securities. This provision will apply only to bonds issued after January 22, 1951, and .acquired after January 22,1954” (Emphasis added.)
Not only did Congress fail to make the distinction between general and special call provisions urged by the respondent, but it expressly recognized that deductions could be taken under Section 125 with reference to a call date that was “nominal or inoperative.” It did not remotely imply that a showing of a right to call all or any part of the outstanding bonds was necessary for operation of the statute. Furthermore, the change that it did adopt was to operate prospectively only.
Finally, in 1958, by adoption of Section 13 of the Technical Amendments Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 1610, Congress eliminated entirely the right to amortize to call date, permitting amortization to be taken only over the period to maturity. Again, the legislative change was prospective only and again no distinction was made with respect to general and special call dates or with respect to a right to call all or a part of the outstanding bonds.
Persuasive evidence that we are correct in our interpretation of Section 125, as bolstered by its legislative history and subsequent amendments, may be found in the respondent’s own prior construction of the statute. As is true with the language of the statute itself, the respondent’s regulations contained not the slightest hint of the distinction urged upon us here. The Commissioner defined “earlier call date” in Treas. Reg. 118, § 39.125 (b)-2 (see note 10, supra) as any call date prior to maturity, specified in the bond. The regulations in effect in 1953 give no support to the Government’s present contention that the taxpayer must show an unconditional right in the issuer to call the outstanding bonds at a particular redemption price before amortization with reference to that price would be permitted. Furthermore, although the petitioners are not entitled to rely upon unpublished private rulings which were not issued specifically to them, such rulings do reveal the interpretation put upon the statute by the agency charged with the responsibility of administering the revenue laws. And, because the Commissioner ruled, in letters addressed to taxpayers requesting them, that amortization with reference to a special call price was proper under the statute, we have further evidence that our construction of allowable bond premium amortization is compelled by the language of the statute.
A firmly established principle of statutory interpretation is that “the words of statutes — including revenue acts — should be interpreted where possible in their ordinary, everyday senses.” Crane v. Commissioner, 331 U. S. 1, 6. The statute in issue here, in plain and ordinary language, evidences a clear congressional intent to allow amortization with reference to any call date named in the indenture. Under such circumstances we are not at liberty, notwithstanding the apparent tax-saving windfall bestowed upon taxpayers, to add to or alter the words employed to effect a purpose which does not appear on the face of the statute. Moreover, the legislative history, too, is persuasive evidence that the statute, as it appeared in 1953 when these deductions were taken, allowed the deduction refused these taxpayers. Simply stated, an informed Congress enacted Section 125 with full realization of the existence and operation of special call provisions, but chose not to make any distinction between them and general redemption rights. Neither did the Commissioner. Nevertheless, the Government now urges this Court to do what the legislative branch of the Government failed to do or elected not to do. This, of course, is not within our province.
The judgments are reversed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
We have before us two eases which originated in the Tax Court: Estate of Gourielli v. Commissioner, 33 T. C. 357, and Goldfarb v. Commissioner, 33 T. C. 568. The cases were consolidated on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and one opinion was filed by that court. Estate of Gourielli v. Commissioner, 289 F. 2d 69. Petitioner Hanover Bank is the executor of the estate of Mr. Gourielli, who passed away since the commencement of this action.
The bonds involved in the Gourielli case were Appalachian Electric Power Company, 1981 series, bonds, which decedent and his wife purchased for $117.50 per $100 face value, and which were later sold for $115.50. The bonds in Goldfarb were Arkansas Power & Light Company, 30-year, Eighth Series, bonds, which petitioners purchased at an average price of $110.50 per $100 face amount, and which were later sold at an average price of $105.40. The total purchases in the two cases were $540,000 (Gourielli) and $500,000 (Goldfarb) face amount; the purchase prices were paid in cash in both cases.
In addition to a “sinking fund” into which the indenture required Appalachian to deposit during each annual period an amount (in cash or property additions of an equivalent amount) equal to one percent of the bond issue, the special funds in the case of the Appalachian bonds were: (1) a released property and insurance fund, to which deposits were required only upon a loss by casualty or by a release of mortgaged properties securing the bonds; and (2) a maintenance fund, to which deposits were required only when Appalachian failed to expend a stated percentage of its revenues on maintenance or improvements. The special funds in the case of the Arkansas bonds were made up from the same type contributions as above, plus additions made to an eminent domain fund if and when mortgaged property was taken from the company by eminent domain proceedings.
Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (26 U. S. C., 1952 ed.):
“SEC. 23. DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME.
“In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions:
“(v) [as added by § 126 (a), Revenue Act of 1942, c. 619, 56 Stat. 798] Bond Premium Deduction. — In the case of a bondholder, the deduction for amortizable bond premium provided in section 125.”
This Section was also added by the Revenue Act of 1942, supra, note 4, § 126 (b). Entitled “Amortizable Bond Premium,” it reads in pertinent part as follows:
“(a) GENERAL Rule. — In the case of any bond, as defined in subsection (d), the following rules shall apply to the amortizable bond premium (determined under subsection (b)) on the bond for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 1941:
“(b) AmoRtizable Bond Premium.—
“(1) Amount of bond premium. — For the purposes of paragraph (2.), the amount of bond premium, in the case of the holder of any bond, shall be determined with reference to the amount of the basis (for determining loss on sale or exchange) of such bond, and with reference to the amount payable on maturity or on earlier call date, with adjustments proper to reflect unamortized bond premium with respect to the bond, for the period prior to the date as of which subsection (a) becomes applicable with respect to the taxpayer with respect to such bond.
“(2) Amount amortizable. — The amortizable bond premium of the taxable year shall be the amount of the bond premium attributable to such year.
“(3) Method of determination. — The determinations required under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be made—
“(A) in accordance with the method of amortizing bond premium regularly employed by the holder of the bond, if such method is reasonable;
“(B) in all other cases, in accordance with regulations prescribing reasonable methods of amortizing bond premium, prescribed by the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary.”
At the time of the deduction in Gourielli, the schedule appearing in the Appalachian bond indenture provided that the bonds could be redeemed at a general call price of 105% or a special call price of 102%. The petitioners’ basis was $117.50 (see supra, note 2) and therefore amortization of premium with reference to the two prices would result in a deduction of $64,831.07 or $83,056.07, respectively. The difference in these amounts, $18,225.00, was the amount disallowed by the respondent. By a similar recomputation with reference to the schedule of redemption prices appearing in the Arkansas bond indenture (105.36 as compared to 101.36), the respondent reduced the deduction in Goldfarb by $27,175.00. The actual tax deficiency in each ease was considerably less ($14,200.92 and $14,708.16, respectively), of course, because disallowance of the larger premium resulted in a corresponding increase in th§ petitioners’ basis which had been adjusted pursuant to Section 113 (b) (1) (H) of the Code when the premium was amortized. This increase in basis resulted in a smaller short-term capital gain (the petitioners held the bonds less than six months) than had been reported by petitioners in their 1953 returns. The decrease in tax due on the capital gain was offset against the amount of amortization disallowed to arrive at the petitioners’ actual tax deficiencies in issue here.
In addition to the Third and Sixth Circuits’ cases, the First and Seventh Circuits have also allowed deductions of bond premium amortization taken with reference to special redemption prices. In the First Circuit: Fabreeka Products Co. v. Commissioner, 294 F. 2d 876, vacating and remanding 34 T. C. 290; Sherman v. Commissioner, 34 T. C. 303; and Friedman v. Commissioner, 34 T. C. 456. In the Seventh Circuit: Gallun v. Commissioner, 297 F. 2d 455, reversing 1960 P-H T. C. Memo. Dec. ¶ 60,104; and Maysteel Products, Inc., v. Commissioner, 287 F. 2d 429, reversing 33 T. C. 1021. In each of these eases the taxpayer had purchased bonds at a premium, amortized that premium to the special call price, and thereafter made a distribution of the bonds which entailed a double tax deduction (e. g., a gift to charity). In each case the Court of Appeals allowed the double deduction. Although the precise issue presented in the instant case was not expressly decided in these latter cases, due to the fact that the Commissioner did not choose to challenge the use of the special call price as against the general call price for determining the amount of the premium, the allowance of the amortization to the special redemption price impliedly places the First and Seventh Circuits in accord with the Third and Sixth Circuits.
See the authorities collected in Commissioner v. Korell, 339 U. S. 619, 627, n. 10. The Court in Korell, a case also involving an interpretation of Section 125 (see discussion, pp. 682-683, infra), concluded (339 U. S., at 627): “We adopt the view that 'bond premium’ in § 125 means any extra payment, regardless of the reason therefor .. . .”
Commissioner v. Korell, 339 U. S. 619, 621. See 1 Hearings before House Committee on Ways and Means on Revenue Revision of 1942, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 90 (1942). The House Committee noted the recommendation made in the hearings that the difference between yield and the actual interest rate be treated as a return of capital and not as a capital loss (H. R. Rep. No. 2333, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 47):
“Under existing law, bond premium is treated as a capital loss sustained by the owner of the bond at the time of disposition or maturity and periodical payments on the bond at the nominal or coupon rate are treated in full as interest. The want of statutory recognition of the sound accounting practice of amortizing premium leads to incorrect tax results which in many instances are so serious that provision should be made for their avoidance.”
However, in rejecting the Government’s argument in Korell, supra, that Congress intended to confine the deduction only to premium paid for a higher-than-market interest rate, the Court stated (339 U. S., at 626-627):
“At most, [the Commissioner’s] presentation of the legislative materials suggests that Congress may have had the bondholder who was seeking a higher interest rate primarily in mind; but it does not establish that Congress in fact legislated with reference to him exclusively. [Citation omitted.] Congress, and the Treasury in advising Congress, may well have concluded that the best manner of affording him relief and correcting the inequitable treatment of bondholders whose interest receipts were taxable, was to define the scope of the amendment by reference to types of bonds rather than causes of premium payment.”
Congress’ intent in this regard was expressly noted by the respondent in enacting Treas. Reg. 118, § 39.125 (b)-2:
“Callable and convertible bonds, (a) The fact that a bond is callable . . . does not, in itself, prevent the application of section 125. . . . The earlier call date may be the earliest call date specified in the bond as a day certain, the earliest interest payment date if the bond is callable at such date, the earliest date at which the bond is callable at par, or such other call date, prior to maturity, specified in the bond as may be selected by the taxpayer. . .
See generally Evans v. Dudley, 295 F. 2d 713, 715; Estate of Gourielli v. Commissioner, 289 F. 2d 69, 73; Parnell v. United States, 187 F. Supp. 576, 577, aff’d, 272 F. 2d 943. See also Badger, Investment Principles and Practices (5th ed. 1961), 46-47, 114-115, 129; I Dewing, Financial Policy of Corporations (5th ed. 1953), 186-188, 247-249.
Hence, the occurrence of a redemption at the general call price is dependent upon one set of events — the fluctuation in the interest market; the occurrence of a redemption at the special call price is dependent upon another set of events — deposits in the sinking fund by the issuer over one or more years, takings by governmental agencies through eminent domain, destruction of the property securing the bonds, etc. In either case, the events could happen. In fact, the petitioners point out in their brief here that in recent years more bonds have been called at the special redemption price than at the general price. See also Evans v. Dudley, 295 F. 2d 713, 716.
Allowing a 30-day amortization period is in accord with the decision of the Court in Korell where, although the point was not argued by the Government, the taxpayer had amortized the premium with reference to the 30-day period provided in the indenture. In its brief in the instant case the Government states:
“. . . [W]e concede that it is now too late to challenge the amortization of the premium on bonds subject to an unlimited right of redemption on 30 days’ notice. Not only has the consistent administrative practice, culminating in a published ruling, been to allow such amortization, but Congress, in narrowing such deductions in the 1954 Code and prohibiting them entirely after 1957, expressly acknowledged that the prior law permitted that treatment. . . . Accordingly, we did not challenge in the lower courts and do not challenge here petitioners’ right to amortization of the premium on the basis of the general right of the issuer to redeem the bonds at any time upon 30 days’ notice.”
See also Int. Rev. Rul. 56-398, 1956-2 Cum. Bull. 984, where the respondent, in a published ruling, acquiesced in a 30-day amortization period under the 1939 Code.
This concession also conforms to the pronouncement in Korell (339 U. S., at 625): “Congress was legislating for the generality of cases.” See also Evans v. Dudley, 295 F. 2d 713, 716; Parnell v. United States, 187 F. Supp. 576, 579, aff’d, 272 F. 2d 943.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated (289 F. 2d 69, 74): “We do not think that ... in § 125 of the Code . . . [Congress] meant to include an amount payable on a call at a ‘special’ price of which there was no real possibility during the period for which the amortization is being taken and the deduction claimed.” And (289 F. 2d, at 72): “. . . [T]he hazard that any significant number of petitioners’ bonds would be called during [the] period was infinitesimal.” In so holding, the Court accepted the Government’s argument below that “[t]he taxpayer is not entitled to compute his amortizable bond premium deduction . . . with reference to the ‘special’ call price ... because... such a call was so contingent and unlikely that there was no realistic call date at the ‘special’ call price . . . .”
In contrast, the Government states in its brief here: “. . . [0]ur position is not dependent upon the particular market conditions or the actual probabilities that a right, of redemption will be exercised. . . . [W]e agree with petitioners that the question . . . should not be dependent upon a finding in each case of the actual likelihood' that any particular redemption right will be exercised.” As to the futility in attempting to apply a “likelihood of redemption” standard, see note 12, supra.
Cf. Knetsch v. United States, 364 U. S. 361; Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U. S. 465.
The legislation simply provided:
“In no case shall the amount of bond premium of a convertible bond include any amount attributable to the conversion features of the bond.”
Where, as in the case before us, a question of interpretation of Section 125 is presented lying outside the scope of the 1950 Amendment, Korell retains its full vitality. Thus, it is worth noting that the Government’s “right to call” approach advocated in the case at bar would result in a sub silentio overruling of Korell to the extent that in the latter case the right of the bondholder to exercise his conversion option at any time through the expiration of the notice period of a call defeated completely the issuer’s “right” to call and redeem even a single bond. In the instant case, however, neither party disputes the fact that at least some of the bonds could have been called at the special price and that if the issuer exercised his right so to call them the bondholder would have had no choice but to turn over the bonds and forfeit the premium paid for them.
The 1958 Amendment literally permits amortization to an earlier call date but only if it results in a smaller amortization deduction than would amortization to maturity, which, for all practical purposes, effectively eliminates the privilege of calling to an earlier call date.
See, e. g., Commissioner v. P. G. Lake, Inc., 356 U. S. 260, 265-266, n. 5; Automobile Club v. Commissioner, 353 U. S. 180; Helvering v. New York Trust Co., 292 U. S. 455, 467-468.
For example, the record in the instant case contains a copy of the following letter to a taxpayer from the respondent’s office (we quote the relevant portion):
“Gentlemen:
“The Appalachian Electric Power Company 3%% bonds, 1981 Series, are callable in whole or in part through May of 1953 at 105%. They are also callable for sinking fund through funds derived from maintenance or sale of property at any time upon thirty days notice through May 31, 1954 at 102%. You request to be advised whether the above-mentioned ruling of July 30, 1952, means that such bonds may be amortized down to 102% or whether it means that they can only be amortized down to 105% through May of 1953.
“Upon the basis of the information on file in this office, it is the opinion of this office that a taxpayer electing to amortize the premium on Appalachian Electric Power Company bonds in accordance with section 125 of the Code may use the regular redemption price of 105% or the special redemption price of 102%.
“Very truly yours, [etc.] . . .”
In 1956, three years after the deductions in the present case were taken, the Commissioner — -reversing the position he had previously and uniformly adhered to in a series of private rulings — for the first time announced that amortization of bond premium under Section 125 of the 1939 Code was to be limited to premium in excess of a general call price and could not include premium in excess of a lower special call price, except where an actual call was made at the latter price. Int. Rev. Rul. 56-398, 1956-2 Cum. Bull. 984.
See also Commissioner v. Korell, 339 U. S. 619, 627-628; Lang v. Commissioner, 289 U. S. 109, 111; Old Colony R. Co. v. Commissioner, 284 U. S. 552, 560.
We believe the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was correct when it said in Fabreeka Products Co. v. Commissioner, 294 F. 2d 876, 879: “Granting the government’s proposition that these taxpayers have found a hole in the dike, we believe it one that calls for the application of the Congressional thumb, not the court’s.” See also Evans v. Dudley, 295 F. 2d 713, 715, where the Third Circuit quotes this language from Judge Aldrich’s opinion in Fabreeka Products.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Pro se petitioner Schwarz seeks leave to proceed informa 'pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Schwarz is allowed until March 29, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit her petitions in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Schwarz in noncriminal matters unless she pays the doeketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Schwarz has repeatedly abused this Court’s certiorari process. On December 14, 1998, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Schwarz informa pauperis status with respect to four petitions for certiorari. See Schwarz v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 525 U. S. 1053; Schwarz v. National Institute of Corrections, 525 U. S. 1053; Schwarz v. United States Parole Comm’n, 525 U. S. 1053; Schwarz v. National Archives and Records Administration, 525 U. S. 1053. Before that time, Schwarz had filed 29 petitions for certiorari, all of which were both patently frivolous and had been denied without recorded dissent. The instant petitions for certio-rari thus constitute Schwarz’s 34th and 35th frivolous filings with this Court.
We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Schwarz’s abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Schwarz from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on her. Similarly, because Schwarz has not abused this Court’s extraordinary writs procedures, the order will not prevent her from filing nonfrivolous petitions for extraordinary writs. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our certiorari process.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petitioner is in the business of selling bottled wines and liquors for export from the United States and delivery to international airline passengers at their overseas destinations. Upon advice of the Attorney General of New York, the State Liquor Authority informed the petitioner that its business was illegal under the provisions of the New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. The petitioner then instituted an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the respondents, members of the State Liquor Authority. The complaint asked for a judgment declaring that the state statutes, as applied, were repugnant to the Commerce Clause, the Export-Import Clause, and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and for an injunction restraining the State Liquor Authority from interfering with the petitioner’s business.
A request for a three-judge court under 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284, was denied. Instead, the district judge to whom the request was presented simply retained jurisdiction of the cause, in order to give the state courts an opportunity to pass upon the constitutional issues presented, although there was no relevant litigation then pending in the state courts. 188 F. Supp. 434.
The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That court dismissed the appeal, one judge dissenting. 289 F. 2d 426. Unambiguously stating its opinion that the District Court had acted erroneously, and that “a three-judge district court should have been convened,” the Court of Appeals was nevertheless of the view that it was powerless to take formal corrective action in light of this Court’s decision in Stratton v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 282 U. S. 10.
Thereafter the petitioner once again filed a motion in the District Court requesting that a statutory three-judge court be impaneled. The request was again refused upon the ground that the previous ruling made by other judges of the District Court had established “the law of this case,” and that the Court of Appeals’ opinion that a three-judge court should be appointed was merely a “dictum.” 194 F. Supp. 3. We granted certiorari and a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus.- 368 U. S. 812.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that a three-judge court should have been convened in this case. When an application for a statutory three-judge court is addressed to a district court, the court’s inquiry is appropriately limited to determining whether the constitutional question raised is substantial, whether the complaint at least formally alleges a basis for equitable relief, and whether the case presented otherwise comes within the requirements of the three-judge statute. Those criteria were assuredly met here, and the applicable jurisdictional statute therefore made it impermissible for a single judge to decide the merits of the case, either by granting or by withholding relief.
In the Stratton case it was held that a court of appeals was precluded from reviewing on the merits a case which should have originally been determined by a court of three judges. Stratton does not stand for the broad proposition that a court of appeals is powerless ever to give any guidance when a single judge has erroneously invaded the province of a three-judge court. The Court of Appeals clearly stated its opinion that a court of three judges ought to have been convened to consider this litigation. That view was correct and should have been followed upon the petitioner’s renewed motion that such a statutory court be impaneled.
We deem it unnecessary to take formal action on the petition for a writ of mandamus. The case will be remanded to the District Court for expeditious action consistent with the views here expressed. Cf. Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 34.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the decision of these cases.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
During the pendency of the appeal another judge of the District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from harassing the petitioner’s business, but, relying on the original judge’s order, refused a renewed request for a three-judge court.
The Court of Appeals properly rejected the argument that the order of the District Court “was not final and hence unappealable under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1291, 1292,” pointing out that “[a]ppellant was effectively out of court.” 289 F. 2d, at 428.
This is not a case like Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co. v. Nims, 252 F. 2d ,317, where a three-judge court was requested only in the event that it should first be held that the state statute was by its terms applicable to the plaintiff's business operations.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In conformity with Michigan procedure, petitioner moved for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial in the court in which he had been convicted of first-degree murder. Serious impairment of his constitutional rights at the arraignment and trial were asserted as grounds for the motion. The trial court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court of Michigan on appeal affirmed that ruling. 313 Mich. 548, 21 N. W. 2d 849. We granted certi-orari because of the importance of the constitutional issues presented.
The facts are not in dispute. On May 16, 1932, an information was filed in the Circuit Court of Lenawee County, Michigan, charging petitioner, then seventeen years of age, and one Virgil Scott with the crime of murder. On the same day, petitioner was arraigned, tried, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The record indicates that petitioner was without legal assistance throughout all these proceedings and was never advised of his right to counsel. The court did not explain the consequences of the plea of guilty, and the record indicates considerable confusion in petitioner’s mind at the time of the arraignment as to the effect of such a plea. No evidence in petitioner’s behalf was introduced at the trial and none of the State’s witnesses were subjected to cross-examination.
After reviewing the foregoing facts, the Supreme Court of Michigan determined that the record revealed no deprivation of petitioner’s constitutional rights. The court indicated that it had given consideration to the case of Hawk v. Olson, 326 U. S. 271 (1945), and the authorities cited therein, but concluded that the rule of the Michigan cases was determinative. See People v. Williams, 225 Mich. 133, 195 N. W. 818 (1923). In this there was error.
Here a seventeen-year-old defendant, confronted by a serious and complicated criminal charge, was hurried through unfamiliar legal proceedings without a word being said in his defense. At no time was assistance of counsel offered or mentioned to him, nor was he apprised of the consequences of his plea. Under the holdings of this Court, petitioner was deprived of rights essential to a fair hearing under the Federal Constitution. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932); Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U. S. 471 (1945); Tomkins v. Missouri, 323 U. S. 485 (1945); White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760 (1945); Hawk v. Olson, supra. See Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455 (1942).
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Makshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in this case are two overlapping provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Omnibus Act). Both prohibit convicted felons from receiving firearms, but each authorizes different maximum penalties. We must determine whether a defendant convicted of the offense carrying the greater penalty may be sentenced only under the more lenient provision when his conduct violates both statutes.
I
Respondent, a previously convicted felon, was found guilty of receiving a firearm that had traveled in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §922 (h). The District Court sentenced him under 18 U. S. C. § 924 (a) to five years’ imprisonment, the maximum term authorized for violation of §922 (h).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but, by a divided vote, remanded for resentencing. 581 F. 2d 626 (CA7 1978). The majority recognized that respondent had been indicted and convicted under § 922 (h) and that § 924 (a) permits five years’ imprisonment for such violations. 581 F. 2d, at 629. However, noting that the substantive elements of § 922 (h) and 18 U. S. C. App. § 1202 (a) are identical as applied to a convicted felon who unlawfully receives a firearm, the court interpreted the Omnibus Act to allow no more than the 2-year maximum sentence provided by § 1202 (a). 581 F. 2d, at 629. In so holding, the Court of Appeals relied on three principles of statutory construction. Because, in its view, the “arguably contradictory]” penalty provisions for similar conduct and the “inconclusive” legislative history raised doubt whether Congress had intended the two penalty provisions to coexist, the court first applied the doctrine that ambiguities in criminal legislation are to be resolved in favor of the defendant. Id., at 630. Second, the court determined that since § 1202 (a) was “Congress’ last word on the issue of penalty,” it may have implicitly repealed the punishment provisions of § 924 (a). 581 F. 2d, at 630. Acknowledging that the “first two principles cannot be applied to these facts without some difficulty,” the majority also invoked the maxim that a court should, if possible, interpret a statute to avoid constitutional questions. Id., at 630-631. Here, the court reasoned, the “prosecutor’s power to select one of two statutes that are identical except for their penalty provisions” implicated “important constitutional protections.” Id., at 631.
The dissent found no basis in the Omnibus Act or its legislative history for engrafting the penalty provisions of § 1202 (a) onto §§ 922 (h) and 924 (a). 581 F. 2d, at 638-639. Relying on “the long line of cases . . . which hold that where an act may violate more than one criminal statute, the government may elect to prosecute under either, even if [the] defendant risks the harsher penalty, so long as the prosecutor does not discriminate against any class of defendants,” the dissent further concluded that the statutory scheme was constitutional. Id., at 637.
We granted certiorari, 439 U. S. 1066 (1979), and now reverse the judgment vacating respondent’s 5-year prison sentence.
II
This Court has previously noted the partial redundancy of §§ 922 (h) and 1202 (a), both as to the conduct they proscribe and the individuals they reach. See United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 341-343, and n. 9 (1971). However, we find nothing in the language, structure, or legislative history of the Omnibus Act to suggest that because of this overlap, a defendant convicted under § 922 (h) may be imprisoned for no more than the maximum term specified in § 1202 (a). As we read the Act, each substantive statute, in conjunction with its own sentencing provision, operates independently of the other.
Section 922 (h), contained in Title IY of the Omnibus Act, prohibits four categories of individuals from receiving “any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” See n. 2, supra. Persons who violate Title IV are subject to the penalties provided by §924 (a), which authorizes a maximum fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for up to five years. See n. 3, supra. Section 1202 (a), located in Title VII of the Omnibus Act, forbids five categories of individuals from “receiv[ing], possess [ing], or transport [ing] in commerce or affecting commerce . . . any firearm.” This same section authorizes a maximum fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for not more than two years. See n. 4, supra.
While §§ 922 and 1202 (a) both prohibit convicted felons such as petitioner from receiving firearms, each Title unambiguously specifies the penalties available to enforce its substantive proscriptions. Section 924 (a) applies without exception to “[w]hoever violates any provision” of Title IV, and § 922 (h) is patently such a provision. See 18 U. S. C., ch. 44; 82 Stat. 226, 234; S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 20-25, 117 (1968). Similarly, because Title VII’s substantive prohibitions and penalties are both enumerated in § 1202, its penalty scheme encompasses only criminal prosecutions brought under that provision. On their face, these statutes thus establish that § 924 (a) alone delimits the appropriate punishment for violations of § 922 (h).
That Congress intended to enact two independent gun control statutes, each fully enforceable on its own terms, is confirmed by the legislative history of the Omnibus Act. Section 922 (h) derived from § 2 (f) of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1251, and § 5 of that Act, 52 Stat. 1252, authorized the same maximum prison term as § 924 (a). Title IV of the Omnibus Act merely recodified with some modification this “carefully constructed package of gun control legislation,” which had been in existence for many years. Scarborough v. United States, 431 U. S. 563, 570 (1977); see United States v. Bass, supra, at 343 n. 10; 15 U. S. C. §§ 902, 905 (1964 ed.).
By contrast, Title VII was a “last-minute” floor amendment, “hastily passed, with little discussion, no hearings, and no report.” United States v. Bass, supra, at 344, and n. 11; see Scarborough v. United States, supra, at 569-570, and n. 9. And the meager legislative debates involving that amendment demonstrate no intention to alter the terms of Title IV. Immediately before the Senate passed Title VII, Senator Dodd inquired whether it would substitute for Title IV. 114 Cong. Rec. 14774 (1968). Senator Long, the sponsor of the amendment, replied that § 1202 would “take nothing from” but merely “add to” Title IV. 114 Cong. Rec. 14774 (1968). Similarly, although Title VII received only passing mention in House discussions of the bill, Representative Machen made clear that the amendment would “complement . . . the gun-control legislation contained in title IV.” Id., at 16286. Had these legislators intended to pre-empt Title IV in cases of overlap, they presumably would not have indicated that the purpose of Title VII was to complement Title IV. See Scarborough v. United States, supra, at 573. These discussions, together with the language and structure of the Omnibus Act, evince Congress’ clear understanding that the two Titles would be applied independently.
In construing § 1202 (a) to override the penalties authorized by § 924 (a), the Court of Appeals relied, we believe erroneously, on three principles of statutory interpretation. First, the court invoked the well-established doctrine that ambiguities in criminal statutes must be resolved in favor of lenity. E. g., Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808, 812 (1971); United States v. Bass, 404 U. S., at 347; United States v. Culbert, 435 U. S. 371, 379 (1978); United States v. Naftalin, 441 U. S. 768, 778-779 (1979); Dunn v. United States, ante, at 112-113. Although this principle of construction applies to sentencing as well as substantive provisions, see Simpson v. United States, 435 U. S. 6, 14-15 (1978), in the instant case there is no ambiguity to resolve. Respondent unquestionably violated § 922 (h), and § 924 (a) unquestionably permits five years’ imprisonment for such a violation. That § 1202 (a) provides different penalties for essentially the same conduct is no justification for taking liberties with unequivocal statutory language. See Barrett v. United States, 423 U. S. 212, 217 (1976). By its express terms, § 1202 (a) limits its penalty scheme exclusively to convictions obtained under that provision. Where, as here, “Congress has conveyed its purpose clearly, ... we decline to manufacture ambiguity where none exists.” United States v. Culbert, supra, at 379.
Nor can § 1202 (a) be interpreted as implicitly repealing § 924 (a) whenever a defendant’s conduct might violate both Titles. For it is “not enough to show that the two statutes produce differing results when applied to the same factual situation.” Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U. S. 148, 155 (1976). Rather, the legislative intent to repeal must be manifest in the “ 'positive repugnancy between the provisions.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 199 (1939). In this case, however, the penalty provisions are fully capable of coexisting because they apply to convictions under different statutes.
Finally, the maxim that statutes should be construed to avoid constitutional questions offers no assistance here. This “ 'cardinal principle’ of statutory construction ... is appropriate only when [an alternative interpretation] is 'fairly possible’ ” from the language of the statute. Swain v. Pressley, 430 U. S. 372, 378 n. 11 (1977); see Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932); United States v. Sullivan, 332 U. S. 689, 693 (1948); Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1, 31 (1948). We simply are unable to discern any basis in the Omnibus Act for reading the term “five” in § 924 (a) to mean “two.”
Ill
In resolving the statutory question, the majority below expressed “serious doubts about the constitutionality of two statutes that provide different penalties for identical conduct.” 581 F. 2d, at 633-634 (footnote omitted). Specifically, the court suggested that the statutes might (1) be void for vagueness, (2) implicate “due process and equal protection interest^] in avoiding excessive prosecutorial discretion and in obtaining equal justice,” and (3) constitute an impermissible delegation of congressional authority. Id., at 631-633. We find no constitutional infirmities.
A
It is a fundamental tenet of due process that “[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes.” Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it “fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden.” United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 617 (1954). See Connolly v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 162 (1972); Dunn v. United States, ante, at 112-113. So too, vague sentencing provisions may pose constitutional questions if they do not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating a given criminal statute. See United States v. Evans, 333 U. S. 483 (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18 (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399 (1966).
The provisions in issue here, however, unambiguously specify the activity proscribed and the penalties -available upon conviction. See supra, at 119. That this particular conduct may violate both Titles does not detract from the notice afforded by each. Although the statutes create uncertainty as to which crime may be charged and therefore what penalties may be imposed, they do so to no greater extent than would a single statute authorizing various alternative punishments. So long as overlapping criminal provisions clearly define the conduct prohibited and the punishment authorized, the notice requirements of the Due Process Clause are satisfied.
B
This Court has long recognized that when an act violates more than one criminal statute, the Government may prosecute under either so long as it does not discriminate against any class of defendants. See United States v. Beacon Brass Co., 344 U. S. 43, 45-46 (1952); Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U. S. 273, 294 (1953) (Clark, J., concurring, joined by five Members of the Court); Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448, 456 (1962); SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U. S. 453, 468 (1969); United States v. Naftalin, 441 U. S., at 778. Whether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor’s discretion. See Confiscation Cases, 7 Wall. 454 (1869); United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 693 (1974); Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U. S. 357, 364 (1978).
The Court of Appeals acknowledged this “settled rule” allowing prosecutorial choice. 581 F. 2d, at 632. Nevertheless, relying on the dissenting opinion in Berra v. United States, 351 U. S. 131 (1956), the court distinguished overlapping statutes with identical standards of proof from provisions that vary in some particular. 581 F. 2d, at 632-633. In the court’s view, when two statutes prohibit “exactly the same conduct,” the prosecutor’s “selection of which of two penalties to apply” would be “unfettered.” Id., at 633, and n. 11. Because such prosecutorial discretion could produce “unequal justice,” the court expressed doubt that this form of legislative redundancy was constitutional. Id., at 631. We find this analysis factually and legally unsound.
Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ assertions, a prosecutor’s discretion to choose between §§ 922 (h) and 1202 (a) is not “unfettered/’ Selectivity in the enforcement of criminal laws is, of course, subject to constitutional constraints. And a decision to proceed under § 922 (h) does not empower the Government to predetermine ultimate criminal sanctions. Rather, it merely enables the sentencing judge to impose a longer prison sentence than § 1202 (a) would permit and precludes him from imposing the greater fine authorized by § 1202 (a). More importantly, there is no appreciable difference between the discretion a prosecutor exercises when deciding whether to charge under one of two statutes with different elements and the discretion he exercises when choosing one of two statutes with identical elements. In the former situation, once he determines that the proof will support conviction under either statute, his decision is indistinguishable from the one he faces in the latter context. The prosecutor may be influenced by the penalties available upon conviction, but this fact, standing alone, does not give rise to a violation of the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause. Cf. Rosenberg v. United States, supra, at 294 (Clark, J., concurring); Oyler v. Boles, supra, at 456. Just as a defendant has no constitutional right to elect which of two applicable federal statutes shall be the basis of his indictment and prosecution, neither is he entitled to choose the penalty scheme under which he will be sentenced. See U. S. Const., Art. II, §§ 2, 3; 28 U. S. C. §§ 515, 516; United States v. Nixon, supra, at 694.
C
Approaching the problem of prosecutorial discretion from a slightly different perspective, the Court of Appeals postulated that the statutes might impermissibly delegate to the Executive Branch the Legislature’s responsibility to fix criminal penalties. See United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812); United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506, 516-517, 519 (1911); United States v. Evans, 333 U. S., at 486. We do not agree. The provisions at issue plainly demarcate the range of penalties that prosecutors and judges may seek and impose. In light of that specificity, the power that Congress has delegated to those officials is no broader than the authority they routinely exercise in enforcing the criminal laws. Having informed the courts, prosecutors, and defendants of the permissible punishment alternatives available under each Title, Congress has fulfilled its duty. See United States v. Evans, supra, at 486, 492, 495.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
82 Stat. 197.
In pertinent part, 18 U. S. C. § 922 (h) provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person—
“(1) who is under indictment for, or who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
“(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
“(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to marihuana or any depressant or stimulant drug ... or narcotic drug . . . ; or
“(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to any mental institution;
“to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
Title 18 U. S. C. § 924 (a) provides in relevant part:
“Whoever violates any provision of this chapter . .. shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, and shall become eligible for parole as the Board of Parole shall determine.”
Section 1202 (a) states:
“Any person who—
“(1) has been convicted by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of a felony, or
“(2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, or
“(3) has been adjudged by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of being mentally incompetent, or
“(4) having been a citizen of the United States has renounced his citizenship, or
“(5) being an alien is illegally or unlawfully in the United States,
“and who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce, after the date of enactment of this Act, any firearm shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.” 18 U. S. C. App. § 1202 (a).
Even in the case of convicted felons, however, the two statutes are not coextensive. For example, Title VII defines a felony as
“any offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but does not include any offense (other than one involving a firearm or explosive) classified as a misdemeanor under the laws of a State and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.” 18 U. S. C. App. § 1202 (c)(2).
Under Title IV, “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” 18 U. S. C. § 922 (h) (1), excludes
“(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices ... , or
“(B) any State offense (other than one involving a firearm or explosive) classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.” 18 U. S. C. § 921 (a) (20).
In addition, the Commerce Clause elements of §§ 922 (h) and 1202 (a) may vary slightly. See Barrett v. United States, 423 U. S. 212 (1976); Scarborough v. United States, 431 U. S. 563, 571-572 (1977).
Four months after enacting the Omnibus Act, the same Congress amended and re-enacted Titles IV and VII as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. 82 Stat. 1213. This latter Act also treats the provisions of Titles IV and VII as independent and self-contained. Title I of the Gun Control Act amended Title IV, compare 82 Stat. 225 with 82 Stat. 1214, and Title III of the Gun Control Act amended Title VII. Compare 82 Stat. 236 with 82 Stat. 1236. The accompanying legislative Reports nowhere indicate that the sentencing scheme of § 1202 (a) was to govern convictions under § 922. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1956, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 31, 34 (1968); S. Rep. No. 1501, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 21, 37 (1968).
The anomalies created by the Court of Appeals’ decision further suggest that Congress must have intended only the penalties specified in § 924 (a) to apply to violations of § 922 (h). For example, a person who received a firearm while under indictment for murder would be subject to five years’ imprisonment, since only § 922 (h) includes those under indictment for a felony. 18 U. S. C. § 922 (h) (1). If he received the firearm after his conviction, however, the term of imprisonment could not exceed two years. Similarly, because § 922 (h) alone proscribes receipt of ammunition, a felon who obtained a single bullet could receive a 5-year sentence, while receipt of a firearm would be punishable by no more than two years’ imprisonment under § 1202 (a). In addition, the Court of Appeals’ analysis leaves uncertain the result that would obtain if a sentencing judge wished to impose a maximum prison sentence and a maximum fine for conduct violative of both Titles. The’doctrine of lenity would suggest that the $5,000 maximum of § 924 (a) and the 2-year maximum of § 1202 (a) would apply. However, if the doctrine of implied repeal controls, arguably the $10,000 fine authorized by § 1202 (a) could be imposed for a violation of § 922 (h). See infra, at 122.
Berra involved two tax evasion statutes, which the Court interpreted as proscribing identical conduct. The defendant, who was charged and convicted under the felony provision, argued that the jury should have been instructed on the misdemeanor offense as well. The Court rejected this contention and refused to consider whether the defendant’s sentence was invalid because in excess of the maximum authorized by the misdemeanor statute. The dissent urged that permitting the prosecutor to control whether a particular act would be punished as a misdemeanor or a felony raised “serious constitutional questions.” 351 U. S., at 139-140.
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits selective enforcement “based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary-classification.” Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448, 456 (1962). Respondent does not allege that his prosecution was motivated by improper considerations.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The Court held in In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, decided March 31, 1970, that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is among the essentials of due process and fair treatment that must be afforded at the adjudicatory stage when a juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult. In this case, on January 6, 1970, before Winship was decided, petitioner was adjudged a delinquent in the Family Court of Bronx County, New York, on a finding, based on the preponderance-of-evidence standard, that, at knifepoint, he forcibly took a bicycle from another boy, an act that, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree. On direct appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed on the ground that Winship should be retroactively applied to. all cases still in the appellate process, 35 App. Div. 2d 806, 316 N. Y. S. 2d 568 (1970). The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that Winship was not to be applied retroactively, 29 N. Y. 2d 583, 272 N. E. 2d 895 (1971). On remand, the Appellate Division thereupon affirmed the delinquency adjudication, 37 App. Div. 2d 822, 324 N. Y. S. 2d 934 (1971), and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal from that affirmance, 29 N. Y. 2d 489 (1972). We disagree with the holding of the Court of Appeals that Winship is not to be applied retroactively.
“Where the major purpose of new constitutional doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial that substantially impairs its truth-finding function and so raises serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials, the new rule has been given complete retroactive effect. Neither good-faith reliance by state or federal authorities on prior constitutional law or accepted practice, nor severe impact on the administration of justice has sufficed to require prospective application in these circumstances.” Williams v. United States, 401 U. S. 646, 653 (1971). See Adams v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 278, 280 (1972); Roberts v. Russell, 392 U. S. 293, 295 (1968).
Winship expressly held that the reasonable-doubt standard “is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence — that bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law’.... ‘Due process commands that no man shall lose his- liberty unless the Government has borne the burden of . . . convincing the factfinder of his guilt.’ To this end, the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable, for it 'impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude of the facts in issue.’ ” 397 U. S., at 363-364.
Plainly, then, the major purpose of the constitutional standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt announced in Wins hip was to overcome an aspect of a criminal trial that substantially impairs the truth-finding function, and Winship is thus to be given complete retroactive effect. The motion for leave to .proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It -is so ordered.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. .
The Court of Appeals followed Matter of D., 27 N. Y. 2d 90, 261 N. E. 2d 627 (1970), where Winship was said not to be retroactive but that even if it were, appellant there had waived the claim when he entered a guilty plea to the charges. In that circumstance this Court dismissed an appeal and denied .certiorari in that case. D. v. County of Onandaga, 403 U. S. 926 (1971)..
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-B, III, and IV, and an opinion with respect to Part II-A, in which Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join.
The principal issue before us is whether the enforcement of a rule prohibiting high school coaches from recruiting middle school athletes violates the First Amendment. We also must decide whether the sanction imposed on respondent for violating that rule was preceded by a fair hearing.
I
Although this case has had a long history, the relevant facts may be stated briefly. The Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA) is a not-for-profit membership corporation organized to regulate interscholastic sports among its members, which include some 290 public and 55 private high schools in Tennessee. Brentwood Academy is one of those private schools.
Since the early 1950’s, TSSAA has prohibited high schools from using “undue influence” in recruiting middle school students for their athletic programs. In April 1997, Brent-wood’s football coach sent a letter to a group of eighth-grade boys inviting them to attend spring practice sessions. See App. 119. The letter explained that football equipment would be distributed and that “getting involved as soon as possible would definitely be to your advantage.” Ibid. It was signed ‘Tour Coach.” Ibid. While the boys who received the letter had signed a contract signaling their intent to attend Brentwood, none had enrolled within the meaning of TSSAA rules. See id., at 182 (defining “enrolled” as having “attended 3 days of school”). All of the boys attended at least some of the spring practice sessions. As the case comes to us, it is settled that the coach’s pre-enrollment solicitation violated the TSSAA’s antirecruiting rule and that he had ample notice that his conduct was prohibited.
TSSAA accordingly sanctioned Brentwood. After proceeding through two layers of internal TSSAA review, Brentwood brought this action against TSSAA and its executive director in federal court under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. As relevant here, Brentwood made ■ two claims: first, that enforcement of the rule was state action in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; and second, that TSSAA’s flawed adjudication of its appeal had deprived the school of due process of law. The District Court granted relief to Brentwood, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that TSSAA was a private voluntary association that did not act under color of state law. We granted certiorari and reversed, holding that the District Court was correct on the threshold issue. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn., 531 U. S. 288 (2001). On remand, the Sixth Circuit sent the case back to the District Court, which once again ruled for Brentwood. 304 F. Supp. 2d 981 (MD Tenn. 2003). TSSAA appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed over one judge’s dissent. 442 F. 3d 410 (2006). The majority held that the antirecruiting rule is a content-based regulation of speech that is not narrowly tailored to serve its permissible purposes. Id., at 420-431. It also concluded that the TSSAA Board improperly considered ex parte evidence during its deliberations, thereby violating Brentwood’s due process rights. Id., at 433-438.
We again granted certiorari, 549 U. S. 1105 (2007), and we again reverse.
II
The First Amendment protects Brentwood’s right to publish truthful information about the school and its athletic programs. It likewise protects the school’s right to try to persuade prospective students and their parents that its excellence in sports is a reason for enrolling. But Brent-wood’s speech rights are not absolute. It chose to join TSSAA, an athletic league and a state actor invested with a three-fold obligation to prevent the exploitation of children, to ensure that high school athletics remain secondary to academics, and to promote fair competition among its members. TSSAA submits that these interests adequately support the enforcement against its member schools of a rule prohibiting coaches from trying to recruit impressionable middle school athletes. Brentwood disagrees, and maintains that TSSAA’s asserted interests are too flimsy and its rule too broad to support what the school views as a serious curtailment of its constitutional rights. Two aspects of the case taken together persuade us that TSSAA should prevail.
A
The antirecruiting rule strikes nowhere near the heart of the First Amendment. TSSAA has not banned the dissemination of truthful information relating to sports, nor has it claimed that it could. Cf. Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748 (1976) (striking down a prohibition on advertising prices for prescription drugs). It has only prevented its member schools’ coaches from recruiting individual middle school students. Our cases teach that there is a difference of constitutional dimension between rules prohibiting appeals to the public at large, see 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U. S. 484, 495-500 (1996), and rules prohibiting direct, personalized communication in a coercive setting.
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U.S. 447 (1978), nicely illustrates the point. In Ohralik, we considered whether the First Amendment disabled a state bar association from disciplining a lawyer for the in-person solicitation of clients. The lawyer argued that under our decision in Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U. S. 350, 384 (1977), which invalidated on First Amendment grounds a ban on truthful advertising relating to the “availability and terms of routine legal services,” his solicitation was protected speech. We rejected the lawyer’s argument, holding that the “in-person solicitation of professional employment by a lawyer does not stand on a par with truthful advertising about the availability and terms of routine legal services, let alone with forms of speech more traditionally within the concern of the First Amendment.” 436 U. S., at 455. We reasoned that the solicitation ban was more akin to a conduct regulation than a speech restriction:
“ ‘[I]t has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.’ Numerous examples could be cited of communications that are regulated without offending the First Amendment, such as the exchange of information about securities, corporate proxy statements, the exchange of price and production information among competitors, and employers’ threats of retaliation. for the labor activities of employees____ Each of these examples illustrates that the State does not lose its power to regulate commercial activity deemed harmful to the public whenever speech is a component of that activity.” Id., at 456 (citations omitted).
Drawing on these examples, we found that the “[i]n-person solicitation by a lawyér of remunerative employment is a business transaction in which speech is an essential but subordinate component,” id., at 457, the prohibition of which raised few (if any) First Amendment problems.
Ohralik identified several evils associated with direct solicitation distinct from the harms presented by conventional commercial speech. Direct solicitation “may exert pressure and often demands an immediate response, without providing an opportunity for comparison or reflection,” ibid.; its goal “may be to provide a one-sided presentation and to encourage speedy and perhaps uninformed decisionmaking,” ibid.; and it short circuits the “opportunity for intervention or counter-education by agencies of the Bar, supervisory authorities, or persons close to the solicited individual,” ibid. For these reasons, we concluded that in-person solicitation “actually may disserve the individual and societal interest, identified in Bates, in facilitating ‘informed and reliable decisionmaking.’ ” Id., at 458 (quoting Bates, 433 U. S., at 364).
We have since emphasized that Ohralik’s “narrow” holding is limited to conduct that is “ ‘inherently conducive to overreaching and other forms of misconduct.’” Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761, 774 (1993) (quoting Ohralik, 436 U. S., at 464); see also Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, 641 (1985) (emphasizing that Ohralik involved a “practice rife with possibilities for overreaching, invasion of privacy, the exercise of undue influence, and outright fraud”). And we have not been chary of invalidating state restrictions on solicitation and commercial advertising in the absence of the acute risks associated with in-person legal solicitation. See Edenfield, 507 U. S., at 775 (striking down a restriction on in-person solicitation by accountants because such solicitation “poses none of the same dangers” identified in Ohralik)', Zauderer, 471 U. S., at 639-647 (invalidating a restriction on truthful, nondeceptive legal advertising directed at people with specific legal problems); Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn., 486 U. S. 466, 472-478 (1988) (overturning a blanket proscription on all forms of legal solicitation). In our view, however, the dangers of undue influence and overreaching that exist when a lawyer chases an ambulance are also present when a high school coach contacts an eighth grader.
After all, it is a heady thing for an eighth-grade student to be contacted directly by a coach — here, “Your Coach”— and invited to join a high school sports team. In too many cases, the invitation will come accompanied with a suggestion, subtle or otherwise, that failure to accept will hurt the student’s chances to play high school sports and diminish the odds that she could continue on to college or (dream of dreams) professional sports. Cf. App. 119 (“I do feel that getting involved as soon as possible would definitely be to your advantage”). Such a potent entreaty, playing as it does on youthful hopes and fears, could well exert the kind of undue pressure that “disserve[s] the individual and societal interest ... in facilitating ‘informed and reliable decision-making.’” Ohralik, 436 U. S., at 458. Given that TSSAA member schools remain free to send brochures, post billboards, and otherwise advertise their athletic programs, TSSAA’s limited regulation of recruiting conduct poses no significant First Amendment concerns.
B
Brentwood made a voluntary decision to join TSSAA and to abide by its antirecruiting rule. See Brentwood, 531 U. S., at 291 (“No school is forced to join”); cf. Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U. S. 555, 575 (1984). Just as the government’s interest in running an effective workplace can in some circumstances outweigh employee speech rights, see Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138 (1983), so too can an athletic league’s interest in enforcing its rules sometimes warrant curtailing the speech of its voluntary participants. See Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968) (holding that the scope of a government employee’s First Amendment rights depends on the “balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees”); see also Board of Comm’rs, Wabaunsee Cty. v. Umbehr, 518 U. S. 668, 679 (1996) (“eschewing]” a formal approach to determining which contractual relationships call for the application of Pickering balancing). This is not to say that TSSAA has unbounded authority to condition membership on the relinquishment of any and all constitutional rights. As we recently emphasized in the employment context, “[s]o long as employees are speaking as citizens about matters of public concern, they must face only those speech restrictions that are necessary for their employers to operate efficiently and effectively.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410, 419 (2006). Assuming, without deciding, that the coach in this case was “speaking as [a] eitize[n] about matters of public concern,” ibid., TSSAA can similarly impose only those conditions on such speech that are necessary to managing an efficient and effective state-sponsored high school athletic league.
That necessity is obviously present here. We need no empirical data to credit TSSAA’s commonsense conclusion that hard-sell tactics directed at middle school students could lead to exploitation, distort competition between high school teams, and foster an environment in which athletics are prized more highly than academics. See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 60 (1973). TSSAA’s rule discourages precisely the sort of conduct that might lead to those harms, any one of which would detract from a high school sports league’s ability to operate “efficiently and effectively.” Garcetti, 547 U. S., at 419. For that reason, the First Amendment does not excuse Brentwood from abiding by the same antirecruiting rule that governs the conduct of its sister schools. To hold otherwise would undermine the principle, succinctly articulated by the dissenting judge at the Court of Appeals, that “[h]igh school football is a game. Games have rules.” 442 F. 3d, at 444 (opinion of Rogers, J.). It is only fair that Brentwood follow them.
Ill
The decision to sanction Brentwood for engaging in prohibited recruiting was preceded by an investigation, several meetings, exchanges of correspondence, see App. 120-123 (fax from Brentwood’s coach to TSSAA’s executive director); id., at 124-127 (memorandum from director to Brentwood’s headmaster); id., at 128-133 (letter from the headmaster responding to the director’s memorandum); id., at 204-211 (letter from TSSAA director to headmaster with further questions); id., at 212-229 (responsive letter from Brent-wood’s headmaster), an adverse written determination from TSSAA’s executive director, id., at 238-244, a hearing before the director and an advisory panel composed of three members of TSSAA’s Board of Control, see id., at 254-258, and finally a de novo review by the entire TSSAA Board of Directors, see id., at 269-271. During the investigation, Brentwood was notified of all the charges against it. At each of the two hearings, Brentwood was represented by counsel and given the opportunity to adduce evidence. No evidence offered by Brentwood was excluded.
Brentwood nevertheless maintains that its due process rights were violated when the full TSSAA Board, during its deliberations, heard from witnesses and considered evidence that the school had no opportunity to respond to. Some background is necessary to understand the claim. One of the matters under investigation was whether an Amateur Athletic Union basketball coach named Bart King had pushed talented middle school students — ^including a basketball star named Jacques Curry — to attend Brentwood. See, e. g., id., at 220,222 (letter from Brentwood’s headmaster discussing the allegation that King had told Curry that if he attended Brentwood, he “would probably have a car when he is in the tenth grade”). Brentwood consistently maintained that King had no affiliation with the school and no authority to act on its behalf. See, e. g., id., at 221-222. Nevertheless, the initial decision by TSSAA’s executive director, as well as the subsequent decision by the director and the advisory panel, declared Curry (as well as several other players) ineligible to play for Brentwood. See id., at 243 (blanket ineligibility), 255 (ineligibility for varsity sports).
As it had in earlier stages of the case, in Brentwood’s final appeal to the TSSAA Board, the school offered live testimony from Curry and an affidavit from King denying the alleged recruiting violations. See id., at 264-267 (Curry’s testimony); id., at 261 (listing “Affidavit of Bart King” as an exhibit). Once Curry had testified, Brentwood’s counsel advised the board that King was available to answer any questions, but did not call him as a witness. After reviewing the evidence, the board found that Brentwood had committed three specific violations of its rules, none of which appeared to involve either King or Curry, and it reinstated Curry’s eligibility. Id., at 269-271. As a penalty for the three violations, the board put Brentwood’s athletic program on probation for four years, excluded the boys’ basketball and football teams from tournament playoffs for two years, and imposed a $3,000 fine. Id., at 270.
During its deliberations, the board discussed the case with the executive director who had presided at the earlier proceedings and two TSSAA investigators, none of whom had been cross-examined. The investigators also provided handwritten notes to the board detailing their investigations; Brentwood never received those notes. The District Court found that the consideration of the ex parte evidence influenced the board’s penalty decision and contravened the Due Process Clause. 304 F. Supp. 2d, at 1003-1006. The Court of Appeals accepted that finding, as well as the conclusion that the evidence tainted the fairness of the proceeding. 442 F. 3d, at 433-438. TSSAA now maintains that the lower courts erred.
We agree. Even accepting the questionable holding that TSSAA’s closed-door deliberations were unconstitutional, we can safely conclude that any due process violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. To begin with, it is hard to believe that the King allegations increased the severity of the penalties leveled against Brentwood. But more importantly, Brentwood’s claim of prejudice rests on the unsupported premise that it would have adopted a different and more effective strategy at the board hearing had it been given an opportunity to cross-examine the investigators and review their notes. Despite having had nearly a decade since the hearing to undertake that cross-examination and review, Brentwood has identified nothing the investigators shared with the board that Brentwood did not already know. Perhaps that is why Brentwood never explains what a more effective strategy might have looked like. Brentwood obliquely suggests it might have had King testify at the hearing, but it gives no inkling of what his testimony would have added to the proceedings. We are not inclined to speculate on its behalf.
IV
We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
When asked at trial about this language from the offending letter, the Brentwood football coach acknowledged that “[i]n some cases” the middle school student is “not going to think that’s optional.” App. 301.
The District Court's conclusion that “[t]here was no indication from the TSSAA before the final hearing... that the organization was still considering the Bart King allegations” is clearly erroneous. 304 F. Supp. 2d 981, 1004, n. 29 (MD Tenn. 2003); see also 442 F. 3d 410, 435, and n. 20 (CA6 2006) (affirming finding). Brentwood appealed to the full board in part to overturn the ineligibility sanction that had been leveled against Curry and several other players. See App. 255. Because the only justification for declaring Curry ineligible was that King had improperly recruited him to play for Brentwood, the King allegations were obviously at issue. Brentwood understood as much. It otherwise would have been wasted effort for King to submit an affidavit and for Curry to testify.
Similarly, given that Curry testified in some detail about his relationship with King, id., at 264-267, the Court of Appeals incorrectly concluded that the discussion of King was limited to a brief exchange about whether King would testify. See 442 F. 3d, at 435 (“Evidently this was the only discussion of King at the hearing”).
“[Brentwood’s lawyer]: Any other questions? That’s going to be it for our proof. If I could make just a few concluding remarks.
“By the way, we have Bart King here to answer any questions. And it was our intention to put him on, but I don’t know if you all are interested in extending for five minutes to hear from Bart King or not. He’s here if you want him.
“[TSSAA’s executive director]: No.
“[Brentwood’s lawyer]: No. All right.” App. 267.
At trial, a board member testified that the board “dropped” the charges relating to King, id., at 347 (testimony of Michael Hammond), which explains why the board restored Curry’s eligibility. The fine, the probationary period, and the playoff suspension had all been imposed at earlier stages of the proceedings, see id., at 243, 255, suggesting that the board was as a practical matter just affirming penalties associated with the remaining recruiting violations. The King allegations appear to have played a negligible role in choosing which penalties to assess.
The District Court drew its contrary conclusion from a single piece of evidence: the board president’s affirmative response dining a deposition to a question about whether the King allegations supported the board’s finding that the recruiting rule had been violated. 442 P. 3d, at 435-436. As the board president clarified at trial, however, while the King allegations were a “ Tactor’ ” in the board’s discussions, the “ “final penalty did not involve Bart King____ [Tjhe final penalty really dealt with the letter from Mr. Flatt.’” Id., at 436. Thinking it a close call, ibid. (“Whether the King issue was actually a factor in the penalties ultimately imposed is far less certain”), the Court of Appeals held that the District Court could credit the board president’s deposition testimony over his subsequent qualification of that testimony. We agree with the dissenting judge below that “so slender an evidentiary reed” cannot support the conclusion that TSSAA violated Brentwood’s procedural rights. Id., at 454 (opinion of Rogers, J.).
Nor has our independent review of the investigators’ notes unearthed any allegation of misconduct that would have been new to Brentwood. See XV App. in No. 03-5245 etc. (CA6 2006), pp. 4178-4193.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The respondent consented to the entry by the National Labor Relations Board of an order directing it to cease and desist from interfering with activities of its employees on behalf of a named labor organization “or of any other labor organization.” The respondent further waived all defenses to the entry by the Court of Appeals of a decree enforcing said order. The Court of Appeals, sua sponte, struck the references to “any other labor organization” wherever they appeared in the Board’s order. 283 F. 2d 26. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded with directions that a judgment be entered which affirms and enforces the Board order. Labor Board v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corp., ante, p. 318.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911), the Court established the rule that it is per se illegal under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1, for a manufacturer to agree with its distributor to set the minimum price the distributor can charge for the manufacturer’s goods. The question presented by the instant case is whether the Court should overrule the per se rule and allow resale price maintenance agreements to be judged by the rule of reason, the usual standard applied to determine if there is a violation of § 1. The Court has abandoned the rule of per se illegality for other vertical restraints a manufacturer imposes on its distributors. Respected economic analysts, furthermore, conclude that vertical price restraints can have procompetitive effects. We now hold that Dr. Miles should be overruled and that vertical price restraints are to be judged by the rule of reason.
I
Petitioner, Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. (Lee-gin), designs, manufactures, and distributes leather goods and accessories. In 1991, Leegin began to sell belts under the brand name “Brighton.” The Brighton brand has now expanded into a variety of women’s fashion accessories. It is sold across the United States in over 5,000 retail establishments, for the most part independent, small boutiques and specialty stores. Leegin’s president, Jerry Kohl, also has an interest in about 70 stores that sell Brighton products. Lee-gin asserts that, at least for its products, small retailers treat customers better, provide customers more services, and make their shopping experience more satisfactory than do larger, often impersonal retailers. Kohl explained: “[W]e want the consumers to get a different experience than they get in Sam’s Club or in Wal-Mart. And you can’t get that kind of experience or support or customer service from a store like Wal-Mart.” 5 Record 127.
Respondent, PSKS, Inc. (PSKS), operates Kay’s Kloset, a women’s apparel store in Lewisville, Texas. Kay’s Kloset buys from about 75 different manufacturers and at one time sold the Brighton brand. It first started purchasing Brighton goods from Leegin in 1995. Once it began selling the brand, the store promoted Brighton. For example, it ran Brighton advertisements and had Brighton days in the store. Kay’s Kloset became the destination retailer in the area to buy Brighton products. Brighton was the store’s most important brand and once accounted for 40 to 50 percent of its profits.
In 1997, Leegin instituted the “Brighton Retail Pricing and Promotion Policy.” 4 id., at 939. Following the policy, Leegin refused to sell to retailers that discounted Brighton goods below suggested prices. The policy contained an exception for products not selling well that the retailer did not plan on reordering. In the letter to retailers establishing the policy, Leegin stated:
“In this age of mega stores like Macy’s, Bloomingdales, May Co. and others, consumers are perplexed by promises of product quality and support of product which we believe is lacking in these large stores. Consumers are further confused by the ever popular sale, sale, sale, etc.
“We, at Leegin, choose to break away from the pack by selling [at] specialty stores; specialty stores that can offer the customer great quality merchandise, superb service, and support the Brighton product 365 days a year on a consistent basis.
“We realize that half the equation is Leegin producing great Brighton product and the other half is you, our retailer, creating great looking stores selling our products in a quality manner.” Ibid.
Leegin adopted the policy to give its retailers sufficient margins to provide customers the service central to its distribution strategy. It also expressed concern that discounting harmed Brighton’s brand image and reputation.
A year after instituting the pricing policy Leegin introduced a marketing strategy known as the “Heart Store Program.” See id., at 962-972. It offered retailers incentives to become Heart Stores, and, in exchange, retailers pledged, among other things, to sell at Leegin’s suggested prices. Kay’s Kloset became a Heart Store soon after Leegin created the program. After a Leegin employee visited the store and found it unattractive, the parties appear to have agreed that Kay’s Kloset would not be a Heart Store beyond 1998. Despite losing this status, Kay’s Kloset continued to increase its Brighton sales.
In December 2002, Leegin discovered Kay’s Kloset had been marking down Brighton’s entire line by 20 percent. Kay’s Kloset contended it placed Brighton products on sale to compete with nearby retailers who also were undercutting Leegin’s suggested prices. Leegin, nonetheless, requested that Kay’s Kloset cease discounting. Its request refused, Leegin stopped selling to the store. The loss of the Brighton brand had a considerable negative impact on the store’s revenue from sales.
PSKS sued Leegin in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. It alleged, among other claims, that Leegin had violated the antitrust laws by “enter-ting] into agreements with retailers to charge only those prices fixed by Leegin.” Id., at 1236. Leegin planned to introduce expert testimony describing the procompetitive effects of its pricing policy. The District Court excluded the testimony, relying on the per se rule established by Dr. Miles. At trial PSKS argued that the Heart Store program, among other things, demonstrated Leegin and its retailers had agreed to fix prices. Leegin responded that it had established a unilateral pricing policy lawful under § 1, which applies only to concerted action. See United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U. S. 300, 307 (1919). The jury agreed with PSKS and awarded it $1.2 million. Pursuant to 15 U. S. C. § 15(a), the District Court trebled the damages and reimbursed PSKS for its attorney’s fees and costs. It entered judgment against Leegin in the amount of $3,975,000.80.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 171 Fed. Appx. 464 (2006) (per curiam). On appeal Leegin did not dispute that it had entered into vertical price-fixing agreements with its retailers. Rather, it contended that the rule of reason should have applied to those agreements. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument. Id., at 466-467. It was correct to explain that it remained bound by Dr. Miles “[b]ecause [the Supreme] Court has consistently applied the per se rule to [vertical minimum price-fixing] agreements.” 171 Fed. Appx., at 466. On this premise the Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of Leegin’s economic expert, for the per se rule rendered irrelevant any procompetitive justifications for Leegin’s pricing policy. Id., at 467. We granted certiorari to determine whether vertical minimum resale price maintenance agreements should continue to be treated as per se unlawful. 549 U. S. 1092 (2006).
II
Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits “[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States.” Ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1. While § 1 could be interpreted to proscribe all contracts, see, e. g., Board of Trade of Chicago v. United States, 246 U. S. 231, 238 (1918), the Court has never “taken a literal approach to [its] language,” Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1, 5 (2006). Rather, the Court has repeated time and again that § 1 “outlaw[s] only unreasonable restraints.” State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3, 10 (1997).
The rule of reason is the accepted standard for testing whether a practice restrains trade in violation of § 1. See Texaco, supra, at 5. “Under this rule, the factfinder weighs all of the circumstances of a case in deciding whether a restrictive practice should be prohibited as imposing an unreasonable restraint on competition.” Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U. S. 36, 49 (1977). Appropriate factors to take into account include “specific information about the relevant business” and “the restraint’s history, nature, and effect.” Khan, supra, at 10. Whether the businesses involved have market power is a further, significant consideration. See, e. g., Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U. S. 752, 768 (1984) (equating the rule of reason with “an inquiry into market power and market structure designed to assess [a restraint’s] actual effect”); see also Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U. S. 28, 45-46 (2006). In its design and function the rule distinguishes between restraints with anticompetitive effect that are harmful to the consumer and restraints stimulating competition that are in the consumer’s best interest.
The rule of reason does not govern all restraints. Some types “are deemed unlawful per se.” Khan, supra, at 10. The per se rule, treating categories of restraints as necessarily illegal, eliminates the need to study the reasonableness of an individual restraint in light of the real market forces at work, Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U. S. 717, 723 (1988); and, it must be acknowledged, the per se rule can give clear guidance for certain conduct. Restraints that are per se unlawful include horizontal agreements among competitors to fix prices, see Texaco, supra, at 5, or to divide markets, see Palmer v. BRG of Ga., Inc., 498 U. S. 46, 49-50 (1990) (per curiam).
Resort to per se rules is confined to restraints, like those mentioned, “that would always or almost always tend to restrict competition and decrease output.” Business Electronics, supra, at 723 (internal quotation marks omitted). To justify a per se prohibition a restraint must have “manifestly anticompetitive” effects, GTE Sylvania, supra, at 50, and “lack... any redeeming virtue,” Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U. S. 284, 289 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted).
As a consequence, the per se rule is appropriate only after courts have had considerable experience with the type of restraint at issue, see Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U. S. 1, 9 (1979), and only if courts can predict with confidence that it would be invalidated in all or almost all instances under the rule of reason, see Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Soc., 457 U. S. 332, 344 (1982). It should come as no surprise, then, that “we have expressed reluctance to adopt per se rules with regard to restraints imposed in the context of business relationships where the economic impact of certain practices is not immediately obvious.” Khan, supra, at 10 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U. S. 253, 263 (1963) (refusing to adopt a per se rule for a vertical nonprice restraint because of the uncertainty concerning whether this type of restraint satisfied the demanding standards necessary to apply a per se rule). And, as we have stated, a “departure from the rule-of-reason standard must be based upon demonstrable economic effect rather than... upon formalistic line drawing.” GTE Sylvania, supra, at 58-59.
Ill
The Court has interpreted Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, as establishing a per se rule against a vertical agreement between a manufacturer and its distributor to set minimum resale prices. See, e. g., Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U. S. 752, 761 (1984). In Dr. Miles the plaintiff, a manufacturer of medicines, sold its products only to distributors who agreed to resell them at set prices. The Court found the manufacturer’s control of resale prices to be unlawful. It relied on the common-law rule that “a general restraint upon alienation is ordinarily invalid." 220 U. S., at 404-405. The Court then explained that the agreements would advantage the distributors, not the manufacturer, and were analogous to a combination among competing distributors, which the law treated as void. Id., at 407-408.
The reasoning of the Court’s more recent jurisprudence has rejected the rationales on which Dr. Miles was based. By relying on the common-law rule against restraints on alienation, id., at 404-405, the Court justified its decision based on “formalistic” legal doctrine rather than “demonstrable economic effect,” GTE Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 58-59. The Court in Dr. Miles relied on a treatise published in 1628, but failed to discuss in detail the business reasons that would motivate a manufacturer situated in 1911 to make use of vertical price restraints. Yet the Sherman Act’s use of “restraint of trade” “invokes the common law itself,... not merely the static content that the common law had assigned to the term in 1890.” Business Electronics, supra, at 732. The general restraint on alienation, especially in the age when then-Justice Hughes used the term, tended to evoke policy concerns extraneous to the question that controls here. Usually associated with land, not chattels, the rule arose from restrictions removing real property from the stream of commerce for generations. The Court should be cautious about putting dispositive weight on doctrines from antiquity but of slight relevance. We reaffirm that “the state of the common law 400 or even 100 years ago is irrelevant to the issue before us: the effect of the antitrust laws upon vertical distributional restraints in the American economy today.” GTE Sylvania, supra, at 53, n. 21 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Dr. Miles, furthermore, treated vertical agreements a manufacturer makes with its distributors as analogous to a horizontal combination among competing distributors. See 220 U. S., at 407-408. In later cases, however, the Court rejected the approach of reliance on rules governing horizontal restraints when defining rules applicable to vertical ones. See, e.g., Business Electronics, supra, at 734 (disclaiming, the “notion of equivalence between the scope of horizontal per se illegality and that of vertical per se illegality”); Maricopa County, supra, at 348, n. 18 (noting that “horizontal restraints are generally less defensible than vertical restraints”). Our recent cases formulate antitrust principles in accordance with the appreciated differences in economic effect between vertical and horizontal agreements, differences the Dr. Miles Court failed to consider.
The reasons upon which Dr. Miles relied do not justify a per se rule. As a consequence, it is necessary to examine, in the first instance, the economic effects of vertical agreements to fix minimum resale prices, and to determine whether the per se rule is nonetheless appropriate. See Business Electronics, 485 U. S., at 726.
A
Though each side of the debate can find sources to support its position, it suffices to say here that economics literature is replete with procompetitive justifications for a manufacturer’s use of resale price maintenance. See, e. g., Brief for Economists as Amici Curiae 16 (“In the theoretical literature, it is essentially undisputed that minimum [resale price maintenance] can have procompetitive effects and that under a variety of market conditions it is unlikely to have anticompetitive effects”); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 9 (“[T]here is a widespread consensus that permitting a manufacturer to control the price at which its goods are sold may promote mferbrand competition and consumer welfare in a variety of ways”); ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law and Economics of Product Distribution 76 (2006) (“[T]he bulk of the economic literature on [resale price maintenance] suggests that [it] is more likely to be used to enhance efficiency than for anticompetitive purposes”); see also H. Hovenkamp, The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution 184-191 (2005) (hereinafter Hovenkamp); R. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox 288-291 (1978) (hereinafter Bork). Even those more skeptical of resale price maintenance acknowledge it can have procompetitive effects. See, e. g., Brief for William S. Comanor et al. as Amici Curiae 3 (“[G]iven [the] diversity of effects [of resale price maintenance], one could reasonably take the position that a rule of reason rather than a per se approach is warranted”); F. Scherer & D. Ross, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance 558 (3d ed. 1990) (hereinafter Scherer & Ross) (“The overall balanee between benefits and costs [of resale price maintenance] is probably close”).
The few recent studies documenting the competitive effects of resale price maintenance also cast doubt on the conclusion that the practice meets the criteria for a per se rule. See Bureau of Economics Staff Report to the FTC, T. Overstreet, Resale Price Maintenance: Economic Theories and Empirical Evidence 170 (1983) (hereinafter Overstreet) (noting that “[e]fficient uses of [resale price maintenance] are evidently not unusual or rare”); see also Ippolito, Resale Price Maintenance: Empirical Evidence From Litigation, 34 J. Law & Econ. 263,292-293 (1991) (hereinafter Ippolito).
The justifications for vertical price restraints are similar to those for other vertical, restraints. See GTE Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 54-57. Minimum resale price maintenance can stimulate interbrand competition — the competition among manufacturers selling different brands of the same type of product — by reducing intrabrand competition — the competition among retailers selling the same brand. See id., at 51-52. The promotion of interbrand competition is important because “the primary purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect [this type of] competition.” Khan, 522 U. S., at 15. A single manufacturer’s use of vertical price restraints tends to eliminate intrabrand price competition; this in turn encourages retailers to invest in tangible or intangible services or promotional efforts that aid the manufacturer’s position as against rival manufacturers. Resale price maintenance also has the potential to give consumers more options so that they can choose among low-price, low-service brands; high-price, high-service brands; and brands that fall in between.
Absent vertical price, restraints, the retail services that enhance interbrand competition might be underprovided. This is because discounting retailers can free ride on retailers who furnish services and then capture some of the increased demand those services generate. GTE Sylvania, supra, at 55. Consumers might learn, for example, about the benefits of a manufacturer’s product from a retailer that invests in fine showrooms, offers product demonstrations, or hires and trains knowledgeable employees. R. Posner, Antitrust Law 172-173 (2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Posner). Or consumers might decide to buy the product because they see it in a retail establishment that has a reputation for selling high-quality merchandise. Marvel & McCafferty, Resale Price Maintenance and Quality Certification, 15 Rand J. Econ. 346,347-349 (1984) (hereinafter Marvel & McCafferty). If the consumer can then buy the product from a retailer that discounts because it has not spent capital providing services or developing a quality reputation, the high-service retailer will lose sales to the discounter, forcing it to cut back its services to a level lower than consumers would otherwise prefer. Minimum resale price maintenance alleviates the problem because it prevents the discounter from undercutting the service provider. With price competition decreased, the manufacturer’s retailers compete among themselves over services.
Resale price maintenance, in addition, can increase inter-brand competition by facilitating market entry for new firms and brands. “[N]ew manufacturers and manufacturers entering new markets can use the restrictions in order to induce competent and aggressive retailers to make the kind of investment of capital and labor that is often required in the distribution of products unknown to the consumer.” GTE Sylvania, supra, at 55; see Marvel & McCafferty 349 (noting that reliance on a retailer’s reputation “will decline as the manufacturer’s brand becomes better known, so that [resale price maintenance] may be particularly important as a competitive device for new entrants”). New products and new brands are essential to a dynamic economy, and if markets can be penetrated by using resale price maintenance there is a procompetitive effect.
Resale price maintenance can also increase interbrand competition by encouraging retailer services that would not be provided even absent free riding. It may be difficult and inefficient for a manufacturer to make and enforce a contract with a retailer specifying the different services the retailer must perform. Offering the retailer a guaranteed margin and threatening termination if it does not live up to expectations may be the most efficient way to expand the manufacturer’s market share by inducing the retailer’s performance and allowing it to use its own initiative and experience in providing valuable services. See Mathewson & Winter, The Law and Economics of Resale Price Maintenance, 13 Rev. Indus. Org. 57,74-75 (1998) (hereinafter Mathewson & Winter); Klein & Murphy, Vertical Restraints as Contract Enforcement Mechanisms, 31 J. Law & Econ. 265, 295 (1988); see also Deneckere, Marvel, & Peck, Demand Uncertainty, Inventories, and Resale Price Maintenance, 111 Q. J. Econ. 885, 911 (1996) (noting that resale price maintenance may be beneficial to motivate retailers to stock adequate inventories of a manufacturer’s goods in the face of uncertain consumer demand).
B
While vertical agreements setting minimum resale prices can have procompetitive justifications, they may have anti-competitive effects in other cases; and unlawful price fixing, designed solely to obtain monopoly profits, is an ever-present temptation. Resale price maintenance may, for example, facilitate a manufacturer cartel. See Business Electronics, 485 U. S., at 725. An unlawful cartel will seek to discover if some manufacturers are undercutting the cartel’s fixed prices. Resale price maintenance could assist the cartel in identifying price-cutting manufacturers who benefit from the lower prices they offer. Resale price maintenance, furthermore, could discourage a manufacturer from cutting prices to retailers with the concomitant benefit of cheaper prices to consumers. See ibid,.; see also Posner 172; Overstreet 19-23.
Vertical price restraints also “might be used to organize cartels at the retailer level.” Business Electronics, supra, at 725-726. A group of retailers might collude to fix prices to consumers and then compel a manufacturer to aid the unlawful arrangement with resale price maintenance. In that instance the manufacturer does not establish the practice to stimulate services or to promote its brand but to give inefficient retailers higher profits. Retailers with better distribution systems and lower cost structures would be prevented from charging lower prices by the agreement. See Posner 172; Overstreet 13-19. Historical examples suggest this possibility is a legitimate concern. See, e. g., Marvel & McCafferty, The Welfare Effects of Resale Price Maintenance, 28 J. Law & Econ. 363, 373 (1985) (hereinafter Marvel) (providing an example of the power of the National Association of Retail Druggists to compel manufacturers to use resale price maintenance); Hovenkamp 186 (suggesting that the retail druggists in Dr. Miles formed a cartel and used manufacturers to enforce it).
A horizontal cartel among competing manufacturers or competing retailers that decreases output or reduces competition in order to increase price is, and ought to be, per se unlawful. See Texaco, 547 U. S., at 5; GTE Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 58, n. 28. To the extent a vertical agreement setting minimum resale prices is entered upon to facilitate either type of cartel, it, too, would need to be held unlawful under the rule of reason. This type of agreement may also be useful evidence for a plaintiff attempting to prove the existence of a horizontal cartel.
Resale price maintenance, furthermore, can be abused by a powerful manufacturer or retailer. A dominant retailer, for example, might request resale price maintenance to forestall innovation in distribution that decreases costs. A manufacturer might consider it has little choice but to accommodate the retailer’s demands for vertical price restraints if the manufacturer believes it needs access to the retailer’s distribution network. See Overstreet 31; 8 P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law 47 (2d ed. 2004) (hereinafter Areeda & Hovenkamp); cf. Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. FTC, 221 F. 3d 928, 937-938 (CA7 2000). A manufacturer with market power, by comparison, might use resale price maintenance to give retailers an incentive not to sell the products of smaller rivals or new entrants. See, e.g., Marvel 366-368. As should be evident, the potential anticompetitive consequences of vertical price restraints must not be ignored or underestimated.
C
Notwithstanding the risks of unlawful conduct, it cannot be stated with any degree of confidence that resale price maintenance “always or almost always tend[s] to restrict competition and decrease output.” Business Electronics, supra, at 723 (internal quotation marks omitted). Vertical agreements establishing minimum resale prices can have either procompetitive or anticompetitive effects, depending upon the circumstances in which they are formed. And although the empirical evidence on the topic is limited, it does not suggest efficient uses of the agreements are infrequent or hypothetical. See Overstreet 170; see also id., at 80 (noting that for the majority of enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission between 1965 and 1982, “the use of [resale price maintenance] was not likely motivated by collusive dealers who had successfully coerced their suppliers”); Ippolito 292 (reaching a similar conclusion). As the rule would proscribe a significant amount of procompetitive conduct, these agreements appear ill suited for per se condemnation.
Respondent contends, nonetheless, that vertical price restraints should be per se unlawful because of the administrative convenience of per se rules. See, e. g., GTE Sylvania, supra, at 50, n. 16 (noting “per se rules tend to provide guidance to the business community and to minimize the burdens on litigants and the judicial system”). That argument suggests per se illegality is the rule rather than the exception. This misinterprets our antitrust law. Per se rules may decrease administrative costs, but that is only part of the equation. Those rules can be counterproductive. They can increase the total cost of the antitrust system by prohibiting procompetitive conduct the antitrust laws should encourage. See Easterbrook, Vertical Arrangements and the Rule of Reason, 53 Antitrust L. J. 135, 158 (1984) (hereinafter Easterbrook). They also may increase litigation costs by promoting frivolous suits against legitimate practices. The Court has thus explained that administrative “advantages are not sufficient in themselves to justify the creation of per se rules,” GTE Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 50, n. 16, and has relegated their use to restraints that are “manifestly anticompetitive,” id., at 49-50. Were the Court now to conclude that vertical price restraints should be per se illegal based on administrative costs, we would undermine, if not overrule, the traditional “demanding standards” for adopting per se rules. Id., at 50. Any possible reduction in administrative costs cannot alone justify the Dr. Miles rule.
Respondent also argues the per se rule is justified because a vertical price restraint can lead to higher prices for the manufacturer’s goods. See also Overstreet 160 (noting that “price surveys indicate that [resale price maintenance] in most cases increased the prices of products sold”). Respondent is mistaken in relying on pricing effects absent a further showing of anticompetitive conduct. Cf. id., at 106 (explaining that price surveys “do not necessarily tell us anything conclusive about the welfare effects of [resale price maintenance] because the results are generally consistent with both procompetitive and anticompetitive theories”). For, as has been indicated already, the antitrust laws are designed primarily to protect interbrand competition, from which lower prices can later result. See Khan, 522 U. S., at 15. The Court, moreover, has evaluated other vertical restraints under the rule of reason even though prices can be increased in the course of promoting procompetitive effects. See, e. g., Business Electronics, 485 U. S., at 728. And resale price maintenance may reduce prices if manufacturers have resorted to costlier alternatives of controlling resale prices that are not per se unlawful. See infra, at 902-904; see also Marvel 371.
Respondent’s argument, furthermore, overlooks that, in general, the interests of manufacturers and consumers are aligned with respect to retailer profit margins. The difference between the price a manufacturer charges retailers and the price retailers charge consumers represents part of the manufacturer’s cost of distribution, which, like any other cost, the manufacturer usually desires to minimize. See GTE Sylvania, 433 U. S., at 56, n. 24; see also id., at 56 (“Economists... have argued that manufacturers have an economic interest in maintaining as much intrabrand competition as is consistent with the efficient distribution of their products”). A manufacturer has no incentive to over compensate retailers with unjustified margins. The retailers, not the manufacturer, gain from higher retail prices. The manufacturer often loses; interbrand competition reduces its competitiveness and market share because consumers will “substitute a different brand of the same product.” Id., at 52, n. 19; see Business Electronics, supra, at 725. As a general matter, therefore, a single manufacturer will desire to set minimum resale prices only if the “increase in demand resulting from enhanced service... will more than offset a negative impact on demand of a higher retail price.” Mathewson & Winter 67.
The implications of respondent’s position are far reaching. Many decisions a manufacturer makes and carries out through concerted action can lead to higher prices. A manufacturer might, for example, contract with different suppliers to obtain better inputs that improve product quality. Or it might hire an advertising agency to promote awareness of its goods. Yet no one would think these actions violate the Sherman Act because they lead to higher prices. The antitrust laws do not require manufacturers to produce generic goods that consumers do not know about or want. The manufacturer strives to improve its product quality or to promote its brand because it believes this conduct will lead to increased demand despite higher prices. The same can hold true for resale price maintenance.
Resale price maintenance, it is true, does have economic dangers. If the rule of reason were to apply to vertical price restraints, courts would have to be diligent in eliminating their anticompetitive uses from, the market. This is a realistic objective, and certain factors are relevant to the inquiry. For example, the number of manufacturers that make use of the practice in a given industry can provide important instruction. When only a few manufacturers lacking market power adopt the practice, there is little likelihood it is facilitating a manufacturer cartel, for a cartel then can be undercut by rival manufacturers. See Overstreet 22; Bork 294. Likewise, a retailer cartel is unlikely when only a single manufacturer in a competitive market uses resale price maintenance. Interbrand competition would divert consumers to lower priced substitutes and eliminate any gains to retailers from their price-fixing agreement over a single brand. See Posner 172; Bork 292. Resale price maintenance should be subject to more careful scrutiny, by contrast, if many competing manufacturers adopt the practice. Cf. Scherer & Ross 558 (noting that “except when [resale price maintenance] spreads to cover the bulk of an industry’s output, depriving consumers of a meaningful choice between high-service and low-price outlets, most [resale price maintenance arrangements] are probably innocuous”); Easterbrook 162 (suggesting that “every one of the potentially-anticompetitive outcomes of vertical arrangements depends on the uniformity of the practice”).
The source of the restraint may also be an important consideration. If there is evidence retailers were the impetus for a vertical price restraint, there is a greater likelihood that the restraint facilitates a retailer cartel or supports a dominant, inefficient retailer. See Brief for William S. Comanor et al. as Amici Curiae 7-8. If, by contrast, a manufacturer adopted the policy independent of retailer pressure, the restraint is less likely to promote anticompetitive conduct. Cf. Posner 177 (“It makes all the difference whether minimum retail prices are imposed by the manufacturer in order to evoke point-of-sale services or by the dealers in order to obtain monopoly profits”). A manufacturer also has an incentive to protest inefficient retailer-induced price restraints because they can harm its competitive position.
As a final matter, that a dominant manufacturer or retailer can abuse resale price maintenance for anticompetitive purposes may not be a serious concern unless the relevant entity has market power. If a retailer lacks market power, manufacturers likely can sell their goods through rival retailers. See also Business Electronics, supra, at 727, n. 2 (noting “[r]etail market power is rare, because of the usual presence of interbrand competition and other dealers”). And if a manufacturer lacks market power, there is less likelihood it can use the practice to keep competitors away from distribution outlets.
The rule of reason is designed and used to eliminate anti-competitive transactions from the market. This standard principle applies to vertical price restraints. A party alleging injury from a vertical agreement setting minimum resale prices will have, as a general matter, the information and resources available to show the existence of the agreement and its scope of operation. As courts gain experience considering the effects of these restraints by applying the rule of reason over the course of decisions, they can establish the litigation structure to ensure the rule operates to eliminate anticompetitive restraints from the market and to provide more guidance to businesses. Courts can, for example, devise rules over time for offering proof, or even presumptions where justified, to make the rule of reason a fair and efficient way to prohibit anticompetitive restraints and to promote procompetitive ones.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we think that were the Court considering the issue as an original matter, the rule of reason, not a per se rule of unlawfulness, would be the appropriate standard to judge vertical price restraints.
IV
We do not write on a clean slate, for the decision in Dr. Miles is almost a century old. So there is an argument for its retention on the basis of stare decisis alone. Even if Dr. Miles established an erroneous rule, “[s]tare decisis reflects a policy judgment that in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.” Khan, 522 U. S., at 20 (internal quotation marks omitted). And concerns about maintaining settled law are strong when the question is one of statutory interpretation
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we decide whether a criminal suspect’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches is violated when, after he gives a police officer permission to search his automobile, the officer opens a closed container found within the car that might reasonably hold the object of the search. We find that it is not. The Fourth Amendment is satisfied when, under the circumstances, it is objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that the scope of the suspect’s consent permitted him to open a particular container within the automobile.
This case began when a Dade County police officer, Frank Trujillo, overheard respondent, Enio Jimeno, arranging what appeared to be a drug transaction over a public telephone. Believing that Jimeno might be involved in illegal drug trafficking, Officer Trujillo followed his car. The officer observed respondents make a- right turn at a red light without stopping. He then pulled Jimeno over to the side of the road in order to issue him a traffic citation. Officer Trujillo told Jimeno that he had been stopped for committing a traffic infraction. The officer went on to say that he had reason to believe that Jimeno was carrying narcotics in his car, and asked permission to search the car. He explained that Jimeno did not have to consent to a search of the car. Jimeno stated that he had nothing to hide and gave Trujillo permission to search the automobile. After Jimeno’s spouse, respondent Luz Jimeno, stepped out of the car, Officer Trujillo went to the passenger side, opened the door, and saw a folded, brown paper bag on the floorboard. The officer picked up the bag, opened it, and found a kilogram of cocaine inside.
The Jimenos were charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of Florida law. Before trial, they moved to suppress the cocaine found in the bag on the ground that Jimeno’s consent to search the car did not extend to the closed paper bag inside of the car. The trial court granted the motion. It found that although Jimeno “could have assumed that the officer would have searched the bag” at the time he gave his consent, his mere consent to search the car did not carry with it specific consent to open the bag and examine its contents. No. 88-23967 (Cir. Ct. Dade Cty., Fla., Mar. 21, 1989); App. to Pet. for Cert. A-6.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to suppress the evidence of the cocaine. 550 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In doing so, the court established a per se rule that “consent to a general search for narcotics does not extend to ‘sealed containers within the general area agreed to by the defendant.’” Ibid. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, relying upon its decision in State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464 (1989), aff’d on other grounds, 495 U. S. 1 (1990). 564 So. 2d 1083 (1990). We granted cer-tiorari to determine whether consent to search a vehicle may extend to closed containers found inside the vehicle, 498 U. S. 997 (1990), and we now reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida.
The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 360 (1967). The Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all state-initiated searches and seizures; it merely proscribes those which are unreasonable. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177 (1990). Thus, we have long approved consensual searches because it is no doubt reasonable for the police to conduct a search once they have been permitted to do so. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 219 (1973). The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect’s consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of “objective” reasonableness—what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect? Illinois v. Rodriguez, supra, at 183-189; Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 501-502 (1983) (opinion of White, J.); id., at 514 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). The question before us, then, is whether it is reasonable for an officer to consider a suspect’s general consent to a search of his car to include consent to examine a paper bag lying on the floor of the car. We think that it is.
The scope of a search is generally defined by its expressed object. United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982). In this case, the terms of the search’s authorization were simple. Respondent granted Officer Trujillo permission to search his car, and did not place any explicit limitation on the scope of the search. Trujillo had informed Jimeno that he believed Jimeno was carrying narcotics, and that he would be looking for narcotics in the car. We think that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search respondents’ car included consent to search containers within that car which might bear drugs. A reasonable person may be expected to know that narcotics are generally carried in some form of a container. “Contraband goods rarely are strewn across the trunk or floor of a car.” Id., at 820. The authorization to search in this case, therefore, extended beyond the surfaces of the car’s interior to the paper bag lying on the car’s floor.
The facts of this case are therefore different from those in State v. Wells, supra, on which the Supreme Court of Florida relied in affirming the supression order in this case. There the Supreme Court of Florida held that consent to search the trunk of a car did not include authorization to pry open a locked briefcase found inside the trunk. It is very likely unreasonable to think that a suspect, by consenting to the search of his trunk, has agreed to the breaking open of a locked briefcase within the-trunk, but it is otherwise with respect to a closed paper bag.
Respondents argue, and the Florida trial court agreed, that if the police wish to search closed containers within a car they must separately request permission to search each container. But we see no basis for adding this sort of superstructure to the Fourth Amendment’s basic test of objective reasonableness. Cf. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213 (1983). A suspect may of course delimit as he chooses the scope of the search to which he consents. But if his consent would reasonably be understood to extend to a particular container, the Fourth Amendment provides no grounds for requiring a more explicit authorization. “[T]he community has a real interest in encouraging consent, for the resulting search may yield necessary evidence for the solution and prosecution of crime, evidence that may insure that a wholly innocent person is not wrongly charged with a criminal offense.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, at 243.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In these cases, the District Court denied a motion of the sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, to modify a consent decree entered to correct unconstitutional conditions at the Suffolk County Jail. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The issue before us is whether the courts below applied the correct standard in denying the motion. We hold that they did not and remand these cases for further proceedings.
H-<
This litigation began in 1971 when inmates sued the Suffolk County sheriff, the Commissioner of Correction for the State of Massachusetts, the mayor of Boston, and nine city councilors, claiming that inmates not yet convicted of the crimes charged against them were being held under unconstitutional conditions at what was then the Suffolk County Jail. The facility, known as the Charles Street Jail, had been constructed in 1848 with large tiers of barred cells. The numerous deficiencies of the jail, which had been treated with what a state court described as “malignant neglect,” Attorney General v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, 394 Mass. 624, 625, 477 N. E. 2d 361, 362 (1985), are documented in the decision of the District Court. See Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F. Supp. 676, 679-684 (Mass. 1973). The court held that conditions at the jail were constitutionally deficient:
“As a facility for the pretrial detention of presumptively innocent citizens, Charles Street Jail unnecessarily and unreasonably infringes upon their most basic liberties, among them the rights to reasonable freedom of motion, personal cleanliness, and personal privacy. The court finds and rules that the quality of incarceration at Charles Street is ‘punishment’ of such a nature and degree that it cannot be justified by the state’s interest in holding defendants for trial; and therefore it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 686.
The court permanently enjoined the government defendants: “(a) from housing at the Charles Street Jail after November 30, 1973 in a cell with another inmate, any inmate who is awaiting trial and (b) from housing at the Charles Street Jail after June 30, 1976 any inmate who is awaiting trial.” Id., at 691. The defendants did not appeal.
In 1977, with the problems of the Charles Street Jail still unresolved, the District Court ordered defendants, including the Boston City Council, to take such steps and expend the funds reasonably necessary to renovate another existing facility as a substitute detention center. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, Civ. Action No. 71-162-G (Mass., June 30, 1977), App. 22. The Court of Appeals agreed that immediate action was required:
“It is now just short of five years since the district court’s opinion was issued. For all of that time the plaintiff class has been confined under the conditions repugnant to the constitution. For all of that time defendants have been aware of that fact.
“Given the present state of the record and the unconscionable delay that plaintiffs have already endured in securing their constitutional rights, we have no alternative but to affirm the district court’s order to prohibit the incarceration of pretrial detainees at the Charles St. Jail.” Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, 573 F. 2d 98, 99-100 (CA1 1978).
The Court of Appeals ordered that the Charles Street Jail be closed on October 2,1978, unless a plan was presented to create a constitutionally adequate facility for pretrial detainees in Suffolk County.
Four days before the deadline, the plan that formed the basis for the consent decree now before this Court was submitted to the District Court. Although plans for the new jail were not complete, the District Court observed that “the critical features of confinement, such as single cells of 80 sq. ft. for inmates, are fixed and safety, security, medical, recreational, kitchen, laundry, educational, religious and visiting provisions, are included. There are unequivocal commitments to conditions of confinement which will meet constitutional standards.” Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, Civ. Action No. 71-162-G (Mass., Oct. 2, 1978), App. 51, 55. The court therefore allowed Suffolk County to continue housing its pretrial detainees at the Charles Street Jail.
Seven months later, the court entered a formal consent decree in which the government defendants expressed their “desire... to provide, maintain 'and operate as applicable a suitable and constitutional jail for Suffolk County pretrial detainees.” Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, Civ. Action No. 71-162-G (Mass., May 7, 1979), App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 90-954, p. 15a. The decree specifically incorporated the provisions of the Suffolk County Detention Center, Charles Street Facility, Architectural Program, which— in the words of the consent decree — “sets forth a program which is both constitutionally adequate and constitutionally required.” Id., at 16a.
Under the terms of the architectural program, the new jail was designed to include a total of 309 “[sjingle occupancy rooms” of 70 square feet, App. 73, 76, arranged in modular units that included a kitchenette and recreation area, inmate laundry room, education units, and indoor and outdoor exercise areas. See, e. g., id., at 249. The size of the jail was based on a projected decline in inmate population, from 245 male prisoners in 1979 to 226 at present. Id., at 69.
Although the architectural program projected that construction of the new jail would be completed by 1983, ibid., work on the new facility had not been started by 1984. During the intervening years, the inmate population outpaced population projections. Litigation in the state courts ensued, and defendants were ordered to build a larger jail. Attorney General v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, 394 Mass. 624, 477 N. E. 2d 361 (1985). Thereupon, plaintiff prisoners, with the support of the sheriff, moved the District Court to modify the decree to provide a facility with 435 cells. Citing “the unanticipated increase in jail population and the delay in completing the jail,” the District Court modified the decree to permit the capacity of the new jail to be increased in any amount, provided that:
“(a) single-cell occupancy is maintained under the design for the facility;
“(b) under the standards and specifications of the Architectural Program, as modified, the relative proportion of cell space to support services will remain the same as it was in the Architectural Program;
“(c) any modifications are incorporated into new architectural plans;
“(d) defendants act without delay and take all steps reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of the Consent Decree according to the authorized schedule.” Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, Civ. Action No. 71-162-G (Mass., Apr. 11, 1985), App. 110, 111.
The number of cells was later increased to 453. Construction started in 1987.
In July 1989, while the new jail was still under construction, the sheriff moved to modify the consent decree to allow the double bunking of male detainees in 197 cells, thereby raising the capacity of the new jail to 610 male detainees. The sheriff argued that changes in law and in fact required the modification. The asserted change in law was this Court’s 1979 decision in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520 (1979), handed down one week after the consent decree was approved by the District Court. The asserted change in fact was the increase in the population of pretrial detainees.
The District Court refused to grant the requested modification, holding that the sheriff had failed to meet the standard of United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U. S. 106, 119 (1932):
“Nothing less than a clear showing of grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions should lead us to change what was decreed after years of litigation with the consent of all concerned.”
The court rejected the argument that Bell required modification of the decree because the decision “did not directly overrule any legal interpretation on which the 1979 consent decree was based, and in these circumstances it is inappropriate to invoke Rule 60(b)(5) to modify a consent decree.” Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, 734 F. Supp. 561, 564 (Mass. 1990). The court refused to order modification because of the increased pretrial detainee population, finding that the problem was “neither new nor unforeseen.” Ibid.
The District Court briefly stated that, even under the flexible modification standard adopted by other Courts of Appeals, the sheriff would not be entitled to relief because “[a] separate cell for each detainee has always been an important element of the relief sought in this litigation — perhaps even the most important element.” Id., at 565. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the decree should be modified because the proposal complied with constitutional standards, reasoning that such a rule “would undermine and discourage settlement efforts in institutional cases.” Ibid. The District Court never decided whether the sheriff’s proposal for double celling at the new jail would be constitutionally permissible.
The new Suffolk County Jail opened shortly thereafter.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, stating: “[W]e are in agreement with the well-reasoned opinion of the district court and see no reason to elaborate further.” Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, No. 90-1440 (CA1, Sept. 20, 1990), judgt. order reported at 915 F. 2d 1557, App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 90-954, p. 2a. We granted certiorari. 498 U. S. 1081 (1991).
II
In moving for modification of the decree, the sheriff relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which in relevant part provides:
“On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:... (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment....”
There is no suggestion in these cases that a consent decree is not subject to Rule 60(b). A consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees. Railway Employes v. Wright, 364 U. S. 642, 650-651 (1961). The District Court recognized as much but held that Rule 60(b)(5) codified the “grievous wrong” standard of United States v. Swift & Co., supra, that a case for modification under this standard had not been made, and that resort to Rule 60(b)(6) was also unavailing. This construction of Rule 60(b) was error.
Swift was the product of a prolonged antitrust battle between the Government and the meat-packing industry. In 1920, the defendants agreed to a consent decree that enjoined them from manipulating the meat-packing industry and banned them from engaging in the manufacture, sale, or transportation of other foodstuffs. 286 U. S., at 111. In 1930, several meat-packers petitioned for modification of the decree, arguing that conditions in the meat-packing and grocery industries had changed. Id., at 113. The Court rejected their claim, finding that the meat-packers were positioned to manipulate transportation costs and fix grocery prices in 1930, just as they had been in 1920. Id., at 115-116. It was in this context that Justice Cardozo, for the Court, set forth the much-quoted Swift standard, requiring “[nothing less than a clear showing of grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions”... as a predicate to modification of the meat-packers’ consent decree. Id., at 119.
Read out of context, this language suggests a “hardening” of the traditional flexible standard for modification of consent decrees. New York State Assn. for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 706 F. 2d 956, 968 (CA2), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 915 (1983). But that conclusion does not follow when the standard is read in context. See United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U. S. 244, 248 (1968). The Swift opinion pointedly distinguished the facts of that case from one in which genuine changes required modification of a consent decree, stating:
“The distinction is between restraints that give protection to rights fully accrued upon facts so nearly permanent as to be substantially impervious to change, and those that involve the supervision of changing conduct or conditions and are thus provisional and tentative.... The consent is to be read as directed toward events as they then were. It was not an abandonment of the right to exact revision in the future, if revision should become necessary in adaptation to events to be.” 286 U. S., at 114-115.
Our decisions since Swift reinforce the conclusion that the “grievous wrong” language of Swift was not intended to take on a talismanic quality, warding off virtually all efforts to modify consent decrees. Railway Employes emphasized the need for flexibility in administering consent decrees, stating: “There is... no dispute but that a sound judicial discretion may call for the modification of the terms of an injunctive decree if the circumstances, whether of law or fact, obtaining at the time of its issuance have changed, or new ones have since arisen.” 364 U. S., at 647.
The same theme was repeated in our decision last Term in Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U. S. 237, 246-248 (1991), in which we rejected the rigid use of the Swift “grievous wrong” language as a barrier to a motion to dissolve a desegregation decree.
There is thus little basis for concluding that Rule 60(b) misread the Swift opinion and intended that modifications of consent decrees in all cases were to be governed by the standard actually applied in Swift. That Rule, in providing that, on such terms as are just, a party may be relieved from a final judgment or decree where it is no longer equitable that the judgment have prospective application, permits a less stringent, more flexible standard.
The upsurge in institutional reform litigation since Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), has made the ability of a district court to modify a decree in response to changed circumstances all the more important. Because such decrees often remain in place for extended periods of time, the likelihood of significant changes occurring during the life of the decree is increased. See, e. g., Philadelphia Welfare Rights Organization v. Shapp, 602 F. 2d 1114, 1119-1121 (CA3 1979), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 1026 (1980), in which modification of a consent decree was allowed in light of changes in circumstances that were beyond the defendants’ control and were not contemplated by the court or the parties when the decree was entered.
The experience of the District Courts and Courts of Appeals in implementing and modifying such decrees has demonstrated that a flexible approach is often essential to achieving the goals of reform litigation. See, e. g., New York State Assn. for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, supra. The Courts of Appeals have also observed that the public interest is a particularly significant reason for applying a flexible modification standard in institutional reform litigation because such decrees “reach beyond the parties involved directly in the suit and impact on the public’s right to the sound and efficient operation of its institutions.” Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F. 2d 1105, 1109 (CA6 1989). Accord, New York State Assn. for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, supra, at 969.
Petitioner Rufo urges that these factors are present in the cases before us and support modification of the decree. He asserts that modification would actually improve conditions for some pretrial detainees, who now cannot be housed in the Suffolk County Jail and therefore are transferred to other facilities, farther from family members and legal counsel. In these transfer facilities, petitioners assert that detainees may be double celled under less desirable conditions than those that would exist if double celling were allowed at the new Suffolk County Jail. Petitioner Rufo also contends that the public interest is implicated here because crowding at the new facility has necessitated the release of some pretrial detainees and the transfer of others to halfway houses, from which many escape.
For the District Court, these points were insufficient reason to modify under Rule 60(b)(5) because its “authority [was] limited by the established legal requirements for modification....” 734 F. Supp., at 566. The District Court, as noted above, also held that the suggested modification would not be proper even under the more flexible standard that is followed in some other Circuits. None of the changed circumstances warranted modification because it would violate one of the primary purposes of the decree, which was to provide for “[a] separate cell for each detainee [which] has always been an important element of the relief sought in this litigation — perhaps even the most important element.” Id., at 565. For reasons appearing later in this opinion, this was not an adequate basis for denying the requested modification. The District Court also held that Rule 60(b)(6) provided no more basis for relief. The District Court, and the Court of Appeals as well, failed to recognize that such rigidity is neither required by Swift nor appropriate in the context of institutional reform litigation.
It is urged that any rule other than the Swift “grievous wrong” standard would deter parties to litigation such as this from negotiating settlements and hence destroy the utility of consent decrees. Obviously that would not be the case insofar as the state or local government officials are concerned. As for the plaintiffs in such cases, they know that if they litigate to conclusion and win, the resulting judgment or decree will give them what is constitutionally adequate at that time but perhaps less than they hoped for. They also know that the prospective effect of such a judgment or decree will be open to modification where deemed equitable under Rule 60(b). Whether or not they bargain for more than what they might get after trial, they will be in no worse position if they settle and have the consent decree entered. At least they will avoid further litigation and perhaps will negotiate a decree providing more than what would have been ordered without the local government's consent. And, of course, if they litigate, they may lose.
III
Although we hold that a district court should exercise flexibility in considering requests for modification of an institutional reform consent decree, it does not follow that a modification will be warranted in all circumstances. Rule 60(b)(5) provides that a party may obtain relief from a court order when "it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application," not when it is no longer convenient to live with the terms of a consent decree. Accordingly, a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.
A
A party seeking modification of a consent decree may meet its initial burden by showing a significant change either in factual conditions or in law.
1
Modification of a consent decree may be warranted when changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially more onerous. Such a modification was approved by the District Court in this litigation in 1985 when it became apparent that plans for the new jail did not provide sufficient cell space. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, Civ. Action No. 71-162-G (Mass., Apr. 11, 1985), App. 110. Modification is also appropriate when a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles, New York State Assn. for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 706 F. 2d, at 969 (modification allowed where State could not find appropriate housing facilities for transfer patients); Philadelphia Welfare Rights Organization v. Shapp, 602 F. 2d, at 1120-1121 (modification allowed where State could not find sufficient clients to meet decree targets); or when enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest, Duran v. Elrod, 760 F. 2d 756, 759-761 (CA7 1985) (modification allowed to avoid pretrial release of accused violent felons).
Respondents urge that modification should be allowed only when a change in facts is both “unforeseen and unforeseeable.” Brief for Respondents 35. Such a standard would provide even less flexibility than the exacting Swift test; we decline to adopt it. Litigants are not required to anticipate every exigency that could conceivably arise during the life of a consent decree.
Ordinarily, however, modification should not be granted where a party relies upon events that actually were anticipated at the time it entered into a decree. See Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 274 U. S. App. D. C. 62, 65-66, 861 F. 2d 295, 298-299 (1988); Ruiz v. Lynaugh, 811 F. 2d 856, 862-863 (CA5 1987). If it is clear that a party anticipated changing conditions that would make performance of the decree more onerous but nevertheless agreed to the decree, that party would have to satisfy a heavy burden to convince a court that it agreed to the decree in good faith, made a reasonable effort to comply with the decree, and should be relieved of the undertaking under Rule 60(b).
Accordingly, on remand the District Court should consider whether the upsurge in the Suffolk County inmate population was foreseen by petitioners. The District Court touched on this issue in April 1990, when, in the course of denying the modification requested in this litigation, the court stated that “the overcrowding problem faced by the Sheriff is neither new nor unforeseen. It has been an ongoing problem during the course of this litigation, before and after entry of the consent decree.” 734 F. Supp., at 564. However, the architectural program incorporated in the decree in 1979 specifically set forth projections that the jail population would decrease in subsequent years. Significantly, when the District Court modified the consent decree in 1985, the court found that the “modifications are necessary to meet the unanticipated increase in jail population and the delay in completing the jail.” Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, Civ. Action No. 71-162-G (Mass., Apr. 11, 1985), App. 110 (emphasis added). Petitioners assert that it was only in July 1988, 10 months after construction began, that the number of pretrial detainees exceeded 400 and began to approach the number of cells in the new jail. Brief for Petitioner Rufo in No. 90-954, p. 9.
It strikes us as somewhat strange, if a rapidly increasing jail population had been contemplated, that respondents would have settled for a new jail that would not have been adequate to house pretrial detainees. There is no doubt that the decree, as originally issued and modified, called for a facility with single cells. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, Civ. Action No. 71-162-G (Mass., Apr. 11, 1985), App. 110. It is apparent, however, that the decree itself nowhere expressly orders or reflects an agreement by petitioners to provide jail facilities having single cells sufficient to accommodate all future pretrial detainees, however large the number of such detainees might be. Petitioners’ agreement and the decree appear to have bound them only to provide the specified number of single cells. If petitioners were to build a second new facility providing double cells that would meet constitutional standards, it is doubtful that they would have violated the consent decree.
Even if the decree is construed as an undertaking by petitioners to provide single cells for pretrial detainees, to relieve petitioners from that promise based on changed conditions does not necessarily violate the basic purpose of the decree. That purpose was to provide a remedy for what had been found, based on a variety of factors, including double celling, to be unconstitutional conditions obtaining in the Charles Street Jail. If modification of one term of a consent decree defeats the purpose of the decree, obviously modification would be all but impossible. That cannot be the rule. The District Court was thus in error in holding that even under a more flexible standard than its version of Swift required, modification of the single cell requirement was necessarily forbidden.
2
A consent decree must of course be modified if, as it later turns out, one or more of the obligations placed upon the parties has become impermissible under federal law. But modification of a consent decree may be warranted when the statutory or decisional law has changed to make legal what the decree was designed to prevent.
This was the case in Railway Employes v. Wright, 364 U. S. 642 (1961). A railroad and its unions were sued for violating the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., which banned discrimination against nonunion employees, and the parties entered a consent decree that prohibited such discrimination. Later, the Railway Labor Act was amended to allow union shops, and the union sought a modification of the decree. Although the amendment did not require, but purposely permitted, union shops, this Court held that the union was entitled to the modification because the parties had recognized correctly that what the consent decree prohibited was illegal under the Railway Labor Act as it then read and because a “court must be free to continue to further the objectives of th[e] Act when its provisions are amended.” Railway Employes, supra, at 651. See also Firefighters v. Stotts, 467 U. S. 561, 576, and n. 9, 583, n. 17 (1984).
Petitioner Rapone urges that, without more, our 1979 decision in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, was a change in law requiring modification of the decree governing construction of the Suffolk County Jail. We disagree. Bell made clear what the Court had not before announced: that double celling is not in all cases unconstitutional. But it surely did not cast doubt on the legality of single celling, and petitioners were undoubtedly aware that Bell was pending when they signed the decree. Thus, the case must be judged on the basis that it was immaterial to petitioners that double celling might be ruled constitutional, i. e., they preferred even in that event to agree to a decree which called for providing only single cells in the jail to be built.
Neither Bell nor the Federal Constitution forbade this course of conduct. Federal courts may not order States or local governments, over their objection, to undertake a course of conduct not tailored to curing a constitutional violation that has been adjudicated. See Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II), 433 U. S. 267, 281 (1977). But we have no doubt that, to “save themselves the time, expense, and inevitable risk of litigation,” United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U. S. 673, 681 (1971), petitioners could settle the dispute over the proper remedy for the constitutional violations that had been found by undertaking to do more than the Constitution itself requires (almost any affirmative decree beyond a directive to obey the Constitution necessarily does that), but also more than what a court would have ordered absent the settlement. Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in entering the agreed-upon decree, which clearly was related to the conditions found to offend the Constitution. Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken I), 418 U. S. 717, 738 (1974). See also Dowell, 498 U. S., at 246-248. Cf. Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U. S. 501, 525 (1986).
To hold that a clarification in the law automatically opens the door for relitigation of the merits of every affected consent decree would undermine the finality of such agreements and could serve as a disincentive to negotiation of settlements in institutional reform litigation. The position urged by petitioners
“would necessarily imply that the only legally enforceable obligation assumed by the state under the consent decree was that of ultimately achieving minimal constitutional prison standards.... Substantively, this would do violence to the obvious intention of the parties that the decretal obligations assumed by the state were not confined to meeting minimal constitutional requirements. Procedurally, it would make necessary, as this case illustrates, a constitutional decision every time an effort was made either to enforce or modify the decree by judicial action.” Plyler v. Evatt, 924 F. 2d 1321, 1327 (CA4 1991).
While a decision that clarifies the law will not, in and of itself, provide a basis for modifying a decree, it could constitute a change in circumstances that would support modification if the parties had based their agreement on a misunderstanding of the governing law. For instance, in Pasadena City Bd. of Ed. v. Spangler, 427 U. S. 424, 437-438 (1976), we held that a modification should have been ordered when the parties had interpreted an ambiguous equitable decree in a manner contrary to the District Court’s ultimate interpretation and the District Court’s interpretation was contrary to intervening decisional law. And in Nelson v. Collins, 659 F. 2d 420, 428-429 (1981) (en banc), the Fourth Circuit vacated an equitable order that was based on the assumption that double bunking of prisoners was per se unconstitutional.
Thus, if the sheriff and commissioner could establish on remand that the parties to the consent decree believed that single celling of pretrial detainees was mandated by the Constitution, this misunderstanding of the law could form a basis for modification. In this connection, we note again, see supra, at 375, that the decree itself recited that it “sets forth a program which is both constitutionally adequate and constitutionally required.” (Emphasis added.)
B
Once a moving party has met its burden of establishing either a change in fact or in law warranting modification of a consent decree, the district court should determine whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. In evaluating a proposed modification, three matters should be clear.
Of course, a modification must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation. Petitioners contend that double celling inmates at the Suffolk County Jail would be constitutional under Bell. Respondents counter that Bell is factually distinguishable and that double celling at the new jail would violate the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees. If this is the case — the District Court did not decide this issue, 734 F. Supp., at 565-566 — modification should not be granted.
A proposed modification should not strive to rewrite a consent decree so that it conforms to the constitutional floor. Once a court has determined that changed circumstances warrant a modification in a consent decree, the focus should be on whether the proposed modification is tailored to resolve the problems created by the change in circumstances. A court should do no more, for a consent decree is a final judgment that may be reopened only to the extent that equity requires. The court should not “turn aside to inquire whether some of [the provisions of the decree] upon separate as distinguished from joint action could have been opposed with success if the defendants had offered opposition.” Swift, 286 U. S., at 116-117.
Within these constraints, the public interest and “[c]onsid-erations based on the allocation of powers within our federal system,” Dowell, supra, at 248, require that the district court defer to local government administrators, who have the “primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving” the problems of institutional reform, to resolve the intricacies of implementing a decree modification. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 299 (1955). See also Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U. S. 33, 50-52 (1990); Milliken II, 433 U. S., at 281. Although state and local officers in charge of institutional litigation may agree to do more than that which is minimally required by the Constitution to settle a case and avoid further litigation, a court should surely keep the public interest in mind in ruling on a request to modify based on a change in conditions making it substantially more onerous to abide by the decree. To refuse modification of a decree is to bind all future officers of the State, regardless of their view of the necessity of relief from one or more provisions of a decree that might not have been entered had the matter been litigated to its conclusion. The District Court seemed to be of the view that the problems of the fiscal officers of the State were only marginally relevant to the request for modification in this case. 734 F. Supp., at 566. Financial constraints may not be used to justify the creation or perpetuation of constitutional violations, but they are a legitimate concern of government defendants in institutional reform litigation and therefore are appropriately considered in tailoring a consent decree modification.
IV
To conclude, we hold that the Swift "grievous wrong" standard does not apply to requests to modify consent decrees stemming from institutional reform litigation. Under the flexible standard we adopt today, a party seeking modification of a consent decree must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. We vacate the decision below and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It i~ so ordered.
Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The court was of the view that cases dealing with pretrial detention are more appropriately analyzed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment than under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, but thought that conditions at the Charles Street Jail were also vulnerable under the Eighth Amendment. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F. Supp., at 688.
However, within five months, Suffolk County officials advised the court that they could not comply with the November 30 deadline for ending double celling at the Charles Street Jail. The District Court ordered the commissioner to transfer inmates to other institutions, and the commissioner appealed, claiming that the court lacked the power to order him to make the transfers. The First Circuit affirmed the order of the District Court, finding that the commissioner had “major statutory responsibilities” over county jails and that he had failed to appeal the District Court’s decision holding that he was a proper party to the lawsuit. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 494 F. 2d 1196, cert. denied, 419 U. S. 977 (1974).
The size of the cells was reduced from the September plan. The architectural program noted that:
“The single occupancy rooms have been sized to meet the minimum standards as devised by the following standard setting agencies. The Massachusetts Department of Correction’s Code of Human Services Regulations, Chapter IX — Standards for County Correctional Facilities, Standard 972.3 calls for a minimum of 70 square feet for all new cell design. The Manual of Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, Standard 510
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE
To carry into effect this Court’s decision of May 15, 1978, 436 U. S. 32, and for the purpose of identifying with greater particularity parts of the boundary line, as defined by the Supplemental Decree herein of January 31, 1966, 382 U. S. 448, and by the Second Supplemental Decree herein of June 13, 1977, 432 U. S. 40, between the submerged lands of the United States and the submerged lands of the State of California, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Court’s Supplemental Decree be, and the same is hereby, further supplemented as follows:
1. The United States has no right, title, or interest by virtue of the claim-of-right exception of § 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 32, 43 U. S. C. § 1313, in the tidelands (that is, lands lying between the lines of mean high water and mean lower low water) and submerged lands (that is, lands lying seaward of the line of mean lower low water) within the Channel Islands National Monument, as said Monument was established by Presidential Proclamation No. 2281, 52 Stat. 1541 (Apr. 26, 1938), and enlarged by Presidential Proclamation JSTo. 2825, 63 Stat. 1258 (Feb. 9, 1949), to encompass “the areas within one nautical mile of the shoreline of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands . . . In all other respects, the terms of the Supplemental Decree and of the Second Supplemental Decree apply fully to the tidelands and submerged lands within the Channel Islands National Monument.
2. The land area above the mean high-water line of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands, and the land area above the mean high-water line of all islets and rocks within one nautical (geographical) mile of the coastline of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands are lands as to which the State of California has no title or property interest.
3. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as from time to time may be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree and the prior decrees of this Court or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the formulation of this decree.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is reversed. Beacon Theatres, Inc., v. Westover, 359 U. S. 500; Dairy Queen, Inc., v. Wood, 369 U. S. 469.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These consolidated cases arise from litigation that began in Arizona in 1992 when a group of English language-learner (ELL) students in the Nogales Unified School District (No-gales) and their parents filed a class action, alleging that the State was violating the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), § 204(f), 88 Stat. 515, 20 U. S. C. § 1703(f), which requires a State “to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.” In 2000, the District Court entered a declaratory judgment with respect to Nogales, and in 2001, the court extended the order to apply to the entire State. Over the next eight years, petitioners repeatedly sought relief from the District Court’s orders, but to no avail. We granted certiorari after the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of petitioners’ motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), and we now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings.
As we explain, the District Court and the Court of Appeals misunderstood both the obligation that the EEOA imposes on States and the nature of the inquiry that is required when parties such as petitioners seek relief under Rule 60(b)(5) on the ground that enforcement of a judgment is “no longer equitable.” Both of the lower courts focused excessively on the narrow question of the adequacy of the State’s incremental funding for ELL instruction instead of fairly considering the broader question whether, as a result of important changes during the intervening years, the State was fulfilling its obligation under the EEOA by other means. The question at issue in these cases is not whether Arizona must take “appropriate action” to overcome the language barriers that impede ELL students. Of course it must. But petitioners argue that Arizona is now fulfilling its statutory obligation by new means that reflect new policy insights and other changed circumstances. Rule 60(b)(5) provides the vehicle for petitioners to bring such an argument.
I
A
In 1992, a group of students enrolled in the ELL program in Nogales and their parents (plaintiffs) filed suit in the District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of “all minority ‘at risk’ and limited English proficient children... now or hereafter, enrolled in [the] Nogales Unified School District... as well as their parents and guardians.” Flores v. Arizona, 172 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1226 (2000). Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment holding that the State of Arizona, its board of education, and its superintendent of public instruction (defendants) were violating the EEOA by providing inadequate ELL instruction in Nogales.
The relevant portion of the EEOA states:
“No State shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, by—
“(f) the failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.” 20 U. S. C. §1703 (emphasis added).
By simply requiring a State “to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers” without specifying particular actions that a State must take, “Congress intended to leave state and local educational authorities a substantial amount of latitude in choosing the programs and techniques they would use to meet their obligations under the EEOA.” Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F. 2d 989, 1009 (CA5 1981).
In August 1999, after seven years of pretrial proceedings and after settling various claims regarding the structure of Nogales’ ELL curriculum, the evaluation and monitoring of Nogales’ students, and the provision of tutoring and other compensatory instruction, the parties proceeded to trial. In January 2000, the District Court concluded that defendants were violating the EEOA because the amount of funding the State allocated for the special needs of ELL students (ELL incremental funding) was arbitrary and not related to the actual funding needed to cover the costs of ELL instruction in Nogales. 172 F. Supp. 2d, at 1239. Defendants did not appeal the District Court’s order.
B
In the years following, the District Court entered a series of additional orders and injunctions. In October 2000, the court ordered the State to “prepare a cost study to establish the proper appropriation to effectively implement” ELL programs. Flores v. Arizona, 160 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1047. In June 2001, the court applied the declaratory judgment order statewide and granted injunctive relief accordingly. No. CIV. 92-596TUCACM, 2001 WL 1028369, *2 (June 25, 2001). The court took this step even though the certified class included only Nogales students and parents and even though the court did not find that any districts other than Nogales were in violation of the EEOA. The court set a deadline of January 31,2002, for the State to provide funding that “bear[s] a rational relationship to the actual funding needed.” Ibid.
In January 2005, the court gave the State 90 days to “appropriately and constitutionally fun[d] the state’s ELL programs taking into account the [Rule’s] previous orders.” No. CIV. 92-596-TUC-ACM, p. 5, App. 393. The State failed to meet this deadline, and in December 2005, the court held the State in contempt. Although the legislature was not then a party to the suit, the court ordered that “the legislature has 15 calendar days after the beginning of the 2006 legislative session to comply with the January 28,2005 Court order. Everyday thereafter... that the State fails to comply with this Order, [fines] will be imposed until the State is in compliance.” Flores v. Arizona, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1120. The schedule of fines that the court imposed escalated from $500,000 to $2 million per day. Id., at 1120-1121.
C
Defendants did not appeal any of the District Court’s orders, and the record suggests that some state officials supported their continued enforcement. In June 2001, the state attorney general acquiesced in the statewide extension of the declaratory judgment order, a step that the State has explained by reference to the Arizona constitutional requirement of uniform statewide school funding. See Brief for Appellee State of Arizona et al. in No. 07-15603 etc. (CA9), p. 60 (citing Ariz. Const., Art. 11, § 1(A)). At a hearing in February 2006, a new attorney general opposed the superintendent’s request for a stay of the December 2005 order imposing sanctions and fines, and filed a proposed distribution of the accrued fines.
In March 2006, after accruing over $20 million in fines, the state legislature passed HB 2064, which was designed to implement a permanent funding solution to the problems identified by the District Court in 2000. Among other things, HB 2064 increased ELL incremental funding (with a 2-year per-student limit on such funding) and created two new funds — a structured English immersion fund and a compensatory instruction fund — to cover additional costs of ELL programming. Moneys in both newly created funds were to be offset by available federal moneys. HB 2064 also instituted several programming and structural changes.
The Governor did not approve of HB 2064’s funding provisions, but she allowed the bill to become law without her signature. Because HB 2064’s incremental ELL funding increase required court approval to become effective, the Governor requested the attorney general to move for accelerated consideration by the District Court. In doing so, she explained: “ ‘After nine months of meetings and three vetoes, it is time to take this matter to a federal judge. I am convinced that getting this bill into court now is the most expeditious way ultimately to bring the state into compliance with federal law.’” Flores v. Arizona, 516 F. 3d 1140, 1153, n. 16 (CA9 2008). The state board of education joined the Governor in opposing HB 2064. Together, the state board of education, the State of Arizona, and the plaintiffs are respondents here.
With the principal defendants in the action siding with the plaintiffs, the Speaker of the State House of Representatives and the President of the State Senate (Legislators) filed a motion to intervene as representatives of their respective legislative bodies. App. 55. In support of their motion, they stated that although the attorney general had a “legal duty” to defend HB 2064, the attorney general had shown “little enthusiasm” for advancing the legislature’s interests. Id., at 57. Among other things, the Legislators noted that the attorney general “failed to take an appeal of the judgment entered in this case in 2000 and has failed to appeal any of the injunctions and other orders issued in aid of the judgment.” Id., at 60. The District Court granted the Legislators’ motion for permissive intervention, and the Legislators and superintendent (together, petitioners here) moved to purge the District Court’s contempt order in light of HB 2064. Alternatively, they moved for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) based on changed circumstances.
In April 2006, the District Court denied petitioners’ motion, concluding that HB 2064 was fatally flawed in three respects. First, while HB 2064 increased ELL incremental funding by approximately $80 per student, the court held that this increase was not rationally related to effective ELL programming. Second, the court concluded that imposing a 2-year limit on funding for each ELL student was irrational. Third, according to the court, HB 2064 violated federal law by using federal funds to “supplant” rather than “supplement” state funds. No. CV-92-596-TUC-RCC, pp. 4-8 (Apr. 25, 2006), App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 08-294, pp. 176a, 181a-182a. The court did not address petitioners’ Rule 60(b)(5) claim that changed circumstances rendered continued enforcement of the original declaratory judgment order inequitable. Petitioners appealed.
In an unpublished decision, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s April 2006 order, the sanctions, and the imposition of fines, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Rule 60(b)(5) relief was warranted. Flores v. Rzeslawski, 204 Fed. Appx. 580 (2006).
On remand, the District Court denied petitioners’ Rule 60(b)(5) motion. Flores v. Arizona, 480 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1167 (Ariz. 2007). Holding that HB 2064 did not establish “a funding system that rationally relates funding available to the actual costs of all elements of ELL instruction,” id., at 1165, the court gave the State until the end of the legislative session to comply with its orders. The State failed to do so, and the District Court again held the State in contempt. No. CV 92-596 TUC-RCC (Oct. 10, 2007), App. 86. Petitioners appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. 516 F. 3d 1140. It acknowledged that Nogales had “made significant strides since 2000,” id., at 1156, but concluded that the progress did not warrant Rule 60(b)(5) relief. Emphasizing that Rule 60(b)(5) is not a substitute for a timely appeal, and characterizing the original declaratory judgment order as centering on the adequacy of ELL incremental funding, the Court of Appeals explained that relief would be appropriate only if petitioners had shown “either that there are no longer incremental costs associated with ELL programs in Arizona” or that Arizona had altered its funding model. Id., at 1169. The Court of Appeals concluded that petitioners had made neither showing, and it rejected petitioners’ other arguments, including the claim that Congress’ enactment of the No. Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), 115 Stat. 1425, codified in Title 20 U. S. C. § 6842, constituted a changed legal circumstance that warranted Rule 60(b)(5) relief.
We granted certiorari, 555 U. S. 1092 (2009), and now reverse.
II
Before addressing the merits of petitioners’ Rule 60(b)(5) motion, we consider the threshold issue of standing — “an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992). To establish standing, a plaintiff must present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling. Id., at 560-561. Here, as in all standing inquiries, the critical question is whether at least one petitioner has “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U. S. 488, 493 (2009) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498 (1975); internal quotation marks omitted).
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the superintendent has standing because he “is a named defendant in the case[,] the Declaratory Judgment held him to be in violation of the EEOA, and the current injunction runs against him.” 516 F. 3d, at 1164 (citation omitted). For these reasons alone, he has alleged a sufficiently “‘personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ ” to support standing. Warth, supra, at 498; see also United States v. Sweeney, 914 F. 2d 1260, 1263 (CA9 1990) (rejecting as “frivolous” the argument that a party does not have “standing to object to orders specifically directing it to take or refrain from taking action”).
Respondents’ only argument to the contrary is that the superintendent answers to the state board of education, which in turn answers to the Governor, and that the Governor is the only Arizona official who “could have resolved the conflict within the Executive Branch by directing an appeal.” Brief for Respondent Flores et al. 22. We need not consider whether respondents’ chain-of-command argument has merit because the Governor has, in fact, directed an appeal. See App. to Reply Brief for Petitioner Superintendent 1 (“I hereby direct [the state attorney general] to file a brief at the [Supreme] Court on behalf of the State of Arizona adopting and joining in the positions taken by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, and the President of the Arizona Senate”).
Because the superintendent clearly has standing to challenge the lower courts’ decisions, we need not consider whether the Legislators also have standing to do so. See, e.g., Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 264, and n. 9 (1977) (“[W]e have at least one individual plaintiff who has demonstrated standing.... Because of the presence of this plaintiff, we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit”). Accordingly, we proceed to the merits of petitioners’ Rule 60(b)(5) motion.
Ill
A
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) permits a party to obtain relief from a judgment or order if, among other things, “applying [the judgment or order] prospectively is no longer equitable.” Rule 60(b)(5) may not be used to challenge the legal conclusions on which a prior judgment or order rests, but the Rule provides a means by which a party can ask a court to modify or vacate a judgment or order if “a significant change either in factual conditions or in law” renders continued enforcement “detrimental to the public interest.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U. S. 367, 384 (1992). The party seeking relief bears the burden of establishing that changed circumstances warrant relief, id., at 383, but once a party carries this burden, a court abuses its discretion “when it refuses to modify an injunction or consent decree in light of such changes,” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 215 (1997).
Rule 60(b)(5) serves a particularly important function in what we have termed “institutional reform litigation.” Rufo, supra, at 380. For one thing, injunctions issued in such cases often remain in force for many years, and the passage of time frequently brings about changed circumstances — changes in the nature of the underlying problem, changes in governing law or its interpretation by the courts, and new policy insights — that warrant reexamination of the original judgment.
Second, institutional reform injunctions often raise sensitive federalism concerns. Such litigation commonly involves areas of core state responsibility, such as public education. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U. S. 70, 99 (1995) (“[O]ur cases recognize that local autonomy of school districts is a vital national tradition, and that a district court must strive to restore state and local authorities to the control of a school system operating in compliance with the Constitution” (citation omitted)); United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 580 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
Federalism concerns are heightened when, as in these cases, a federal-court decree has the effect of dictating state or local budget priorities. States and local governments have limited funds. When a federal court orders that money be appropriated for one program, the effect is often to take funds away from other important programs. See Jenkins, supra, at 131 (Thomas, J., concurring) (“A structural reform decree eviscerates a State’s discretionary authority over its own program and budgets and forces state officials to reallocate state resources and funds”).
Finally, the dynamics of institutional reform litigation differ from those of other cases. Scholars have noted that public officials sometimes consent to, or refrain from vigorously opposing, decrees that go well beyond what is required by federal law. See, e.g., McConnell, Why Hold Elections? Using Consent Decrees To Insulate Policies From Political Change, 1987 U. Chi. Legal Forum 295, 317 (noting that government officials may try to use consent decrees to “block ordinary avenues of political change” or to “sidestep political constraints”); Horowitz, Decreeing Organizational Change: Judicial Supervision of Public Institutions, 1983 Duke L. J. 1265, 1294-1295 (“Nominal defendants [in institutional reform cases] are sometimes happy to be sued and happier still to lose”); R. Sandler & D. Schoenbrod, Democracy by Decree: What Happens When Courts Run Government 170 (2003) (“Government officials, who always operate under fiscal and political constraints, ‘frequently win by losing’” in institutional reform litigation).
Injunctions of this sort bind state and local officials to the policy preferences of their predecessors and may thereby “improperly deprive future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers.” Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U. S. 431, 441 (2004). See also Northwest Environment Advocates v. EPA, 340 F. 3d 853, 855 (CA9 2003) (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting) (noting that consent decrees present a risk of collusion between advocacy groups and executive officials who want to bind the hands of future policymakers); Ragsdale v. Turnock, 941 F. 2d 501, 517 (CA7 1991) (Flaum, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[I]t is not uncommon for consent decrees to be entered into on terms favorable to those challenging governmental action because of rifts within the bureaucracy or between the executive and legislative branches”); Easterbrook, Justice and Contract in Consent Judgments, 1987 U. Chi. Legal Forum 19, 40 (“Tomorrow’s officeholder may conclude that today’s is wrong, and there is no reason why embedding the regulation in a consent decree should immunize it from reexamination”).
States and localities “depen[d] upon successor officials, both appointed and elected, to bring new insights and solutions to problems of allocating revenues and resources.” Frew, supra, at 442. Where “state and local officials... inherit overbroad or outdated consent decrees that limit their ability [to] respond to the priorities and concerns of their, constituents,” they are constrained in their ability to fulfill their duties as democratically elected officials. American Legislative Exchange Council, Resolution on the Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act (2006), App. to Brief for American Legislative Exchange Council et al. as Amici Curiae la-4a.
It goes without saying that federal courts must vigilantly enforce federal law and must not hesitate in awarding necessary relief. But in recognition of the features of institutional reform decrees, we have held that courts must take a “flexible approach” to Rule 60(b)(5) motions addressing such decrees. Rufo, 502 U. S., at 381. A flexible approach allows courts to ensure that “responsibility for discharging the State’s obligations is returned promptly to the State and its officials” when the circumstances warrant. Frew, supra, at 442. In applying this flexible approach, courts must remain attentive to the fact that “federal-court decrees exceed appropriate limits if they are aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate [federal law] or does not flow from such a violation.” Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267, 282 (1977). “If [a federal consent decree is] not limited to reasonable and necessary implementations of federal law,” it may “improperly deprive future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers.” Frew, 540 U. S., at 441.
For these reasons, a critical question in this Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry is whether the objective of the District Court’s 2000 declaratory judgment order — i. e., satisfaction of the EEOA’s “appropriate action” standard — has been achieved. See id., at 442. If a durable remedy has been implemented, continued enforcement of the order is not only unnecessary, but improper. See Milliken, supra, at 282. We note that the EEOA itself limits court-ordered remedies to those that “are essential to correct particular denials of equal educational opportunity or equal protection of the laws.” 20 U. S. C. § 1712 (emphasis added).
B
The Court of Appeals did not engage in the Rule 60(b)(5) analysis just described. Rather than applying a flexible standard that seeks to return control to state and local officials as soon as a violation of federal law has been remedied, the Court of Appeals used a heightened standard that paid insufficient attention to federalism concerns. And rather than inquiring broadly into whether changed conditions in Nogales provided evidence of an ELL program that complied with the EEOA, the Court of Appeals concerned itself only with determining whether increased ELL funding complied with the original declaratory judgment order. The court erred on both counts.
1
The Court of Appeals began its Rule 60(b)(5) discussion by citing the correct legal standard, see 516 F. 3d, at 1163 (noting that relief is appropriate upon a showing of “‘a significant change either in factual conditions or in law’ ”), but it quickly strayed. It referred to the situations in which changed circumstances warrant Rule 60(b)(5) relief as “likely rare,” id, at 1167, and explained that, to succeed on these grounds, petitioners would have to make a showing that conditions in Nogales had so changed as to “sweep away” the District Court’s incremental funding determination, id, at 1168. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court had not erred in determining that “the landscape was not so radically changed as to justify relief from judgment without compliance.” Id., at 1172 (emphasis added).
Moreover, after recognizing that review of the denial of Rule 60(b)(5) relief should generally be “somewhat closer in the context of institutional injunctions against states ‘due to federalism concerns,’” the Court of Appeals incorrectly reasoned that “federalism concerns are substantially lessened here, as the state of Arizona and the state Board of Education wish the injunction to remain in place.” Id., at 1164. This statement is flatly incorrect, as even respondents acknowledge. Brief for Respondent State of Arizona et al. 20-21. Precisely because different state actors have taken contrary positions in this litigation, federalism concerns are elevated. And precisely because federalism concerns are heightened, a flexible approach to Rule 60(b)(5) relief is critical. “[Wjhen the objects of the decree have been attained” — namely, when EEOA compliance has been achieved — “responsibility for discharging the State’s obligations [must be] returned promptly to the State and its officials.” Frew, supra, at 442.
2
In addition to applying a Rule 60(b)(5) standard that was too strict, the Court of Appeals framed a Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry that was too narrow — one that focused almost exclusively on the sufficiency of incremental funding. In large part, this was driven by the significance the Court of Appeals attributed to petitioners’ failure to appeal the District Court’s original order. The Court of Appeals explained that “the central idea” of that order was that without sufficient ELL incremental funds, “ELL programs would necessarily be inadequate.” 516 F. 3d, at 1167-1168. It felt bound by this conclusion, lest it allow petitioners to “reopen matters made final when the Declaratory Judgment was not appealed.” Id., at 1170. It repeated this refrain throughout its opinion, emphasizing that the “ ‘interest in finality must be given great weight,’” id., at 1163, and explaining that petitioners could not now ask for relief “on grounds that could have been raised on appeal from the Declaratory Judgment and from earlier injunctive orders but were not,” id., at 1167. “If [petitioners] believed that the district court erred and should have looked at all funding sources differently in its EEOA inquiry,” the court wrote, “they should have appealed the Declaratory Judgment.” Id., at 1171.
In attributing such significance to the defendants’ failure to appeal the District Court’s original order, the Court of Appeals turned the risks of institutional reform litigation into reality. By confining the scope of its analysis to that of the original order, it insulated the policies embedded in the order — specifically, its incremental funding requirement— from challenge and amendment. But those policies were supported by the very officials who could have appealed them — the state defendants — and, as a result, were never subject to true challenge.
Instead of focusing on the failure to appeal, the Court of Appeals should have conducted the type of Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry prescribed in Rufo. This inquiry makes no reference to the presence or absence of a timely appeal. It takes the original judgment as a given and asks only whether “a significant change either in factual conditions or in law” renders continued enforcement of the judgment “detrimental to the public interest.” Rufo, 502 U. S., at 384. It allows a court to recognize that the longer an injunction or consent decree stays in place, the greater the risk that it will improperly interfere with a State’s democratic processes.
The Court of Appeals purported to engage in a “changed circumstances” inquiry, but it asked only whether changed circumstances affected ELL funding and, more specifically, ELL incremental funding. Relief was appropriate, in the court’s view, only if petitioners “demonstrate[d] either that there [we]re no longer incremental costs associated with ELL programs in Arizona or that Arizona’s ‘base plus incremental costs’ educational funding model was so altered that focusing on ELL-specific incremental costs funding has become irrelevant and inequitable.” 516 F. 3d, at 1169.
This was a Rule 60(b)(5) “changed circumstances” inquiry in name only. In reality, it was an inquiry into whether the deficiency in ELL incremental funding that the District Court identified in 2000 had been remedied. And this, effectively, was an inquiry into whether the original order had been satisfied. Satisfaction of an earlier judgment is one of the enumerated bases for Rule 60(b)(5) relief — but it is not the only basis for such relief.
Rule 60(b)(5) permits relief from a judgment where “[i] the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; [ii] it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or [iii] applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.” (Emphasis added.) Use of the disjunctive “or” makes it clear that each of the provision’s three grounds for relief is independently sufficient and therefore that relief may be warranted even if petitioners have not “satisfied” the original order. As petitioners argue, they may obtain relief if prospective enforcement of that order “is no longer equitable.”
To determine the merits of this claim, the Court of Appeals needed to ascertain whether ongoing enforcement of the original order was supported by an ongoing violation of federal law (here, the EEOA). See Milliken, 433 U. S., at 282. It failed to do so.
As previously noted, the EEOA, while requiring a State to take “appropriate action to overcome language barriers,” 20 U. S. C. § 1703(f), “leave[s] state and local educational authorities a substantial amount of latitude in choosing” how this obligation is met. Castaneda, 648 F. 2d, at 1009. Of course, any educational program, including the “appropriate action” mandated by the EEOA, requires funding, but funding is simply a means, not the end. By focusing so intensively on Arizona’s incremental ELL funding, the Court of Appeals misapprehended the EEOA’s mandate. And by requiring petitioners to demonstrate “appropriate action” through a particular funding mechanism, the Court of Appeals improperly substituted its own educational and budgetary policy judgments for those of the state and local officials to whom such decisions are properly entrusted. Cf. Jenkins, 515 U. S., at 131 (Thomas, J., concurring) (“Federal courts do not possess the capabilities of state and local governments in addressing difficult educational problems”).
C
The underlying District Court opinion reveals similar errors. In an August 2006 remand order, a different Ninth Circuit panel had instructed the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing “regarding whether changed circumstances required modification of the original court order or otherwise had a bearing on the appropriate remedy.” 204 Fed. Appx., at 582. The Ninth Circuit panel observed that “federal courts must be sensitive to the need for modification [of permanent injunctive relief] when circumstances change.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted).
The District Court failed to follow these instructions. Instead of determining whether changed circumstances warranted modification of the original order, the District Court asked only whether petitioners had satisfied the original declaratory judgment order through increased incremental funding. See 480 F. Supp. 2d, at 1165 (explaining that a showing of “mere amelioration” of the specific deficiencies noted in the District Court’s original order was “inadequate” and that “compliance would require a funding system that rationally relates funding available to the actual costs of all elements of ELL instruction” (emphasis added)). The District Court stated: “It should be noted that the Court finds the same problems today that it saw last year, because HB 2064 is the same, the problems themselves are the same.” Id., at 1161. The District Court thus rested its postremand decision on its preremand analysis of HB 2064. It disregarded the remand instructions to engage in a broad and flexible Rule 60(b)(5) analysis as to whether changed circumstances warranted relief. In taking this approach, the District Court abused its discretion.
D
The dissent defends the narrow approach of the lower courts with four principal conclusions that it draws from the record. All of these conclusions, however, are incorrect and mirror the fundamental error of the lower courts — a fixation on the issue of incremental funding and a failure to recognize the proper scope of a Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry.
First, the dissent concludes that “the Rule 60(b)(5) 'changes' upon which the District Court focused” were not limited to changes in funding, and included “ ‘changed teaching methods’ ” and “ ‘changed administrative systems.’ ” Post, at 483. The District Court did note a range of changed circumstances, concluding that as a result of these changes, Nogales was “doing substantially better.” 480 F. Supp. 2d, at 1160. But it neither focused on these changes nor made up-to-date factual findings. To the contrary, the District Court explained that “it would be premature to make an assessment of some of these changes.” Ibid. Accordingly, of the 28 findings of fact that the court proceeded to make, the first 20 addressed funding directly and exclusively. See id., at 1161-1163. The last eight addressed funding indirectly— discussing reclassification rates because of their relevance to HB 2064’s funding restrictions for ELL and reclassified students. See id., at 1163-1165. None of the District Court’s findings of fact addressed either “‘changed teaching methods’” or “‘changed administrative systems.’”
The dissent’s second conclusion is that “ ‘incremental funding’ costs... [were] the basic contested issue at the 2000 trial and the sole basis for the District Court’s finding of a statutory violation.” Post, at 483. We fail to see this conclusion’s relevance to this Rule 60(b)(5) motion, where the question is whether any change in factual or legal circumstances renders continued enforcement of the original order inequitable. As the dissent itself acknowledges, petitioners “pointed to three sets of changed circumstances [in their Rule 60(b)(5) motion] which, in their view, showed that the judgment and the related orders were no longer necessary.” Post, at 482. In addition to “increases in the amount of funding available to Arizona school districts,” these included “changes in the method of English-learning instruction,” and “changes in the administration of the Nogales school district.” Ibid.
Third, the dissent concludes that “the type of issue upon which the District Court and Court of Appeals focused” — the incremental funding issue — “lies at the heart of the statutory demand for equal educational opportunity.” Post, at 484. In what we interpret to be a restatement of this point, the dissent also concludes that sufficient funding (“the ■resource’ issue”) and the presence or absence of an EEOA violation (“the statutory subsection (f
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These consolidated cases raise the question of the extent of the right to counsel at the time of sentencing where the sentencing has been deferred subject to probation.
Petitioner Jerry Douglas Mempa was convicted in the Spokane County Superior Court on June 17, 1959, of the offense of “joyriding,” Wash. Rev. Code § 9.54.020. This conviction was based on his plea of guilty entered with the advice of court-appointed counsel. He was then placed on probation for two years on the condition, inter alia, that he first spend 30 days in the county jail, and the imposition of sentence was deferred pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9.95.200, 9.95.210.
About four months later the Spokane County prosecuting attorney moved to have petitioner’s probation revoked on the ground that he had been involved in a burglary on September 15, 1959. A hearing was held in the Spokane County Superior Court on October 23, 1959. Petitioner Mempa, who was 17 years old at the time, was accompanied to the hearing by his stepfather. He was not represented by counsel and was not asked whether he wished to have counsel appointed for him. Nor was any inquiry made concerning the appointed counsel who had previously represented him.
At the hearing Mempa was asked if it was true that he had been involved in the alleged burglary and he answered in the affirmative. A probation officer testified without cross-examination that according to his information petitioner had been involved in the burglary and had previously denied participation in it. Without asking petitioner if he had anything to say or any evidence to supply, the court immediately entered an order revoking petitioner’s probation and then sentenced him to 10 years in the penitentiary, but stated that it would recommend to the parole board that Mempa be required to serve only a year.
In 1965 Mempa filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Washington Supreme Court, claiming that he had been deprived of his right to counsel at the proceeding at which his probation was revoked and sentence imposed. The Washington Supreme Court denied the petition on June 23, 1966, by a vote of six to three. Mempa v. Rhay, 68 Wash. 2d 882, 416 P. 2d 104. We granted certiorari to consider the questions raised. 386 U. S. 907 (1967).
Petitioner William Earl Walkling was convicted in the Thurston County Superior Court on October 29, 1962, of burglary in the second degree on the basis of his plea of guilty entered with the advice of his retained counsel. He was placed on probation for three years and the imposition of sentence was deferred. As conditions of his probation he was required to serve 90 days in the county jail and make restitution. On May 2, 1963, a bench warrant for his arrest was issued based on a report that he had violated the terms of his probation and had left the State.
On February 24, 1964, Walkling was arrested and charged with forgery and grand larceny. After being transferred back to Thurston County he was brought before the court on May 12, 1964, for a hearing on the petition by the prosecuting attorney to revoke his probation. Petitioner then requested a continuance to enable him to retain counsel and was granted a week. On May 18, 1964, the hearing was called and Walkling appeared without a lawyer. He informed the court that he had retained an attorney who was supposed to be present. After waiting for 15 minutes the court went ahead with the hearing in the absence of petitioner’s counsel. He was not offered appointed counsel and would not have had counsel appointed for him had he requested it. Whether he made such a request does not appear from the record.
At the hearing a probation officer presented hearsay testimony to the effect that petitioner had committed the acts alleged in the 14 separate counts of forgery and 14 separate counts of grand larceny that had been charged against petitioner previously at the time of his arrest. The court thereupon revoked probation and imposed the maximum sentence of 15 years on Walkling on his prior second degree burglary conviction. Because of the failure of the State to keep a record of the proceeding, nothing is known as to whether Walkling was advised of his right to appeal. He did not, however, take an appeal.
In May 1966 Walkling filed a habeas corpus petition with the Washington Supreme Court, claiming denial of his right to counsel at the combined probation revocation and sentencing proceeding. The petition was denied on the authority of the prior decision in Mempa v. Rhay, supra. We granted certiorari, 386 U. S. 907 (1967), and the cases were consolidated for argument.
In 1948 this Court held in Townsend v. Burke, 334 U. S. 736, that the absence of counsel during sentencing after a plea of guilty coupled with “assumptions concerning his criminal record which were materially untrue” deprived the defendant in that case of due process. Mr. Justice Jackson there stated in conclusion, “In this case, counsel might not have changed the sentence, but he could have taken steps to see that the conviction and sentence were not predicated on misinformation or misreading of court records, a requirement of fair play which absence of counsel withheld from this prisoner.” Id., at 741. Then in Moore v. Michigan, 355 U. S. 155 (1957), where a denial of due process was found when the defendant did not intelligently and understanding^ waive counsel before entering a plea of guilty, this Court emphasized the prejudice stemming from the absence of counsel at the hearing on the degree of the crime following entry of the guilty plea and stated, “The right to counsel is not a right confined to representation during the trial on the merits.” Id., at 160.
In Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52 (1961), it was held that failure to appoint counsel at arraignment deprived the petitioner of due process, notwithstanding the fact that he simply pleaded not guilty at that time, because under Alabama law certain defenses had to be raised then or be abandoned. See also Reece v. Georgia, 350 U. S. 85 (1955), and White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59 (1963).
All the foregoing cases, with the exception of White, were decided during the reign of Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455 (1942), and accordingly relied on various “special circumstances” to make the right to counsel applicable. In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), however, Betts was overruled and this Court held that the Sixth Amendment as applied through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was applicable to the States and, accordingly, that there was an absolute right to appointment of counsel in felony cases.
There was no occasion in Gideon to enumerate the various stages in a criminal proceeding at which counsel was required, but Townsend, Moore, and Hamilton, when the Betts requirement of special circumstances is stripped away by Gideon, clearly stand for the proposition that appointment of counsel for an indigent is required at every stage of a criminal proceeding where substantial rights of a criminal accused may be affected. In particular, Townsend v. Burke, supra, illustrates the critical nature of sentencing in a criminal case and might well be considered to support by itself a holding that the right to counsel applies at sentencing. Many lower courts have concluded that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel extends to sentencing in federal cases.
The State, however, argues that the petitioners were sentenced at the time they were originally placed on probation and that the imposition of sentence following probation revocation is, in effect, a mere formality constituting part of the probation revocation proceeding. It is true that sentencing in Washington offers fewer opportunities for the exercise of judicial discretion than in many other jurisdictions. The applicable statute requires the trial judge in all cases to sentence the convicted person to the maximum term provided by law for the offense of which he was convicted. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.010. The actual determination of the length of time to be served is to be made by the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles within six months after the convicted person is admitted to prison. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.040.
On the other hand, the sentencing judge is required by statute, together with the prosecutor, to furnish the Board with a recommendation as to the length of time that the person should serve, in addition to supplying it with various information about the circumstances of the crime and the character of the individual. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.030. We were informed during oral argument that the Board places considerable weight on these recommendations, although it is in no way bound by them. Obviously to the extent such recommendations are influential in determining the resulting sentence, the necessity for the aid of counsel in marshaling the facts, introducing evidence of mitigating circumstances and in general aiding and assisting the defendant to present his case as to sentence is apparent.
Even more important in a case such as this is the fact that certain legal rights may be lost if not exercised at this stage. For one, Washington law provides that an appeal in a case involving a plea of guilty followed by probation can only be taken after sentence is imposed following revocation of probation. State v. Farmer, 39 Wash. 2d 675, 237 R 2d 734 (1951). Therefore in a case where an accused agreed to plead guilty, although he had a valid defense, because he was offered probation, absence of counsel at the imposition of the deferred sentence might well result in loss of the right to appeal. While ordinarily appeals from a plea of guilty are less frequent than those following a trial on the merits, the incidence of improperly obtained guilty pleas is not so slight as to be capable of being characterized as de minimis. See, e. g., United States ex rel. Elksnis v. Gilligan, 256 F. Supp. 244 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1966). Cf. Machibroda v. United States, 368 U. S. 487 (1962).
Likewise the Washington statutes provide that a plea of guilty can be withdrawn at any time prior to the imposition of sentence, Wash. Rev. Code § 10.40.175, State v. Farmer, supra, if the trial judge in his discretion finds that the ends of justice will be served, State v. Shannon, 60 Wash. 2d 883, 376 P. 2d 646 (1962). Without undertaking to catalog the various situations in which a lawyer could be of substantial assistance to a defendant in such a case, it can be reiterated that a plea of guilty might well be improperly obtained by the promise to have a defendant placed on the very probation the revocation of which furnishes the occasion for desiring to withdraw the plea. An uncounseled defendant might very likely be unaware of this opportunity.
The two foregoing factors assume increased significance when it is considered that, as happened in these two cases, the eventual imposition of sentence on the prior plea of guilty is based on the alleged commission of offenses for which the accused is never tried.
In sum, we do not question the authority of the State of Washington to provide for a deferred sentencing procedure coupled with its probation provisions. Indeed, it appears to be an enlightened step forward. All we decide here is that a lawyer must be afforded at this proceeding whether it be labeled a revocation of probation or a deferred sentencing. We assume that counsel appointed for the purpose of the trial or guilty plea would not be unduly burdened by being requested to follow through at the deferred sentencing stage of the proceeding.
The judgments below are reversed and the cases are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
The State suggests that the Supreme Court of Washington was in error in stating that Mempa received a deferred rather than a suspended sentence, but we accept that court’s characterization of the sentence as supported by the record.
Under Washington procedure the trial judge is required by statute to impose the maximum sentence provided by law for the offense, Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.010, but is also required, along with the prosecuting attorney, to make a recommendation to the parole board of the time that the defendant should serve accompanied by a statement of the facts concerning the crime and any other information about the defendant deemed relevant. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.030. However, it is the parole board that actually determines the time to be served. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.040. See infra, at 135.
See Kadish, The Advocate and the Expert — Counsel in the Peno-Correctional Process, 45 Minn. L. Rev. 803, 806 (1961).
E. g., Martin v. United States, 182 F. 2d 225 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1950); McKinney v. United States, 93 U. S. App. D. C. 222, 208 F. 2d 844 (1953); Nunley v. United States, 283 F. 2d 651 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1960).
State v. Proctor, 68 Wash. 2d 817, 415 P. 2d 634 (1966), modified the Farmer rule only to permit an appeal following placement on probation in eases involving (1) a contested trial and (2) the imposition of a jail term or fine as a condition of probation.
See generally Newman, Conviction — The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial (1966); Enker, “Perspectives on Plea Bargaining,” in The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Courts 108-119 (1967).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Must an employer, under its duty to bargain in good faith “with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment,” §§ 8 (d) and 8 (a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act), as amended, 49 Stat. 452, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158 (d) and 158 (a)(5), negotiate with the certified representative of its employees over its decision to close a part of its business? In this case, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) imposed such a duty on petitioner with respect to its decision to terminate a contract with a customer, and the United States Court of Appeals, although differing over the appropriate rationale, enforced its order.
I
Petitioner, First National Maintenance Corporation (FNM), is a New York corporation éngaged in the business of providing housekeeping, cleaning, maintenance, and related services for commercial customers in the New York City area. It supplies each of its customers, at the customer’s premises, contracted-for labor force and supervision in return for reimbursement of its labor costs (gross salaries, FICA and FUTA taxes, and insurance) and payment of a set fee. It contracts for and hires personnel separately for each customer, and it does not transfer employees between locations.
During the spring of 1977, petitioner was performing maintenance work for the Greenpark Care Center, a nursing home in Brooklyn. Its written agreement dated April 28, 1976, with Greenpark specified that Greenpark “shall furnish all tools, equiptment [sic], materials, and supplies,” and would pay petitioner weekly “the sum of five hundred dollars plus the gross weekly payroll and fringe benefits.” App. in No. 79-4167 (CA2), pp. 43, 44. Its weekly fee, however, had been reduced to $250 effective November 1, 1976. Id., at 46. The contract prohibited Greenpark from hiring any of petitioner’s employees during the term of the contract and for 90 days thereafter. Id., at 44. Petitioner employed approximately 35 workers in its Greenpark operation.
Petitioner’s business relationship with Greenpark, seemingly, was not very remunerative or smooth. In March 1977, Greenpark gave petitioner the 30 days’ written notice of cancellation specified by the contract, because of “lack of efficiency.” Id., at 52. This cancellation did not become effective, for FNM’s work continued after the expiration of that 30-day period. Petitioner, however, became aware that it was losing money at Greenpark. On June 30, by telephone, it asked that its weekly fee be restored at the $500 figure and, on July 6, it informed Greenpark in writing that it would discontinue its operations there on August 1 unless the increase were granted. Id., at 47. By telegram on July 25, petitioner gave final notice of termination. Id., at 48.
While FNM was experiencing these difficulties, District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (union), was conducting an organization campaign among petitioner’s Greenpark employees. On March 31, 1977, at a Board-conducted election, a majority of the employees selected the union as their bargaining agent. On July 12, the union’s vice president, Edward Wecker, wrote petitioner, notifying it of the certification and of the union’s right to bargain, and stating: “We look forward to meeting with you or your representative for that purpose. Please advise when it will be convenient.” Id., at 49. Petitioner neither responded nor sought to consult with the union.
On July 28, petitioner notified its Greenpark employees that they would be discharged three days later. Wecker immediately telephoned petitioner’s secretary-treasurer, Leonard Marsh, to request a delay for the purpose of bargaining. Marsh refused the offer to bargain and told Wecker that the termination of the Greenpark operation was purely a matter of money, and final, and that the 30 days’ notice provision of the Greenpark contract made staying on beyond August 1 prohibitively expensive. Id., at 79-81, 83, 85-86, 94. Wecker discussed the matter with Greenpark’s management that same day, but was unable to obtain a waiver of the notice provision. Id., at 91-93, 98-99. Greenpark also was unwilling itself to hire the FNM employees because of the contract’s 90-day limitation on hiring. Id., at 100-101, 106-107. With nothing but perfunctory further discussion, petitioner on July 31 discontinued its Greenpark operation and discharged the employees. Id., at 110-116.
The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against petitioner, alleging violations of the Act’s §§8 (a)(1) and (5). After a hearing held upon the Regional Director’s complaint, the Administrative Law Judge made findings in the union’s favor. Relying on Ozark Trailers, Inc., 161 N. L. R. B. 561 (1966), he ruled that petitioner had failed to satisfy its duty to bargain concerning both the decision to terminate the Greenpark contract and the effect of that change upon the unit employees. The judge reasoned:
“That the discharge of a man is a change in his conditions of employment hardly needs comment. In these obvious facts, the law is clear. When an employer’s work complement is represented by a union and he wishes to alter the hiring arrangements, be his reason lack of money or a mere desire to become richer, the law is no less clear that he must first talk to the union about it.... If Wecker had been given an opportunity to talk, something might have been worked out to transfer these people to other parts of [petitioner’s] business.... Entirely apart from whether open discussion between the parties — with the Union speaking on behalf of the employees as was its right — might have persuaded [petitioner] to find a way of continuing this part of its operations, there was always the possibility that Marsh might have persuaded Greenpark to use these same employees to continue doing its maintenance work, either as direct employees or as later hires by a replacement contractor.” 242 N. L. R. B. 462, 465 (1979).
The Administrative Law Judge recommended an order requiring petitioner to bargain in good faith with the union about its decision to terminate its Greenpark service operation and its consequent discharge of the employees, as well as the effects of the termination. He recommended, also, that petitioner be ordered to pay the discharged employees backpay from the date of discharge until the parties bargained to agreement, or the bargaining reached an impasse, or the union failed timely to request bargaining, or the union failed to bargain in good faith.
The National Labor Relations Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s findings without further analysis, and additionally required petitioner, if it agreed to resume its Greenpark operations, to offer the terminated employees reinstatement to their former jobs or substantial equivalents; conversely, if agreement was not reached, petitioner was ordered to offer the employees equivalent positions, to be made available by discharge of subsequently hired employees, if necessary, at its other operations. Id., at 463.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with one judge dissenting in part, enforced the Board’s order, although it adopted an analysis different from that espoused by the Board. 627 F. 2d 596 (1980). The Court of Appeals reasoned that no per se rule could be formulated to govern an employer’s decision to close part of its business. Rather, the court said, § 8 (d) creates a presumption in favor of mandatory bargaining over such a decision, a presumption that is re-buttable “by showing that the purposes of the statute would not be furthered by imposition of a duty to bargain,” for example, by demonstrating that “bargaining over the decision would be futile,” or that the decision was due to “emergency financial circumstances,” or that the “custom of the industry, shown by the absence of such an obligation from typical collective bargaining agreements, is not to bargain over such decisions.” Id., at.601-602.
The Court of Appeals’ decision in this case appears to be at odds with decisions of other Courts of Appeals, some of which decline to require bargaining over any management decision involving “a major commitment of capital investment” or a “basic operational change” in the scope or direction of an enterprise, and some of which indicate that bargaining is not mandated unless a violation of § 8 (a) (3) (a partial closing motivated by antiunion animus) is involved. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has imposed a duty to bargain over partial closing decisions. See NLRB v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 361 F. 2d 512, cert. denied, 385 U. S. 935 (1966). The Board itself has not been fully consistent in its rulings applicable to this type of management decision.
Because of the importance of the issue and the continuing disagreement between and among the Board and the Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari.- 449 U. S. 1076 (1981).
II
A fundamental aim of the National Labor Relations Act is the establishment and maintenance of industrial peace to preserve the flow of interstate commerce. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1 (1937). Central to achievement of this purpose is the promotion of collective bargaining as a method of defusing and channeling conflict between labor and management. § 1 of the Act, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §151. Congress ensured that collective bargaining would go forward by creating the Board and giving it the power to condemn as unfair labor practices certain conduct by unions and employers that it deemed deleterious to the process, including the refusal “to bargain collectively.” §§ 3 and 8, 29 U. S. C. §§ 153 and 158.
Although parties are free to bargain about any legal subject, Congress has limited the mandate or duty to bargain to matters of “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.” A unilateral change as to a subject within this category violates the statutory duty to bargain and is subject to the Board’s remedial order. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U. S. 736 (1962). Conversely, both employer and union may bargain to impasse over these matters and use the economic weapons at their disposal to attempt to secure their respective aims. NLRB v. American National Ins. Co., 343 U. S. 395 (1952). Congress deliberately left the words “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment” without further definition, for it did not intend to deprive the Board of the power further to define those terms in light of specific industrial practices.
Nonetheless, in establishing what issues must be submitted to the process of bargaining, Congress had no expectation that the elected union representative would become an equal partner in the running of the business enterprise in which the union’s members are employed. Despite the deliberate open-endedness of the statutory language, there is an undeniable limit to the subjects about which bargaining must take place:
“Section 8 (a) of the Act, of course, does not immutably fix a list of subjects for mandatory bargaining.... But it does establish a limitation against which proposed topics must be measured. In general terms, the limitation includes only issues that settle an aspect of the relationship between the employer and the employees.” Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U. S. 157, 178 (1971).
See also Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 441 U. S. 488 (1979); Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U. S. 203 (1964); Teamsters v. Oliver, 358 U. S. 283 (1959).
Some management decisions, such as choice of advertising and promotion, product type and design, and financing arrangements, have only an indirect and attenuated impact on the employment relationship. See Fibreboard, 379 U. S., at 223 (Stewart, J., concurring). Other management decisions, such as the order of succession of layoffs and recalls, production quotas, and work rules, are almost exclusively “an aspect of the relationship” between employer and employee. Chemical Workers, 404 U. S., at 178. The present case concerns a third type of management decision, one that had a direct impact on employment, since jobs were inexorably eliminated by the termination, but had as its focus only the economic profitability of the contract with Greenpark, a concern under these facts wholly apart from the employment relationship. This decision, involving a change in the scope and direction of the enterprise, is akin to the decision whether to be in business at all, “not in [itself] primarily about conditions of employment, though the effect of the decision may be necessarily to terminate employment.” Fibreboard, 379 U. S., at 223 (Stewart, J., concurring). Cf. Textile Workers v. Darlington Co., 380 U. S. 263, 268 (1965) (“an employer has the absolute right to terminate his entire business for any reason he pleases”). At the same time, this decision touches on a matter of central and pressing concern to the union and its member employees: the possibility of continued employment and the retention of the employees’ very jobs. See Brockway Motor Trucks v. NLRB, 582 F. 2d 720, 735-736 (CA3 1978); Ozark Trailers, Inc., 161 N. L. R. B. 561, 566-568 (1966).
Petitioner contends it had no duty to bargain about its decision to terminate its operations at Greenpark. This contention requires that we determine whether the decision itself should be considered part of petitioner’s retained freedom to manage its affairs unrelated to employment. The aim of labeling a matter a mandatory subject of bargaining, rather than simply permitting, but not requiring, bargaining, is to “promote the fundamental purpose of the Act by bringing a problem of vital concern to labor and management within the framework established by Congress as most conducive to industrial peace,” Fibreboard, 379 U. S., at 211. The concept of mandatory bargaining is premised on the belief that collective discussions backed by the parties’ economic weapons will result in decisions that are better for both management and labor and for society as a whole. Ford Motor Co., 441 U. S., at 500-501; Borg-Warner, 356 U. S., at 350 (condemning employer’s proposal of “ballot” clause as weakening the collective-bargaining process). This will be true, however, only if the subject proposed for discussion is amenable to resolution through the bargaining process. Management must be free from the constraints of the bargaining process to the extent essential for the running of a profitable business. It also must have some degree of certainty beforehand as to when it may proceed to reach decisions without fear of later evaluations labeling its conduct an unfair labor practice. Congress did not explicitly state what issues of mutual concern to union and management it intended to exclude from mandatory bargaining. Nonetheless, in view of an employer’s need for unencumbered decisionmaking, bargaining over management decisions that have a substantial impact on the continued availability of employment should be required only if the benefit, for labor-management relations and the collective-bargaining process, outweighs the burden placed on the conduct of the business.
The Court in Fibreboard implicitly engaged in this analysis with regard to a decision to subcontract for maintenance work previously done by unit employees. Holding the employer’s decision a subject of mandatory bargaining, the Court relied not only on the “literal meaning” of the statutory words, but also reasoned:
“The Company’s decision to contract out the maintenance work did not alter the Company’s basic operation. The maintenance work still had to be performed in the plant. No capital investment was contemplated; the Company merely replaced existing employees with those of an independent contractor to do the same work under similar conditions of employment. Therefore, to require the employer to bargain about the matter would not significantly abridge his freedom to manage the business.” 379 U. S., at 213.
The Court also emphasized that a desire to reduce labor costs, which it considered a matter “peculiarly suitable for resolution within the collective bargaining framework,” id., at 214, was at the base of the employer’s decision to subcontract:
“It was induced to contract out the work by assurances from independent contractors that economies could be derived by reducing the work force, decreasing fringe benefits, and eliminating overtime payments. These have long been regarded as matters peculiarly suitable for resolution within the collective bargaining framework, and industrial experience demonstrates that collective negotiation has been highly successful in achieving peaceful accommodation of the conflicting interests.” Id., at 213-214.
The prevalence of bargaining over “contracting out” as a matter of industrial practice generally was taken as further proof of the “amenability of such subjects to the collective bargaining process.” Id., at 211.
With this approach in mind, we turn to the specific issue at hand: an economically motivated decision to shut down part of a business.
Ill
A
Both union and management regard control of the decision to shut down an operation with the utmost seriousness. As has been noted, however, the Act is not intended to serve either party’s individual interest, but to foster in a nedtral manner a system in which the conflict between these interests may be resolved. It seems particularly important, therefore, to consider whether requiring bargaining over this sort of decision will advance the neutral purposes of the Act.
A union’s interest in participating in the decision to close a particular facility or part of an employer’s operations springs from its legitimate concern over job security. The Court has observed: “The words of [§ 8 (d)]... plainly cover termination of employment which... necessarily results” from closing an operation. Fibreboard, 379 U. S., at 210. The union’s practical purpose in participating, however, will be largely uniform: it will seek to delay or halt the closing. No doubt it will be impelled, in seeking these ends, to offer concessions, information, and alternatives that might be helpful to management or forestall or prevent the termination of jobs. It is unlikely, however, that requiring bargaining over the decision itself, as well as its effects, will augment this flow of information and suggestions. There is no dispute that the union must be given a significant opportunity to bargain about these matters of job security as part of the “effects” bargaining mandated by §8 (a)(5). See, e. g., NLRB v. Royal Plating & Polishing Co., 350 F. 2d 191, 196 (CA3 1965); NLRB v. Adams Dairy, Inc., 350 F. 2d 108 (CA8 1965), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 1011 (1966). And, under §8 (a)(5), bargaining over the effects of a decision must be conducted in a meaningful manner and at a meaningful time, and the Board may impose sanctions to insure its adequacy. A union, by pursuing such bargaining rights, may achieve valuable concessions from an employer engaged in a partial closing. It also may secure in contract negotiations provisions implementing rights to notice, information, and fair bargaining. See BNA, Basic Patterns in Union Contracts 62-64 (9th ed., 1979).
Moreover, the union’s legitimate interest in fair dealing is protected by §8 (a) (3), which prohibits partial closings motivated by antiunion animus, when done to gain an unfair advantage. Textile Workers v. Darlington Co., 380 U. S. 263 (1965). Under §8 (a) (3) the Board may inquire into the motivations behind a partial closing. An employer may not simply shut down part of its business and mask its desire to weaken and circumvent the union by labeling its decision “purely economic.”
Thus, although the union has a natural concern that a partial closing decision not be hastily or unnecessarily entered into, it has some control over the effects of the decision and indirectly'may ensure that the decision itself is deliberately considered. It also has direct protection against a partial closing decision that is motivated by an intent to harm a union.
Management’s interest in whether it should discuss a decision of this kind is much more complex and varies with the particular circumstances. If labor costs are an important factor in a failing operation and the decision to close, management will have an incentive to confer voluntarily with the union to seek concessions that may make continuing the business profitable. Cf. U. S. News & World Report, Feb. 9, 1981, p. 74; BNA, Labor Relations Yearbook-1979, p. 5 (UAW agreement with Chrysler Corp. to make concessions on wages and fringe benefits). At other times, management may have great need for speed, flexibility, and secrecy in meeting business opportunities and exigencies. It may face significant tax or securities consequences that hinge on confidentiality, the timing of a plant closing, or a reorganization of the corporate structure. The publicity incident to the normal process of bargaining may injure the possibility of a successful transition or increase the economic damage to the business. The employer also may have no feasible alternative to the closing, and even good-faith bargaining over it may both be futile and cause the employer additional loss.
There is an important difference, also, between permitted bargaining and mandated bargaining. Labeling this type of decision mandatory could afford a union a powerful tool for achieving delay, a power that might be used to thwart management’s intentions in a manner unrelated to any feasible solution the union might propose. See Comment, “Partial Terminations” — A Choice Between Bargaining Equality and Economic Efficiency, 14 UCLA L. Rev. 1089, 1103-1105 (1967). In addition, many of the cases before the Board have involved, as this one did, not simply a refusal to bargain over the decision, but a refusal to bargain at all, often coupled with other unfair labor practices. See, e. g., Electrical Products Div. of Midland-Ross Corp. v. NLRB, 617 F. 2d 977 (CA3 1980), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 871 (1981); NLRB v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 529 F. 2d 427 (CA5 1976); Royal Typewriter Co. v. NLRB, 533 F. 2d 1030 (CA8 1976); NLRB v. American Mfg. Co., 351 F. 2d 74 (CA5 1965) (subcontracting); Smyth Mfg. Co., 247 N. L. R. B. 1139 (1980). In these cases, the employer’s action gave the Board reason to order remedial relief apart from access to the decisionmaking process. It is not clear that a union would be equally dissatisfied if an employer performed all its bargaining obligations apart from the additional remedy sought here.
While evidence of current labor practice is only an indication of what is feasible through collective bargaining, and not a binding guide, see Chemical Workers, 404 U. S., at 176, that evidence supports the apparent imbalance weighing against mandatory bargaining. We note that provisions giving unions a right to participate in the decisionmaking process concerning alteration of the scope of an enterprise appear to be relatively rare. Provisions concerning notice and “effects” bargaining are more prevalent. See II BNA, Collective Bargaining Negotiations and Contracts § 65:201-233 (1981); U. S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bull. 2065, Characteristics of Major Collective Bargaining Agreements, Jan. 1, 1978, pp. 96, 100, 101, 102-103 (1980) (charting provisions giving interplant transfer and relocation allowances; advance notice of layoffs, shutdowns, and technological changes; and wage-employment guarantees; no separate tables on decision-bargaining, presumably due to rarity). See also IT. S. Dept, of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bull. No. 1425-10, Major Collective Bargaining Agreements, Plant Movement, Transfer, and Relocation Allowances (July 1969).
Further, the presumption analysis adopted by the Court of Appeals seems ill-suited to advance harmonious relations between employer and employee. An employer would have difficulty determining beforehand whether it was faced with a situation requiring bargaining or one that involved economic necessity sufficiently compelling to obviate the duty to bargain. If it should decide to risk not bargaining, it might be faced ultimately with harsh remedies forcing it to pay large amounts of backpay to employees who likely would have been discharged regardless of bargaining, or even to consider reopening a -failing operation. See, e. g., Electrical Products Div. of Midland-Ross Corp., 239 N. L. R. B. 323 (1978), enf’d, 617 F. 2d 977 (CA3 1980), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 871 (1981). Cf. Lever Brothers Co. v. International Chemical Workers Union, 554 F. 2d 115 (CA4 1976) (enjoining plant closure and transfer to permit negotiations). Also, labor costs may not be a crucial circumstance in a particular economically based partial termination. See, e. g., NLRB v. International Harvester Co., 618 F. 2d 85 (CA9 1980) (change in marketing structure); NLRB v. Thompson Transport Co., 406 F. 2d 698 (CA10 1969) (loss of major customer). And in those cases, the Board’s traditional remedies may well be futile. See ABC Trans-National Transport, Inc. v. NLRB, 642 F. 2d 675 (CA3 1981) (although employer violated its “duty” to bargain about freight terminal closing, court refused to enforce order to bargain). If the employer intended to try to fulfill a court’s direction to bargain, it would have difficulty determining exactly at what stage of its deliberations the duty to bargain would arise and what amount of bargaining would suffice before it could implement its decision. Compare Burns Ford, Inc., 182 N. L. R. B. 753 (1970) (one week’s notice of layoffs sufficient), and Hartmann Luggage Co., 145 N. L. R. B. 1572 (1964) (entering into executory subcontracting agreement before notifying union not a violation since contract not yet final), with Royal Plating & Polishing Co., 148 N. L. R. B. 545, 555 (1964), enf. denied, 350 F. 2d 191 (CA3 1965) (two weeks’ notice before final closing of plant inadequate). If an employer engaged in some discussion, but did not yield to the union’s demands, the Board might conclude that the employer had engaged in “surface bargaining,” a violation of its good faith. See NLRB v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 205 F. 2d 131 (CA1), cert. denied, 346 U. S. 887 (1953). A union, too, would have difficulty determining the limits of its prerogatives, whether and when it could use its economic powers to try to alter an employer’s decision, or whether, in doing so, it would trigger sanctions from the Board. See, e. g., International Offset Corp., 210 N. L. R. B. 854 (1974) (union’s failure to realize that shutdown was imminent, in view of successive advertisements, sales of equipment, and layoffs, held a waiver of right to bargain); Shell Oil Co., 149 N. L. R. B. 305 (1964) (union waived its right to bargain by failing to request meetings when employer announced intent to transfer a few days before implementation).
We conclude that the harm likely to be done to an employer’s need to operate freely in deciding whether to shut down part of its business purely for economic reasons outweighs thé incremental benefit that might be gained through the union’s participation in making the decision, and we hold that the decision itself is not part of § 8 (d)’s “terms and conditions,” see n. 12, supra, over which Congress has mandated bargaining.
B
In order to illustrate the limits of our holding, we turn again to the specific facts of this case. First, we note that when petitioner decided to terminate its Greenpark contract, it had no.intention to replace the discharged employees or to move that operation elsewhere. Petitioner’s sole purpose was to reduce its economic loss, and the union made no claim of antiunion animus. In addition, petitioner’s dispute with Greenpark was solely over the size of the management fee Greenpark was willing to pay. The union had no control or authority over that fee. The most that the union could have offered would have been advice and concessions that Greenpark, the third party upon whom rested the success or failure of the contract, had no duty even to consider. These facts in particular distinguish this case from the subcontracting issue presented in Fibreboard. Further, the union was not selected as the bargaining representative or certified until well after petitioner’s economic difficulties at Greenpark had begun. We thus are not faced with an employer’s abrogation of ongoing negotiations or an existing bargaining agreement. Finally, while petitioner’s business enterprise did not involve the investment of large amounts of capital in single locations, we do not believe that the absence of “significant investment or withdrawal of capital,” General Motors Corp., GMC Truck & Coach Div., 191 N. L. R. B., at 952, is crucial. The decision to halt work at this specific location represented a significant change in petitioner’s operations, a change not unlike opening a new line of business or going out of business entirely.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The record does not show the precise dimension of petitioner’s business. See 242 N. L. R. B. 462, 464 (1979). One of the owners testified that petitioner at that time had “between two and four” other nursing homes as customers. Ibid. The Administrative Law Judge hypothesized, however: “This is a large Company. For all I know, the 35 men at this particular home were only a small part of its total business in the New York area.” Id., at 465.
The record does not disclose how the contract’s 30-day written notice provision was satisfied. In any event, the parties make no point of any shortage in the notice.
The union was certified on May 11, 1977. App. in No. 79-4167 (CA2), p. 50.
The Administrative Law Judge rejected petitioner’s contention that it had satisfied, by that single phone call to Wecker, its duty to bargain about the termination.
The judge further found that petitioner’s “regular and usual” method of operation involved “taking on, finishing, or discontinuing this or that particular job,” 242 N. L. R. B., at 466, and that “[t]here was no capital involved when it decided to terminate the Greenpark job. The closing of this one spot in no sense altered the nature of its business, nor did it substantially affect its total size.” Ibid. The Administrative Law Judge therefore found inapplicable the Board’s ruling in Brockway Motor Trucks, Division of Mack Trucks, Inc., 230 N. L. R. B. 1002, 1003 (1977), enf. denied, 582 F. 2d 720 (CA3 1978), that an employer’s decision to close part of its business is not a mandatory subject of bargaining if it involves such a “ ‘significant investment or withdrawal of capital’ as to ‘affect the scope and ultimate direction of an enterprise,’ ” quoting from General Motors Corp., GMC Truck & Coach Div., 191 N. L. R. B. 951, 952 (1971).
Because the court adopted different grounds for enforcement of the Board’s order, it was error to enforce without a remand to the Board for further examination of the evidence and proper factfinding. NLRB v. Pipefitters, 429 U. S. 507, 522, n. 9 (1977); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 95 (1943).
The Court of Appeals in this case, for example, agreed, 627 F. 2d, at 601, with the Third Circuit in Brockway Motor Trucks v. NLRB, 582 F. 2d 720 (1978), that a presumption in favor of bargaining was to be established, but it analyzed differently how that presumption would be rebutted. The Third Circuit had decided that the competing interests of the employer and the employees, under the particular circumstances, must be weighed, and it had remanded the case before it to the Board for fact-finding into the circumstances behind the partial closing. See also Equitable Gas Co. v. NLRB, 637 F. 2d 980 (CA3 1981) (subcontracting); ABC Trans-National Transport, Inc. v. NLRB, 642 F. 2d 675 (CA3 1981) (partial closing); NLRB v. Royal Plating & Polishing Co., 350 F. 2d 191 (CA3 1965) (partial closing). Several courts have agreed with the Second Circuit. See, e. g., Davis v. NLRB, 617 F. 2d 1264 (CA7 1980) (change of full-service restaurant to self-service cafeteria); NLRB v. Production Molded Plastics, Inc., 604 F. 2d 451 (CA6 1979) (plant closing).
See, e. g., NLRB v. International Harvester Co., 618 F. 2d 85 (CA9 1980); NLRB v. Adams Dairy, Inc., 350 F. 2d 108 (CA8 1965), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 1011 (1966); NLRB v. Transmarine Navigation Corp., 380 F. 2d 933 (CA9 1967); Royal Typewriter Co. v. NLRB, 533 F. 2d 1030 (CA8 1976); NLRB v. Rapid Bindery, Inc., 293 F. 2d 170 (CA2 1961); NLRB v. Thompson Transport Co., 406 F. 2d 698 (CA10 1969).
See, e. g., Morrison Cafeterias Consolidated, Inc. v. NLRB, 431 F. 2d 254 (CA8 1970); NLRB v. Drapery Mfg. Co., 425 F. 2d 1026 (CA8 1970); NLRB v. William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc., 346 F. 2d 897 (CA8 1965).
Compare National Car Rental System, Inc., 252 N. L. R. B. 159, 161 (1980) (employer’s decision to terminate car leasing operations at' one location not a mandatory subject because “ ‘essentially financial and managerial in nature,’ involving a ‘significant investment or withdrawal of capital, affecting the scope and ultimate direction of an enterprise,’ ” quoting from General Motors Corp., GMC Truck & Coach Div., 191 N. L. R. B., at 952), and Summit Tooling Co.,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Under Florida law, after a defendant is found guilty of a capital felony, a separate sentencing proceeding is conducted to determine whether the sentence should be life imprisonment or death. Fla. Stat. § 921.141(1) (1991). At the close of a hearing at which the prosecution and the defense may present evidence and argument in favor of and against the death penalty, ibid., the trial judge charges the jurors to consider “[w]hether sufficient aggravating circumstances exist,” “[wjhether sufficient mitigating circumstances exist which outweigh the aggravating circumstances,” and “[b]ased on these considerations, whether the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment or death.” §921.141(2). The verdict does not include specific findings of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but states only the jury’s sentencing recommendation. “Notwithstanding the recommendation of a majority of the jury,” the trial court itself must then “weig[h] the aggravating and mitigating circumstances” to determine finally whether the sentence will be life or death. § 921.141(3). If the trial court fixes punishment at death, the court must issue a written statement of the circumstances found and weighed. Ibid.
A Florida jury found petitioner Henry Jose Espinosa guilty of first-degree murder. At the close of the evidence in the penalty hearing, the trial court instructed the jury on aggravating factors. One of the instructions informed the jury that it was entitled to find as an aggravating factor that the murder of which it had found Espinosa guilty was “especially wicked, evil, atrocious or cruel.” See § 921.141(h). The jury recommended that the trial court impose death, and the court, finding four aggravating and two mitigating factors, did so. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida, petitioner argued that the “wicked, evil, atrocious or cruel” instruction was vague and therefore left the jury with insufficient guidance when to find the existence of the aggravating factor. The court rejected this argument and affirmed, saying: “We reject Espinosa’s complaint with respect to the text of the jury instruction on the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating factor upon the rationale of Smalley v. State, 546 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1989).” 589 So. 2d 887, 894 (1991).
Our cases establish that, in a State where the sentencer weighs aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the weighing of an invalid aggravating circumstance violates the Eighth Amendment. See Sochor v. Florida, 504 U. S. 527, 532 (1992); Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S. 222, 232 (1992); Parker v. Dugger, 498 U. S. 308, 319-321 (1991); Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738, 752 (1990). Our cases further establish that an aggravating circumstance is invalid in this sense if its description is so vague as to leave the sentencer without sufficient guidance for determining the presence or absence of the factor. See Stringer, supra, at 235. We have held instructions more specific and elaborate than the one given in the instant case unconstitutionally vague. See Shell v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 1 (1990); Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U. S. 356 (1988); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980).
The State here does not argue that the “especially wicked, evil, atrocious or cruel” instruction given in this case was any less vague than the instructions we found lacking in Shell, Cartwright, or Godfrey. Instead, echoing the State Supreme Court’s reasoning in Smalley v. State, 546 So. 2d, at 722, the State argues that there was no need to instruct the jury with the specificity our cases have required where the jury was the final sentencing authority, because, in the Florida scheme, the jury is not “the sentencer” for Eighth Amendment purposes. This is true, the State argues, because the trial court is not bound by the jury’s sentencing recommendation; rather, the court must independently determine which aggravating and mitigating circumstances exist, and, after weighing the circumstances, enter a sentence “[njotwithstanding the recommendation of a majority of the jury,” Fla. Stat. § 921.141(3).
Our examination of Florida case law indicates, however, that a Florida trial court is required to pay deference to a jury’s sentencing recommendation, in that the trial court must give “great weight” to the jury’s recommendation, whether that recommendation be life, see Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1975), or death, see Smith v. State, 515 So. 2d 182, 185 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 971 (1988); Grossman v. State, 525 So. 2d 833, 839, n. 1 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U. S. 1071 (1989). Thus, Florida has essentially split the weighing process in two. Initially, the jury weighs aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the result of that weighing process is then in turn weighed within the trial court’s process of weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
It is true that, in this ease, the trial court did not directly weigh any invalid aggravating circumstances. But, we must presume that the jury did so, see Mills v. Maryland, 486 U. S. 367, 376-377 (1988), just as we must further presume that the trial court followed Florida law, cf. Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, 653 (1990), and'gave “great weight” to the resultant recommendation. By giving “great weight” to the jury recommendation, the trial court indirectly weighed the invalid aggravating factor that we must presume the jury found. This kind of indirect weighing of an invalid aggravating factor creates the same potential for arbitrariness as the direct weighing of an invalid aggravating factor, cf. Baldwin v. Alabama, 472 U. S. 372, 382 (1985), and the result, therefore, was error.
We have often recognized that there are many constitutionally permissible ways in which States may choose to allocate capital sentencing authority. See id., at 389; Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 464 (1984). Today’s decision in no way signals a retreat from that position. We merely hold that, if a weighing State decides to place capital sentencing authority in two actors rather than one, neither actor must be permitted to weigh invalid aggravating circumstances.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed. We remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The ChieF Justice and Justice White dissent and would grant certiorari and set the ease down for oral argument.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Sierra Club challenges the lawfulness of a federal land and resource management plan adopted by the United States Forest Service for Ohio’s Wayne National Forest on the ground that the plan permits too much logging and too much elearcutting. We conclude that the controversy is not yet ripe for judicial review.
I
The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to “develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System.” 90 Stat. 2949, as renumbered and amended, 16 U. S. C. § 1604(a). The System itself is vast. It includes 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, 8 land utilization projects, and other lands that together occupy nearly 300,000 square miles of land located in 44 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. § 1609(a); 36 CFR § 200.1(c)(2) (1997); Office of the Federal Register, United States Government Manual 135 (1997/1998). The National Forest Service, which manages the System, develops land and resource management plans pursuant to NFMA, and uses these forest plans to “guide all natural resource management activities,” 36 CFR § 219.1(b) (1997), including use of the land for “outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness.” 16 U. S. C. § 1604(e)(1). In developing the plans, the Service must take both environmental and commercial goals into account. See, e. g., § 1604(g); 36 CFR § 219.1(a) (1997).
This ease focuses upon a plan that the Forest Service has developed for the Wayne National Forest located in southern Ohio. When the Service wrote the plan, the forest consisted of 178,000 federally owned acres (278 sq. mi.) in three forest units that are interspersed among privately owned lands, some of which the Forest Service plans to acquire over time. See Land and Resource Management Plan, Wayne National Forest, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region (1987) 1-3,3-1, A-13 to A-17 (hereinafter Plan). The Plan permits logging to take place on 126,000 (197 sq. mi.) of the federally owned acres. Id., at 4-7, 4-180. At the same time, it sets a ceiling on the total amount of wood that can be cut — a ceiling that amounts to about 75 million board feet over 10 years, and which, the Plan projects, would lead to logging on about 8,000 acres (12.5 sq. mi.) during that decade. Id., at 4-180. According to the Plan, logging on about 5,000 (7.8 sq. mi.) of those 8,000 acres would involve clearcutting, or other forms of what the Forest Service calls “even-aged” tree harvesting. Id., at 3-5, 4-180.
Although the Plan sets logging goals, selects the areas of the forest that are suited to timber production, 16 U. S. C. § 1604(k), and determines which “probable methods of timber harvest” are appropriate, § 1604(f)(2), it does not itself authorize the cutting of any trees. Before the Forest Service can permit the logging, it must: (a) propose a specific area in which logging will take place and the harvesting methods to be used, Plan 4-20 to 4-25; 53 Fed. Reg. 26835-26836 (1988); (b) ensure that the project is consistent with the Plan, 16 U. S. C. § 1604(i); 36 CFR § 219.10(e) (1997); (c) provide those affected by proposed logging notice and an opportunity to be heard, 106 Stat. 1419 (note following 16 U. S. C. § 1612); 36 CFR pt. 215, § 217.1(b) (1997); Plan 5-2; (d) conduct an environmental analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U. S. C. §4332 et seq.; Plan 4-14, to evaluate the effects of the specific project and to contemplate alternatives, 40 CFR §§1502.14, 1508.9(b) (1997); Plan 1-2; and (e) subsequently make a final decision to permit logging, which affected persons may challenge in an administrative appeals process and in court, see 106 Stat. 1419-1420 (note folowing 16 U. S. C. § 1612); 5 U. S. C. §701 et seq. See also 53 Fed. Reg. 26834-26835 (1988); 58 Fed. Reg. 19370-19371 (1998). Furthermore, the statute requires the Forest Service to “revise” the Plan “as appropriate.” 16 U. S. C. § 1604(a). Despite the considerable legal distance between the adoption of the Plan and the moment when a tree is cut, the Plan’s promulgation nonetheless makes logging more likely in that it is a logging precondition; in its absence logging could not take place. See ibid, (requiring promulgation of forest plans); § 1604(i) (requiring all later forest uses to conform to forest plans).
When the Forest Service first proposed its Plan, the Sierra Club and the Citizens Council on Conservation and Environmental Control each objected. In an effort to bring about the Plan’s modification, they (collectively Sierra Club), pursued various administrative remedies. See Administrative Decision of the Chief of the Forest Service (Nov. 14, 1990), Pet. for Cert. 66a; Appeal Decision, Wayne National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Jan. 14, 1992), id., at 78a. The Sierra Club then brought this lawsuit in federal court, initially against the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Regional Forester, and the Forest Supervisor. The Ohio Forestry Association, some of whose members harvest timber from the Wayne National Forest or process wood products obtained from the forest, later intervened as a defendant.
The Sierra Club’s second amended complaint sets forth its legal claims. That complaint initially states facts that describe the Plan in detail and allege that erroneous analysis leads the Plan wrongly to favor logging and eleareutting. Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 13-47 (hereinafter Complaint), App. 16-23. The Complaint then sets forth three claims for relief.
The first claim for relief says that the “defendants in approving the plan for the Wayne [National Forest] and in directing or permitting below-cost timber sales accomplished by means of eleareutting” violated various laws including the NFMA, the NEPA, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Complaint ¶ 49, id., at 24.
The second claim says that the “defendants’ actions in directing or permitting below-cost timber sales in the Wayne [National Forest] under the plan violate [their] duties as public trustees.” Complaint ¶ 52, ibid.
The third claim says that, in selecting the amount of the forest suitable for timber production, the defendants followed regulations that failed properly to identify “economically unsuitable lands.” Complaint ¶¶ 54-58, id., at 25-26. It adds that, because the Forest Service’s regulations thereby permitted the Service'to place “economically unsuitable lands” in the category of land where logging could take place, the regulations violated them authorizing statute, NFMA, 16 U. S. C. § 1600 et seq., and were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law,” pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 701 et seq. Complaint ¶ 60, App. 26.
The Complaint finally requests as relief: (a) a declaration that the Plan “is unlawful as are the below-cost timber sales and timbering, including eleareutting, authorized by the plan,” (b) an “injunction prohibiting the defendants from permitting or directing further timber harvest and/or below-cost timber sales” pending Plan revision, (e) costs and attorney’s fees, and (d) “such other further relief as may be appropriate.” Complaint ¶¶ (aMd), id., at 26-27.
The District Court reviewed the Plan, decided that the Forest Service had acted lawfully in making the various determinations that the Sierra Club had challenged, and granted summary judgment for the Forest Service. Sierra Club v. Robertson, 845 F. Supp. 485, 508 (SD Ohio 1994). The Sierra Club appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the dispute was justiciable, finding both that the Sierra Club had standing to bring suit, and that since the suit was “ripe for review,” there was no need to wait “until a site-specific action occurs.” Sierra Club v. Thomas, 105 F. 3d 248, 250 (1997). The Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court about the merits. It held that the Plan improperly favored clearcutting and therefore violated NFMA. Id., at 251-252. We granted certiorari to determine whether the dispute about the Plan presents a controversy that is justiciable now, and if so, whether the Plan conforms to the statutory and regulatory requirements for a forest plan.
II
Petitioner alleges that this suit is nonjusticiable both because the Sierra Club lacks standing to bring this case and because the issues before us — over the Plan’s specifications for logging and clearcutting — are not yet ripe for adjudication. We find that the dispute is not justiciable, because it is not ripe for court review. Cf. Steel Co. v. Citizens For Better Environment, ante, at 100-101, n. 3.
As this Court has previously pointed out, the ripeness requirement is designed
“to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 148-149 (1967).
In deciding whether an agency’s decision is, or is not, ripe for judicial review, the Court has examined both the “fitness of the issues for judicial decision” and the “hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Id., at 149. To do so in this ease, we must consider: (1) whether delayed review would cause hardship to the plaintiffs; (2) whether judicial intervention would inappropriately interfere with further administrative action; and (8) whether the courts would benefit from further factual development of the issues presented. These considerations, taken together, foreclose review in the present ease.
First, to “withhold] court consideration” at present will not cause the parties significant “hardship” as this Court has come to use that term. Ibid. For one thing, the provisions of the Plan that the Sierra Club challenges do not create adverse effects of a strictly legal kind, that is, effects of a sort that traditionally would have qualified as harm. To paraphrase this Court’s language in United States v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. Co., 273 U. S. 299, 309-310 (1927) (opinion of Brandéis, J.), they do not command anyone to do anything or to refrain from doing anything; they do not grant, withhold, or modify any formal legal license, power, or authority; they do not subject anyone to any civil or criminal liability; they create no legal rights or obligations. Thus, for example, the Plan does not give anyone a legal right to cut trees, nor does it abolish anyone’s legal authority to object to trees being cut.
Nor have we found that the Plan now inflicts significant practical harm upon the interests that the Sierra Club advances — an important consideration in light of this Court’s modern ripeness cases. See, e. g., Abbott Laboratories, supra, at 152-154. As we have pointed out, before the Forest Service can permit logging, it must focus upon a particular site, propose a specific harvesting method, prepare an environmental review, permit the public an opportunity to be heard, and (if challenged) justify the proposal in court. Supra, at 729-730. The Sierra Club thus will have ample opportunity later to bring its legal challenge at a time when harm is more imminent and more certain. Any such later challenge might also include a challenge to the lawfulness of the present Plan if (but only if) the present Plan then matters, i. e., if the Plan plays a causal role with respect to the future, then-imminent, harm from logging. Hence we do not find a strong reason why the Sierra Club must bring its challenge now in order to get relief. Cf. Abbott Laboratories, supra, at 152.
Nor has the Sierra Club pointed to any other way in which the Plan could now force it to modify its behavior in order to avoid future adverse consequences, as, for example, agency regulations can sometimes force immediate compliance through fear of future sanctions. Cf. Abbott Laboratories, supra, at 152-153 (finding challenge ripe where plaintiffs must comply with Federal Drug Administration labeling rule at once and incur substantial economic costs or risk later serious criminal and civil penalties for unlawful drug distribution); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. United States, 316 U. S. 407, 417-419 (1942) (finding challenge ripe where plaintiffs must comply with burdensome Federal Communications Commission rule at once or risk later loss of license and consequent serious harm).
The Sierra Club does say that it will be easier, and certainly cheaper, to mount one legal challenge against the Plan now, than to pursue many challenges to each site-specific logging decision to which the Plan might eventually lead. It does not explain, however, why one initial site-specific victory (if based on the Plan’s unlawfulness) could not, through preclusion principles, effectively carry the day. See Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U. S. 871, 894 (1990). And, in any event, the Court has not considered this kind of litigation cost saving sufficient by itself to justify review in a case that would otherwise be unripe. The ripeness doctrine reflects a judgment that the disadvantages of a premature review that may prove too abstract or unnecessary ordinarily outweigh the additional costs of — even repetitive— postimplementation litigation. See, e. g., ibid. (“The case-by-ease approach ... is understandably frustrating to an organization such as respondent, which has as its objective across-the-board protection of our Nation’s ... foreste .... But this is the traditional, and remains the normal, mode of operation of the courts”); FTC v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 449 U. S. 232, 244 (1980); Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U. S. 1, 24 (1974); Petroleum Exploration, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 304 U. S. 209, 222 (1938).
Second, from the agency’s perspective, immediate judicial review directed at the lawfulness of logging and clearcutting could hinder agency efforts to refine its policies: (a) through revision of the Plan, e. g., in response to an appropriate pro-, posed site-specific action that is inconsistent with the Plan, see 53 Fed. Reg. 23807, 26836 (1988), or (b) through application of the Plan in practice, e. g., in the form of site-specific proposals, which are subject to review by a court applying purely legal criteria. Cf Abbott Laboratories, supra, at 149; Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm'n, 461 U. S. 190, 201 (1983). Cf. Standard Oil Co., supra, at 242 (premature review “denies the agency an opportunity to correct its own mistakes and to apply its expertise”). And, here, the possibility that further consideration will actually occur before the Plan is implemented is not theoretical, but real. See, e. g., 60 Fed. Reg. 18886, 18901 (1995) (forest plans often not fully implemented), id., at 18905-18907 (discussing process for amending forest plans); 58 Fed. Reg. 19369, 19370-19371 (1993) (citing administrative appeals indicating that plans are merely programmatic in nature and that plan cannot foresee all effects on forest); Appeal Nos. 92-09-11-0008, 92-09-11-0009 (Lodging II) (successful Sierra Club administrative appeals against Wayne timber harvesting site-specific projects). Hearing the Sierra Club’s challenge now could thus interfere with the system that Congress specified for the agency to reach forest logging decisions.
Third, from the courts’ perspective, review of the Sierra Club’s claims regarding logging and clearcutting now would require time-consuming judicial consideration of the details of an elaborate, technically based plan, which predicts consequences that may affect many different parcels of land in a variety of ways, and which effects themselves may change over time. That review would have to take place without benefit of the focus that a particular logging proposal could provide. Thus, for example, the court below in evaluating the Sierra Club’s claims had to focus upon whether the Plan as a whole was “improperly skewed,” rather than focus upon whether the decision to allow clearcutting on a particular site was improper, say, because the site was better suited to another use or logging there would cumulatively result in too many trees being cut. See 105 F. 3d, at 250-251. And, of course, depending upon the agency’s future actions to revise the Plan or modify the expected methods of implementation, review now may turn out to have been unnecessary. See Standard Oil Co., supra, at 242.
This type of review threatens the kind of “abstract disagreements over administrative policies,” Abbott Laboratories, 387 U. S., at 148, that the ripeness doctrine seeks to avoid. In this case, for example, the Court of Appeals panel disagreed about whether or not the Forest Service suffered from a kind of general “bias” in favor of timber production and clearcutting. Review where the consequences had been “reduced to more manageable proportions,” and where the "factual components [were] fleshed out, by some concrete action” might have led the panel majority either to demonstrate that bias- and its consequences through record citation (which it did not do) or to abandon the claim. National Wildlife Federation, supra, at 891. All this is to say that farther factual development would "significantly advance our ability to deal with the legal issues presented” and would “aid us in their resolution.” Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59, 82 (1978).
Finally, Congress has not provided for preimplementation judicial review of forest plans. Those plans are tools for agency planning and management. The Plan is consequently unlike agency rules that Congress has specifically instructed the courts to review "pre-enforcement.” Cf. National Wildlife Federation, supra, at 891; 15 U. S. C. § 2618 (Toxic Substances Control Act) (providing preenforeement review of agency action); 30 U. S. C. § 1276(a) (Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977) (same); 42 U. S. C. §6976 (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) (same); § 7607(b) (Clean Air Act) (same); 43 U. S. C. § 1349(c)(3) (Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act); Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U. S. 578, 592-593 (1980). Nor does the Plan, which through standards guides future use of forests, resemble an environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to NEPA. That is because in this respect NEPA, unlike the NFMA, simply guarantees a particular procedure, not a particular result. Compare 16 U. S. C. § 1604(e) (requiring that forest plans provide for multiple coordinated use of forests, including timber and wilderness) with 42 U. S. C. § 4332 (requiring that agencies prepare environmental impact statements where major agency action would significantly affect the environment). Hence a person with standing who is injured by a failure to comply with the NEPA procedure may complain of that failure at the time the failure takes place, for the claim can never get riper.
I — 1 Í — I
The Sierra Club makes one further important contrary argument. It says that the Plan will hurt it in many ways that we have not yet mentioned. Specifically, the Sierra Club says that the Plan will permit “many intrusive activities, such as opening trails to motorcycles or using heavy machinery/’ which “will go forward without any additional consideration of their impact on wilderness recreation.” Brief for Respondents 34. At the same time, in areas designated for logging, “affirmative measures to promote undisturbed backcountry recreation, such as closing roads and building additional hiking trails,” will not take place. Ibid. These are harms, says the Sierra Club, that will not take place at a distant future time. Rather, they will take place now.
This argument suffers from the legally fatal problem that it makes its first appearance here in this Court in the briefs on the merits. The Complaint, fairly read, does not include such claims. Instead, it focuses on the amount and method of timber harvesting. The Sierra Club has not referred us to any other court documents in which it protests the Plan’s approval of motorcycles or machinery, the Plan’s failure to close roads or to provide for the building of trails, or other disruptions that the Plan might cause those who use the forest for hiking. As far as we can tell, prior to the argument on the merits here, the harm to which the Sierra Club objected consisted of too much, and the wrong kind of, logging.
The matter is significant because the Government concedes that if the Sierra Club had previously raised these other kinds of harm, the ripeness analysis in this ease with respect to those provisions of the Plan that produce the harm would be significantly different. The Government’s brief in the Court of Appeals said:
“If, for example, a plan incorporated a final decision to close a specific area to off-road vehicles, the plan itself could result in imminent concrete injury to a party with an interest in the use of off-road vehicles in that area.” Brief for Federal Appellees in No. 94-3407 (CA6), p. 20.
And, at oral argument, the Solicitor General agreed that if the Sierra Club’s claim was that the “plan was allowing motorcycles into a bird-watching area or something [like that], that would be immediately justiciable.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 5. Thus, we believe these other claims that the Sierra Club now raises are not fairly presented here, and we cannot consider them.
IV
For these reasons, we find the respondents’ suit not ripe for review. We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we remand this case with instructions to dismiss.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondents, who are the owner, time charterer, and master of the Liberian registered vessel, S. S. Nikolos, brought this action in a United States District Court against the petitioner union and its members praying for temporary and permanent injunctions to restrain, and for damages allegedly suffered from, the union’s peaceful picketing of the ship in American waters and its threats to picket shore consignees of the ship’s cargo should they accept delivery. The union’s sole contention was that the District Court was without jurisdiction to restrain the picketing because of the Norris-LaGuardia Act which states in § 1:
“That no court of the United States, as herein defined, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in a strict conformity with the provisions of this Act; nor shall any such restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction be issued contrary to the public policy declared in this Act.”
Section 4 of that same law specifically denies jurisdiction to District Courts to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction to prohibit unions from:
“(e)' Giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking, patrolling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence . ...”
Notwithstanding these provisions of the Norris-La-Guardia Act and despite an express finding that the union and its members had not been guilty of fraud, and had not threatened or committed any acts of physical violence to any person or any property, the District Court issued a temporary injunction to restrain the picketing. The injunction prohibited picketing by the petitioner union of “the SS ‘Nikolos’ or any other vessel registered under a foreign flag and manned by an alien crew and owned, operated or chartered by” respondents, in the Puget Sound area. This action of the court was based on its conclusions that (a) the case did not involve or grow out of any labor dispute within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and (b) even if there were a labor dispute within the meaning of that Act, the court had jurisdiction to restrain the picketing because it interfered in the internal economy of a vessel registered under the flag of a friendly foreign power and amounted to an “unlawful interference with foreign commerce.” The court’s conclusion rested on the following facts, about which there was no substantial dispute.
The petitioner and other national labor organizations act as bargaining representatives for most of the unlicensed personnel of vessels that fly the American flag on the Pacific Coast. Petitioner alone, pursuant to National Labor Relations Board certification, represents employees of the stewards’ department on a large majority of those vessels. The S. S. Nikolos is owned by a Liberian corporation, was time-chartered for this trip by another Liberian corporation, and all members of its crew were aliens working under employment contracts made outside this country. There was no labor dispute between the ship’s employees and the ship. The Nikolos picked up a cargo of salt in Mexico and carried it to the harbor of the port of Tacoma, Washington, for delivery to an American consignee there. After the ship entered the Tacoma harbor it was met by the union’s boat which began to circle around the Nikolos displaying signs marked “PICKET BOAT.” Later an additional sign was put on the boat reading: “AFL-CIO seamen protest loss of their livelihood to foreign flagships with substandard wages or substandard conditions.” The union threatened to extend its picketing to the consignee of the salt should an attempt be made to berth and unload that cargo. Although the picketing was peaceful and there was no fraud, the result was that the ship could not deliver its cargo.
On appeal from the temporary injunction to the Court of Appeals the petitioner argued that the injunction granted by the District Court was beyond the jurisdiction of that court because of the provisions of § 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act previously set out, but the Court of Appeals rejected that contention and upheld the injunction. That court's view was based almost entirely upon our holding in Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, 353 U. S. 138. Certiorari was granted to consider the question of the applicability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act here, 361 U. S. 893, and in Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Chicago & North Western R. Co., 361 U. S. 809, decided this day, ante, p. 330. We think neither the holding nor the opinion in the Benz case supports the narrow construction the Court of Appeals gave the Norris-LaGuardia Act in this case.
The Benz case was decided by a United States District Court sitting as a state court to enforce state law under its diversity jurisdiction. The question in the Benz case was whether the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 governed the internal labor relations of a foreign ship and its foreign workers under contracts made abroad while that ship happened temporarily to be in American waters. The Benz case decided that the Labor Management Relations Act had no such scope or coverage and that it accordingly did not pre-empt the labor relations field so as to bar an action for damages for unlawful picketing under Oregon law. Nothing was said or intimated in Benz that would justify an inference that because a United States District Court has power to award damages in state cases growing out of labor disputes it also has power to issue injunctions in like situations. That question — of United States courts' jurisdiction to issue injunctions in cases like this — is to be controlled by the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
That Act’s language is broad. The language is broad because Congress was intent upon taking the federal courts out of the labor injunction business except in the very limited circumstances left open for federal jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The history and background that led Congress to take this view have been adverted to in a number of prior opinions of this Court in which we refused to give the Act narrow interpretations that would have restored many labor dispute controversies to the courts.
It.is difficult to see how this controversy could be thought to spring from anything except one “concerning terms or conditions of employment,” and hence a labor dispute within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The protest stated by the pickets concerned “substandard wages or substandard conditions.” The controversy does involve, as the Act requires, “persons who are engaged in the same industry, trade, craft, or occupation.” And it is immaterial under the Act that the unions and the ship and the consignees did not “stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.” This case clearly does grow out of a labor dispute within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
The District Court held, however, that even if this case involved a labor dispute under the Norris-LaGuardia Act the court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction because the picketing was an “unlawful interference with foreign commerce” and interfered “in the internal economy of a vessel registered under the flag of a friendly foreign power” and prevented “such a vessel from lawfully loading or discharging cargo at ports of the United States.” The Court of Appeals adopted this position, but cited no authority for its statement that the picketing was “unlawful,” nor have the respondents in this Court pointed to any statute or persuasive authority proving that petitioner’s conduct was unlawful. Compare § 20 of the Clayton Act, 29 U. S. C. § 52. And even if unlawful, it would not follow that the federal court would have jurisdiction to enjoin the particular conduct which § 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act declared shall not be enjoined. Nor does the language of the Norris-LaGuardia Act leave room to hold that jurisdiction it denies a District Court to issue a particular type of restraining order can be restored to it by a finding that the nonenjoinable conduct may “interfere in the internal economy of a vessel registered under the flag of a friendly foreign power.”
Congress passed the Norris-LaGuardia Act to curtail and regulate the jurisdiction of courts, not, as it passed the Taft-Hartley Act, to regulate the conduct of people engaged in labor disputes. As we pointed out in the Benz case, a ship that voluntarily enters the territorial limits of this country subjects itself to our laws and jurisdiction as they exist. The fact that a foreign ship enters a United States, court as a plaintiff cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of that court. There is not presented to us here, and we do not decide, whether the picketing of petitioner was tortious under state or federal law. All we decide is that the Norris-LaGuardia Act deprives the United States court of jurisdiction to issue the injunction it did under the circumstances shown.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the petition for injunction.
It is so ordered.
47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. §101.
47 Stat. 70, 71; 29 U. S. C. § 104. Even in "the limited jurisdiction the Norris-LaGuardia Act leaves to federal courts in labor controversies, other sections of the Act narrowly circumscribe the cases where, the parties against whom, and the circumstances in which, injunctions may issue. If, however, issuance of a specific injunction is prohibited by one section, such as § 4, compliance with the requirements of another section, such as § 7, does not justify the injunction.
Panama Steamship Co. v. Marine Cooks & Stewards, AFL, 1959 Am. Mar. Cas. 340.
1959 Am. Mar. Cas. 340, 350.
In the District Court respondents rested their claim for jurisdiction on 28 U. S. C. § 1331 which provides:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.”
Between the time the District Court’s injunction was appealed and the time the Court of Appeals decided the appeal, this Court decided Romero v. International Term. Over. Co., 358 U. S. 354. That case decided that § 1331 does “not extend, and could not reasonably be interpreted to extend, to cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.” Id., at 378. In the Court of Appeals the petitioner here broadened its challenge to the jurisdiction of the District Court in this case by invoking the interpretation of § 1331 declared in the Romero case. The view we take of the challenge to the court’s jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act makes it unnecessary for us to determine the entirely separate question raised under the Romero case.
Marine Cooks & Stewards, AFL, v. Panama Steamship Co., 265 F. 2d 780 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1959).
See, e. g., United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U. S. 219; Milk Wagon Drivers’ Union v. Lake Valley Farm Products, 311 U. S. 91; New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U. S. 552; Lauf v. Shinner & Co., 303 U. S. 323. And see Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, I. B. E. W., 325 U. S. 797, 805.
“The underlying aim of the Norris-LaGuardia Act was to restore the broad purpose which Congress thought it had formulated in the Clayton Act but which was frustrated, so Congress believed, by unduly restrictive judicial construction.” United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U. S. 219, 235-236.
This congressional purpose, as is well known, was prompted by a desire to protect the rights of laboring men to organize and bargain collectively and to withdraw federal courts from a type of controversy for which many believed they were ill-suited and from participation in which, it was feared, judicial prestige might suffer. See Frankfurter and Greene, The Labor Injunction (1930), at 200; Gregory, Labor and the Law (1958), at 184-199.
Section 13 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U. S. C. § 113 (c), defines a labor dispute, for purposes of that Act, as follows: “The term 'labor dispute' includes any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.” (Emphasis supplied.)
47 Stat. 70, 73 ; 29 U. S. C. § 113 (a).
See note 8, supra.
1959 Am. Mar. Cas. 340, 350.
Unlike the situation in the Benz ease, in which American unions to which the foreign seamen did not belong picketed the foreign ship in sympathy with the strike of the foreign seamen aboard, the union members here were not interested in the internal economy of the ship, but rather were interested in preserving job opportunities for themselves in this country. They were picketing on their own behalf, not on behalf of the foreign employees as in Benz. Though the employer here was foreign, the dispute was domestic. For a thoughtful discussion of the impact of foreign employment upon American labor standards, see Afran Transport Co. v. National Maritime Union, 169 F. Supp. 416, 1959 Am. Mar. Cas. 326 (holding that the Norris-LaGuardia Act withdrew from Federal District Courts jurisdiction to issue labor injunctions in a labor dispute strikingly like the one here involved). But see Fianza Cia. Nav. S. A. v. Benz, 1959 Am. Mar. Cas. 1758, 37 CCH Lab. Cas. ¶ 65,495.
Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, 353 U. S. 138, 142. See generally, Comment, The Effect of United States Labor Legislation on the Flag-of-Convenience Fleet: Regulation of Shipboard Labor Relations and Remedies Against Shoreside Picketing, 69 Yale L. J. 498, 516-525, esp. 523-525.
Here respondents do not even claim that foreign ships seeking injunctions can obtain them without complying with the requirement of § 7 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act that the court hold a hearing and make specified findings.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
As this case reaches us it raises questions of the highest importance to the maintenance of our federal system of government. It necessarily involves a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court’s considered interpretation of the United States Constitution. Specifically it involves actions by the Governor and Legislature of Arkansas upon the premise that they are not bound by our holding in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. That holding was that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids States to use their governmental powers to bar children on racial grounds from attending schools where there is state participation through any arrangement, management, funds or property. We are urged to uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board’s plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify our holding in Brown v. Board of Education have been further challenged and tested in the courts. We reject these contentions.
The case was argued before us on September 11, 1958. On the following day we unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 257 F. 2d 33, which had reversed a judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 163 F. Supp. 13. The District Court had granted the application of the petitioners, the Little Rock School Board and School Superintendent, to suspend for two and one-half years the operation of the School Board’s court-approved desegregation program. In order that the School Board might know, without doubt, its duty in this regard before the opening of school, which had been set for the following Monday, September 15, 1958, we immediately issued the judgment, reserving the expression of our supporting views to a later date This opinion of all of the members of the Court embodies those views.
The following are the facts and circumstances so far as necessary to show how the legal questions are presented.
On May 17, 1954, this Court decided that enforced racial segregation in the public schools of a State is a denial of the equal protection of the laws enjoined by the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. The Court postponed, pending further argument, formulation of a decree to effectuate this decision. That decree was rendered May 31, 1955. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294. In the formulation of that decree the Court recognized that good faith compliance with the principles declared in Brown might in some situations “call for elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition to school systems operated in accordance with the constitutional principles set forth in our May 17, 1954, decision.” Id., at 300. The Court went on to state:
“Courts of equity may properly take into account the public interest in the elimination of such obstacles in a systematic and effective manner. But it should go without saying that the vitality of these constitutional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them.
“While giving weight to these public and private considerations, the courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling. Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner. The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts may consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems.” 349 U. S., at 300-301.
Under such circumstances, the District Courts were directed to require “a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance,” and to take such action as was necessary to bring about the end of racial segregation in the public schools “with all deliberate speed.” Ibid. Of course, in many locations, obedience to the duty of desegregation would require the immediate general admission of Negro children, otherwise qualified as students for their appropriate classes, at particular schools. On the other hand, a District Court, after analysis of the relevant factors (which, of course, excludes hostility to racial desegregation), might conclude that justification existed for not requiring the present nonsegregated admission of all qualified Negro children. In such circumstances, however, the courts should scrutinize the program of the school authorities to make sure that they had developed arrangements pointed toward the earliest practicable completion of desegregation, and had taken appropriate steps to put their program into effective operation. It was made plain that delay in any guise in order to deny the constitutional rights of Negro children could not be countenanced, and that only a prompt start, diligently and earnestly pursued, to eliminate racial segregation from the public schools could constitute good faith compliance. State authorities were thus duty bound to devote every effort toward initiating desegregation and bringing about the elimination of racial discrimination in the public school system.
On May 20, 1954, three days after the first Brown opinion, the Little Rock District School Board adopted, and on May 23, 1954, made public, a statement of policy entitled “Supreme Court Decision — Segregation in Public Schools.” In this statement the Board recognized that
“It is our responsibility to comply with Federal Constitutional Requirements and we intend to do so when the Supreme Court of the United States outlines the method to be followed.”
Thereafter the Board undertook studies of the administrative problems confronting the transition to a desegregated public school system at Little Rock. It instructed the Superintendent of Schools to prepare a plan for desegregation, and approved such a plan on May 24, 1955, seven days before the second Brown opinion. The plan provided for desegregation at the senior high school level (grades 10 through 12) as the first stage. Desegregation at the junior high and elementary levels was to follow. It was contemplated that desegregation at the high school level would commence in the fall of 1957, and the expectation was that complete desegregation of the school system would be accomplished by 1963. Following the adoption of this plan, the Superintendent of Schools discussed it with a large number of citizen groups in the city. As a result of these discussions, the Board reached the conclusion that “a large majority of the residents” of Little Rock were of “the belief . . . that the Plan, although objectionable in principle,” from the point of view of those supporting segregated schools, “was still the best for the interests of all pupils in the District.”
Upon challenge by a group of Negro plaintiffs desiring more rapid completion of the desegregation process, the District Court upheld the School Board’s plan, Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 243 F. 2d 361. Review of that judgment was not sought here.
While the School Board was thus going forward with its preparation for desegregating the Little Rock school system, other state authorities, in contrast, were actively pursuing a program designed to perpetuate in Arkansas the system of racial segregation which this Court had held violated the Fourteenth Amendment. First came, in November 1956, an amendment to the State Constitution flatly commanding the Arkansas General Assembly to oppose “in every Constitutional manner the Un-consti-tutional desegregation decisions of May 17, 1954 and May 31, 1955 of the United States Supreme Court,” Ark. Const., Amend. 44, and, through the initiative, a pupil assignment law, Ark. Stat. 80-1519 to 80-1524. Pursuant to this state constitutional command, a law relieving school children from compulsory attendance at racially mixed schools, Ark. Stat. 80-1525, and a law establishing a State Sovereignty Commission, Ark. Stat. 6-801 to 6-824, were enacted by the General Assembly in February 1957.
The School Board and the Superintendent of Schools nevertheless continued with preparations to carry out the first stage of the desegregation program. Nine Negro children were scheduled for admission in September 1957 to Central High School, which has more than two thousand students. Various administrative measures, designed to assure the smooth transition of this first stage of desegregation, were undertaken.
On September 2, 1957, the day before these Negro students were to enter Central High, the school authorities were met with drastic opposing action on the part of the Governor of Arkansas who dispatched units of the Arkansas National Guard to the Central High School grounds and placed the school “off limits” to colored students. As found by the District Court in subsequent proceedings, the Governor’s action had not been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded. The findings were these:
“Up to this time [September 2], no crowds had gathered about Central High School and no acts of violence or threats of violence in connection with the carrying out of the plan had occurred. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the school authorities had frequently conferred with the Mayor and Chief of Police of Little Rock about taking appropriate steps by the Little Rock police to prevent any possible disturbances or acts of violence in connection with the attendance of the 9 colored students at Central High School. The Mayor considered that the Little Rock police force could adequately cope with any incidents which might arise at the opening of school. The Mayor, the Chief of Police, and the school authorities made no request to the Governor or any representative of his for State assistance in maintaining peace and order at Central High School. Neither the Governor nor any other official of the State government consulted with the Little Rock authorities about whether the Little Rock police were prepared to cope with any incidents which might arise at the school, about any need for State assistance in maintaining peace and order, or about stationing the Arkansas National Guard at Central High School.” Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220, 225.
The Board's petition for postponement in this proceeding states: “The effect of that action [of the Governor] was to harden the core of opposition to the Plan and cause many persons who theretofore had reluctantly accepted the Plan to believe there was some power in the State of Arkansas which, when exerted, could nullify the Federal law and permit disobedience of the decree of this [District] Court, and from that date hostility to the Plan was increased and criticism of the officials of the [School] District has become more bitter and unrestrained.” The Governor’s action caused the School Board to request the Negro students on September 2 not to attend the high school “until the legal dilemma was solved.” The next day, September 3, 1957, the Board petitioned the District Court for instructions, and the court, after a hearing, found that the Board’s request of the Negro students to stay away from the high school had been made because of the stationing of the military guards by the state authorities. The court determined that this was not a reason for departing from the approved plan, and ordered the School Board and Superintendent to proceed with it.
On the morning of the next day, September 4, 1957, the Negro children attempted to enter the high school but, as the District Court later found, units of the Arkansas National Guard “acting pursuant to the Governor’s order, stood shoulder to shoulder at the school grounds and thereby forcibly prevented the 9 Negro students . . . from entering,” as they continued to do every school day during the following three weeks. 156 F. Supp., at 225.
That same day, September 4, 1957, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas was requested by the District Court to begin an immediate investigation in order to fix responsibility for the interference with the orderly implementation of the District Court’s direction to carry out the desegregation program. Three days later, September 7, the District Court denied a petition of the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools for an order temporarily suspending continuance of the program.
Upon completion of the United States Attorney’s investigation, he and the Attorney General of the United States, at the District Court’s request, entered the proceedings and filed a petition on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, to enjoin the Governor of Arkansas and officers of the Arkansas National Guard from further attempts to prevent obedience to the court’s order. After hearings on the petition, the District Court found that the School Board’s plan had been obstructed by the Governor through the use of National Guard troops, and granted a preliminary injunction on September 20, 1957, enjoining the Governor and the officers of the Guard from preventing the attendance of Negro children at Central High School, and from otherwise obstructing or interfering with the orders of the court in connection with the plan. 156 F. Supp. 220, affirmed, Faubus v. United States, 254 F. 2d 797. The National Guard was then withdrawn from the school.
The next school day was Monday, September 23, 1957. The Negro children entered the high school that morning under the protection of the Little Rock Police Department and members of the Arkansas State Police. But the officers caused the children to be removed from the school during the morning because they had difficulty controlling a large and demonstrating crowd which had gathered at the high school. 163 F. Supp., at 16. On September 25, however, the President of the United States dispatched federal troops to Central High School and admission of the Negro students to the school was thereby effected. Regular army troops continued at the high school until November 27, 1957. They were then replaced by federalized National Guardsmen who remained throughout the balance of the school year. Eight of the Negro students remained in attendance at the school throughout the school year.
We come now to the aspect of the proceedings presently before us. On February 20, 1958, the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools filed a petition in the District Court seeking a postponement of -their program for desegregation. Their position in essence was that because of extreme public hostility, which they stated had been engendered largely by the official attitudes and actions of the Governor and the Legislature, the maintenance of a sound educational program at Central High School, with the Negro students in attendance, would be impossible. The Board therefore proposed that the Negro students already admitted to the school be withdrawn and sent to segregated schools, and that all further steps to carry out the Board’s desegregation program be postponed for a period later suggested by the Board to be two and one-half years.
After a hearing the District Court granted the relief requested by the Board. Among other things the court found that the past year at Central High School had been attended by conditions of “chaos, bedlam and turmoil”; that there were “repeated incidents of more or less serious violence directed against the Negro students and their property”; that there was “tension and unrest among the school administrators, the class-room teachers, the pupils, and the latters’ parents, which inevitably had an adverse effect upon the educational program”; that a school official was threatened with violence; that a “serious financial burden” had been cast on the School District; that the education of the students had suffered “and under existing conditions will continue to suffer”; that the Board would continue to need “military assistance or its equivalent”; that the local police department would not be able “to detail enough men to afford the necessary protection”; and that the situation was “intolerable.” 163 F. Supp., at 20-26.
The District Court’s judgment was dated June 20,1958. The Negro respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and also sought there a stay of the District Court’s judgment. At the same time they filed a petition for certiorari in this Court asking us to review the District Court’s judgment without awaiting the disposition of their appeal to the Court of Appeals, or of their petition to that court for a stay. That we declined to do. 357 U. S. 566. The Court of Appeals did not act on the petition for a stay, but, on August 18, 1958, after convening in special session on August 4 and hearing the appeal, reversed the District Court, 257 F. 2d 33. On August 21, 1958, the Court of Appeals stayed its mandate to permit the School Board to petition this Court for cer-tiorari. Pending the filing of the School Board’s petition for certiorari, the Negro respondents, on August 23, 1958, applied to Mr. Justice Whittaker, as Circuit Justice for the Eighth Circuit, to stay the order of the Court of Appeals withholding its own mandate and also to stay the District Court’s judgment. In view of the nature of the motions, he referred them to the entire Court. Recognizing the vital importance of a decision of the issues in time to permit arrangements to be made for the 1958-1959 school year, see Aaron v. Cooper, 357 U. S. 566, 567, we convened in Special Term on August 28, 1958, and heard oral argument on the respondents’ motions, and also argument of the Solicitor General who, by invitation, appeared for the United States as amicus curiae, and asserted that the Court of Appeals’ judgment was clearly correct on the merits, and urged that we vacate its stay forthwith. Finding that respondents’ application necessarily involved consideration of the merits of the litigation, we entered an order which deferred decision upon the motions pending the disposition of the School Board’s petition for certiorari, and fixed September 8, 1958, as the day on or before which such petition might be filed, and September 11, 1958, for oral argument upon the petition. The petition for certiorari, duly filed, was granted in open Court on September 11, 1958, post, p. 29, and further arguments were had, the Solicitor General again urging the correctness of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. On September 12, 1958, as already mentioned, we unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the per curiam opinion set forth in the margin at the outset of this opinion, ante, p. 5.
In affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals which reversed the District Court we have accepted without reservation the position of the School Board, the Superintendent of Schools, and their counsel that they displayed entire good faith in the conduct of these proceedings and in dealing with the unfortunate and distressing sequence of events which has been outlined. We likewise have accepted the findings of the District Court as to the conditions at Central High School during the 1957-1958 school year, and also the findings that the educational progress of all the students, white and colored, of that school has suffered and will continue to suffer if the conditions which prevailed last year are permitted to continue.
The significance of these findings, however, is to be considered in light of the fact, indisputably revealed by the record before us, that the conditions they depict are directly traceable to the actions of legislators and executive officials of the State of Arkansas, taken in their official capacities, which reflect their own determination to resist this Court’s decision in the Brown case and which have brought about violent resistance to that decision in Arkansas. In its petition for certiorari filed in this Court, the School Board itself describes the situation in this language: “The legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the state government opposed the desegregation of Little Rock schools by enacting laws, calling out troops, making statements villifying federal law and federal courts, and failing to utilize state law enforcement agencies and judicial processes to maintain public peace.”
One may well sympathize with the position of the Board in the face of the frustrating conditions which have confronted it, but, regardless of the Board’s good faith, the actions of the other state agencies responsible for those conditions compel us to reject the Board’s legal position. Had Central High School been under the direct management of the State itself, it could hardly be suggested that those immediately in charge of the school should be heard to assert their own good faith as a legal excuse for delay in implementing the constitutional rights of these respondents, when vindication of those rights was rendered difficult or impossible by the actions of other state officials. The situation here is in no different posture because the members of the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools are local officials; from the point of view of the Fourteenth Amendment, they stand iri this litigation as the agents of the State.
The constitutional rights of respondents are not to be sacrificed or yielded to the violence and disorder which have followed upon the actions of the Governor and Legislature. As this Court said some 41 years ago in a unanimous opinion in a case involving another aspect of racial segregation: “It is urged that this proposed segregation will promote the public peace by preventing race conflicts. Desirable as this is, and important as is the preservation of the public peace, this aim cannot be accomplished by laws or ordinances which deny rights created or protected by the Federal Constitution.'’' Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 81. Thus law and order are not here to be preserved by depriving the Negro children of their constitutional rights. The record before us clearly establishes that the growth of the Board’s difficulties to a magnitude beyond its unaided power to control is the product of state action. Those difficulties, as counsel for the Board forthrightly conceded on the oral argument in this Court, can also be brought under control by state action.
The controlling legal principles are plain. The command of the Fourteenth Amendment is that no “State” shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, . . . denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State’s power, his act is that of the State. This must be so, or the constitutional prohibition has no meaning.” Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 347. Thus the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all action of the State denying equal protection of the laws; whatever the agency of the State taking the action, see Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313; Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia, 353 U. S. 230; Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1; or whatever the guise in which it is taken, see Derrington v. Plummer, 240 F. 2d 922; Department of Conservation and Development v. Tate, 231 F. 2d 615. In short, the constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color declared by this Court in the Brown case can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers, nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation whether attempted “ingeniously or ingenuously.” Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 132.
What has been said, in the light of the facts developed, is enough to dispose of the case. However, we should answer the premise of the actions of the Governor and Legislature that they are not bound by our holding in the Brown case. It is necessary only to recall some basic constitutional propositions which are settled doctrine.
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.” Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers’ “anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its “authority, on the part of a State . . . .” Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.
No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: “If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . .” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, “it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . .” Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378, 397-398.
It is, of course, quite true that the responsibility for public education is primarily the concern of the States, but it is equally true that such responsibilities, like all other state activity, must be exercised consistently with federal constitutional requirements as they apply to state action. The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal justice under law. The Fourteenth Amendment embodied and emphasized that ideal. State support of segregated schools through any arrangement, management, funds, or property cannot be squared with the Amendment’s command that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The right of a student not to be segregated on racial grounds in schools so maintained is indeed so fundamental and pervasive that it is embraced in the concept of due process of law. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497. The basic decision in Brown was unanimously reached by this Court only after the case had been briefed and twice argued and the issues had been given the most serious consideration. Since the first Brown opinion three new Justices have come to the Court. They are at one with the Justices still on the Court who participated in that basic decision as to its correctness, and that decision is now unanimously reaffirmed. The principles announced in that decision and the obedience of the States to them, according to the command of the Constitution, are indispensable for the protection of the freedoms guaranteed by our fundamental charter for all of us. Our constitutional ideal of equal justice under law is thus made a living truth.
The following was the Court’s per curiam opinion:
“Per Curiam.
“The Court, having fully deliberated upon the oral arguments had on August 28, 1958, as supplemented by the arguments presented on September 11, 1958, and all the briefs on file, is unanimously of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit of August 18, 1958, 257 F. 2d 33, must be affirmed. In view of the imminent commencement of the new school year at the Central High School of Little Rock, Arkansas, we deem it important to make prompt announcement of our judgment affirming the Court of Appeals. The expression of the views supporting our judgment will be prepared and announced in due course.
“It is accordingly ordered that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, dated August 18, 1958, 257 F. 2d 33, reversing the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, dated June 20, 1958, 163 F. Supp. 13, be affirmed, and that the judgments of the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, dated August 28, 1956, see 143 F. Supp. 855, and September 3, 1957, enforcing the School Board’s plan for desegregation in compliance with the decision of this Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 349 U. S. 294, be reinstated. It follows that the order of the Court of Appeals dated August 21, 1958, staying its own mandate is of no further effect.
“The judgment of this Court shall be effective immediately, and shall be communicated forthwith to the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Newkirk has been an inmate of the New York prison system since his conviction for murder in the second degree in 1962. He had initially been confined at the Ossining Correctional Facility and, subsequently, at the Attica Correctional Facility, the Green Haven Correctional Facility, and the Auburn Correctional Facility. These facilities were maximum security institutions at the time respondent was confined in them and are located in different parts of New York. In April 1971, nine years after his initial confinement, he was transferred to the Wallkill Correctional Facility, a medium security institution. The District Court and the Court of Appeals found, and it is not seriously disputed here, that the Wallkill facility is “unique,” and has advantages over other correctional institutions in the New York system in that there are fewer restrictions and physical restraints as well as a more comprehensive rehabilitation program.
Early in 1972, a petition aimed at the formation of a prisoners’ “union” was circulated at Wallkill. This event produced some vociferous controversy among the prisoners. Tension among the inmates, according to the District Court, stemmed in part from the hostility of an existing prisoner representative committee toward the “union” movement. The prison administration, however, did not forbid or actively discourage the circulation of the petition. The administrators did, however, monitor the level of unrest within the prison brought on by the clash of opinions on the petition. On June 2, 1972, there was a general meeting of the inmates at which the petition was discussed loudly by the contending factions; the meeting dispersed peacefully, however, without incidents of violence. Respondent did not attend this meeting, but he had previously signed a proposed “union” constitution and, immediately prior to the meeting, had received a petition from a fellow inmate, signed it, and passed it along.
A report prepared by the assistant deputy superintendent identified Newkirk as one of the inmates who had been canvassing for the “union” but did not charge him with any violation of regulations or misconduct. This report — including its naming of Newkirk — was apparently based on information other officers had given the assistant deputy superintendent. Newkirk was not afforded an opportunity to give his account. The following day, on June 6, 1972, the superintendent called the central office of the Department of Corrections and arranged for transfer of several inmates, including New-kirk, to other facilities within the state corrections system. The transfer of Newkirk was effected on June 8. He was summoned to the infirmary and informed that he was being transferred.
Newkirk was transferred to the Clinton Correctional Facility, a maximum security institution. The conditions for the general prison population at Clinton were substantially different from those at Wallkill. At Clinton, the cells are locked, access to the library and recreational facilities is more limited, and the rehabilitation programs are less extensive. Newkirk requested a truck-driving assignment when he arrived at Clinton and understood he was on a waiting list. He was then assigned to the residence of the superintendent of Clinton at the same wage he earned at Wallkill. Since New-kirk’s family lived in New York City, 80 miles from Wallkill but 300 miles from Clinton, his transfer to Clinton made visits by his family more difficult.
Newkirk and three of the other four prisoners transferred from Wallkill brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 1343 (3) and (4), and 42 U. S. C. § 1983, against the superintendent of Wall-kill and the State Commissioner of Correctional Services. They requested a declaratory judgment that the transfers were in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States and an injunction ordering their return to Wallkill, expunging all record of their transfer, and prohibiting future transfers without a hearing. The District Court denied a preliminary injunction but set the case for trial on an accelerated basis. Prior to the commencement of the trial, two of the plaintiffs were released and the complaint was dismissed in so-far as it related to them. During the trial another plaintiff was released, and the action was dismissed as to him as well; subsequently Newkirk was returned to Wallkill. The superintendent of that institution also had a memorandum placed in respondent’s file which explained the nature of the transfer, noted that the transfer was not for disciplinary reasons, and was not to have any bearing on eligibility for parole or the decisions of the time-allowance committee.
The District Court held that the transfer violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since it had been made without any explanation to Newkirk or opportunity to be heard. The court entered a declaratory judgment which required that Newkirk be given such an explanation and an opportunity to be heard in connection with any future transfer, and further declared that no adverse parole action could be taken against New-kirk or punishment administered because of the transfer. It held that Newkirk should be informed of the scope of permissible behavior at Wallkill and the circumstances which would warrant his transfer to another prison in the future. At the same time, however, the court refused the prayer for an injunction against future summary transfers because it was “not persuaded that the threat of transfer is sufficiently great at this time . . .” Newkirk v. Butler, 364 F. Supp. 497, 504 (1973); the court concluded that “in the present posture of the case there is not a sufficiently delineated controversy to merit its adjudication,” id., at 500. Noting that “an explanatory note has been included with the record of transfer, and that no action adverse to plaintiff, whether with reference to parole or discipline, will be based on this information . . . ,” id., at 504, the court also denied a request that all record of the transfer be expunged from his file.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment with some modification. 499 F. 2d 1214 (CA2 1974). It held that, when a prisoner suffers a “substantial loss” as a result of the transfer, “he is entitled to the basic elements of rudimentary due process, i. e., notice and an opportunity to be heard,” id., at 1217, whether or not his transfer is part of a formal disciplinary proceeding and whether or not it has any adverse parole consequences. Noting that there were no formal disciplinary proceedings in this case, the Court of Appeals relied on the fact that the transfer changed Newkirk’s living conditions, his job assignment, and training opportunities. However, although agreeing that advance publication of “rules,” violation of which might result in transfer, “would serve the salutary function of avoiding misunderstanding and resentment . . . ,” id., at 1219, the Court of Appeals concluded that requiring prison officials to draw up such rules would place officials in “an unnecessary straight jacket [sic].” Ibid. It, therefore, modified the. judgment of the District Court to remove this requirement from its order. Although specifically noting that Newkirk had been returned to Wallkill from Clinton, the Court of Appeals held that the suit was not moot since “[e]ven after his return he remained subject to a new transfer at any time ....” Ibid. Furthermore, despite the District Court’s reliance on the good-faith assurances of prison officials that the transfer would not have an adverse effect on Newkirk’s parole possibility, the Court of Appeals concluded he was “entitled to a judicial decree to that effect.” Ibid.
We granted petitioners’ petition for writ of certiorari which presented the following question: “Whether a prison inmate who is transferred within a state from a medium security institution to a maximum security institution, without the imposition of disciplinary punishment, is entitled under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to notice of the reasons for the transfer and an opportunity to be heard”? In granting the petition, however, the Court directed that the parties brief and argue the question of mootness. 419 U. S. 894 (1974).
All of the developments since the original challenged transfer must be read in light of not only Newkirk’s transfer to Wallkill but also his later transfer, after the decision of the Court of Appeals, to the Edgecombe Correctional Facility, a minimum security institution in New York City. Newkirk will be eligible for parole in July 1975.
The exercise of judicial power under Art. Ill of the Constitution depends on the existence of a case or controversy. As the Court noted in North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244, 246 (1971), a federal court has neither the power to render advisory opinions nor “to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.” Its judgments must resolve “ ‘a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.’ ” Ibid., quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 241 (1937). As the Court noted last Term, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Brennan, Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459 n. 10 (1974): “The rule in federal cases 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. [113,] 125 [(1973)]; SEC v. Medical Comm, for Human Rights, 404 U. S. 403 (1972); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).”
In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Co., 312 U. S. 270 (1941), this Court, noting the difficulty in fashioning a precise test of universal application for determining whether a' request for declaratory relief had become moot, held that, basically, “the question in each case is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Id., at 273 (emphasis supplied). This is not a class action and Newkirk has not sought damages. As noted, supra, before the ruling of the District Court, Newkirk had been transferred back to Wallkill and had been there for 10 months. No adverse action was taken against him during that period. A notation had been made in his file expressly stating that the transfer “should have no bearing in any future determinations' made by the Board of Parole or the time allowance committee.” Newkirk has now been transferred, as noted above, to a minimum security facility in New York City. It is therefore clear that correction authorities harbor no animosity toward Newkirk. We have before us more than a “[m]ere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct,” United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., Inc., 393 U. S. 199, 203 (1968), where we would leave “[t]he defendant . . . free to return to his old ways.” United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 632 (1953). As to Newkirk’s original complaint, there is now “ ‘no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated,’ ” id., at 633, quoting United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416, 448 (CA2 1945). Any subjective fear Newkirk might entertain of being again transferred, under circumstances similar to those alleged in the complaint, or of suffering adverse consequences as a result of the 1972 transfer, is indeed remote and speculative and hardly casts that “continuing and brooding presence” over him that concerned the Court in Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U. S. 115, 122 (1974). As the Court noted in United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669, 688-689 (1973), “pleadings must be something more than an ingenious academic exercise in the conceivable. A plaintiff must allege that he has been or will in fact be perceptibly harmed by the challenged agency action, not that he can imagine circumstances in which he could be affected by the agency’s action.” Similarly, while there is always the possibility that New York authorities might disregard the specific record notation that the transfer should have no effect on good time or parole decisions in regard to Newkirk, “such speculative contingencies afford no basis for our passing on the substantive issues [Newkirk] would have us decide . . . ,” Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45, 49 (1969). The record of events since the challenged transfer hardly bears out a genuine claim of an injury or possible injury “of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Maryland Casualty Co., 312 U. S., at 273. Newkirk, as noted above, will be eligible for parole within a matter of days. See supra, at 401.
We conclude that the question presented does not fall within that category of harm “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911); Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 125 (1973). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court with directions that the complaint be dismissed by the District Court. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39 (1960).
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from the holding of mootness and would affirm the judgment below.
New York State has six correctional facilities that are designated as maximum security institutions: Attica, Auburn, Clinton, Green Haven, Ossining, and Great Meadow. Eight facilities, or portions thereof, are designated as medium security institutions: Adirondack, Bedford Hills, Coxsackie, Elmira, Eastern, Fishkill, Tappon, and Wallkill. Six others are designated minimum security institutions: Albion, Bayview, Edgecombe, Parkside, Rochester, and Taconic. There are also four minimum security correctional camps. See 7 NYCRR, pt. 100, §§ 100.1-100.94.
Pet. for Cert. 2. See this Court’s Rule 23 (l)(c).
Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 22; Brief for Respondent 10.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
By statute, Georgia registrars are required to close their voter registration books 50 days prior to November general elections, except for those persons who seek to register to vote for President or Vice President. Ga. Code Ann. §§ 34-611 and 34-602. The District Court upheld the registration cutoff against appellants’ constitutional attack based upon this Court’s decision in Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972). This appeal followed.
The State offered extensive evidence to establish “the need for a 50-day registration cut-off point, given the vagaries and numerous requirements of the Georgia election laws.” Plaintiffs introduced no evidence. On the basis of the record before it, the District Court concluded that the State had demonstrated “that the 50-day period is necessary to promote . . . the orderly, accurate, and efficient administration of state and local elections, free from, fraud.” (Footnote omitted.) Although the 50-day registration period approaches the outer constitutional limits in this area, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. What was said today in Marston v. Lewis, ante, p. 679, at 681, is applicable here:
“In the present case, we are confronted with a recent and amply justifiable legislative judgment that 50 days rather than 30 is necessary to promote the State’s important interest in accurate voter lists. The Constitution is not so rigid that that determination and others like it may not stand.”
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
Section 34-611 was enacted in 1964. At present, Georgia has no independent durational residency requirement. The State’s statutory requirement of one year in the State and six months in the county (see Ga. Code Ann. §34-602) was held unconstitutional in Abbott v. Carter (No. 15689, ND Ga. 1972).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises an issue of coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, with respect to work performed before or after the direct or productive labor for which the worker is primarily paid.
The precise question is whether workers in a battery plant must be paid as a part of their “principal” activities for the time incident to changing clothes at the beginning of the shift and showering at the end, where they must make extensive use of dangerously caustic and toxic materials, and are compelled by circumstances, including vital considerations of health and hygiene, to change clothes and to shower in facilities which state law requires their employer to provide, or whether these activities are “preliminary” or “postliminary” within the meaning of the Portal-to-Portal Act and, therefore, not to be included in measuring the work time for which compensation is required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Secretary of Labor, contending that these activities are so covered, brought this action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to enjoin petitioners from violating the overtime and record-keeping requirements of Sections 7 and 11 (c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, in the employment of production workers, and from violating Section 15 (a)(1) of the Act by making interstate shipments of the goods produced by such workers.
The District Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 215 F. 2d 171. Because of the importance of the interpretation of the portal-to-portal provisions in the administration of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and because of a conflict between the circuits on the subject, Mitchell v. King Packing Co., 216 F. 2d 618, we granted certiorari in both cases, 349 U. S. 914.
There is no question of back pay involved here because the Court limited its judgment to prospective relief. Nor is the question of changing clothes and showering under normal conditions involved because the Government concedes that these activities ordinarily constitute “preliminary” or “postliminary” activities excluded from compensable work time as contemplated in the Act. It contends, however, that such activities in the circumstances of this case are an integral and indispensable part of the production of batteries, the “principal activity” in which these employees were engaged, and are, therefore, compensable under the relevant provisions of the Act.
The petitioners own and operate a plant where they are engaged in manufacturing automotive-type wet storage batteries which they sell in interstate commerce. All of the production employees, such as those with whom we are here concerned, customarily work with or near the various chemicals used in the plant. These include lead metal, lead oxide, lead sulphate, lead peroxide, and sul-phuric acid. Some of these are in liquid form; some are in powder form, and some are solid. In the manufacturing process, some of the materials go through various changes and give off dangerous fumes. Some are spilled or dropped, and thus become a part of the dust in the air. In general, the chemicals permeate the entire plant and everything and everyone in it. Lead and its compounds are toxic to human beings. Regular exposure to atmosphere containing 1.5 milligrams or more of lead per 10 cubic meters is regarded by the medical profession as hazardous and involving the possibility of lead intoxication or lead poisoning. In battery plants, such as this one, it is “almost impossible,” it was testified, to keep lead concentration in the air “within absolutely safe limits,” and in petitioners’ plant “lead oxide was on the floor and in the air and on the plates which employees handled.” Abnormal concentrations of lead were discovered in the bodies of some of petitioners’ employees, and petitioners’ insurance doctor recommended that such employees be segregated from their customary duties. The primary ways in which lead poisoning is contracted are by inhalation and ingestion; i. e., by taking in particles through the nose or mouth, an open cut or sore, or any other body cavity. The risk is “very great” and even exists outside the plant because the lead dust and lead fumes which are prevalent in the plant attach themselves to the skin, clothing and hair of the employees. Even the families of battery workers may be placed in some danger if lead particles are brought home in the workers’ clothing or shoes. Sulphuric acid in the plant is also a hazard. It is irritating to the skin and can cause severe burns. When the acid contacts clothing, it causes disintegration or rapid deterioration. Moreover, the effects of sulphuric acid make the employee more susceptible than he would otherwise be to contamination by particles of lead and lead compounds.
Petitioners, like other manufacturers, try to minimize these hazards by plant ventilation, but industrial and medical experts are in agreement that ventilation alone is not sufficient to avoid the dangers of lead poisoning. Safe operation also requires the removal of clothing and showering at. the end of the work period. This has become a recognized part of industrial hygiene programs in the industry, and the state law of Tennessee requires facilities for this purpose. Tenn. Code Ann. (Williams 1934), 1952 Supp., Section 5788.15. In addition, the Tennessee Workmen’s Compensation Act, Tenn. Code Ann. (Williams 1934), 1952 Supp., Sections 6851-6901, which'covers petitioners, makes lead poisoning a com-pensable occupational disease (Section 6852 (d)). In order to comply with this statute, petitioners carry insurance, under Section 6895, to protect against liability, and the insurance carrier would not accept the insurance risk if defendants refused to have showering and elothes-changing facilities for their employees.
Accordingly, in order to make their plant as safe a place as is possible under the circumstances and thereby increase the efficiency of its operation, petitioners have equipped it with shower facilities and a locker room with separate lockers for work and street clothing. Also, they furnish without charge old but clean work clothes which the employees wear. The cost of providing their own work clothing would be prohibitive for the employees, since the acid causes such rapid deterioration that the clothes sometimes last only a few days. Employees regularly change into work clothes before the beginning of the productive work period, and shower and change back at the end of that period.
Petitioners issued no written instructions to employees on this subject, but the employees testified and the foreman declared in a signed statement that “In the afternoon the men are required by the company to take a bath because lead oxide might be absorbed into the blood stream. It protects the company and the employee both.”
Petitioners do not record or pay for the time which their employees spend in these activities, which was found to amount to thirty minutes a day, ten minutes in the morning and twenty minutes in the afternoon, for each employee. They do not challenge the concurrent findings of the courts below that the clothes-changing and showering activities of the employees are indispensable to the performance of their productive work and integrally related thereto. They do contend that these activities fall without the concept of “principal activity” and that, being performed off the production line and before or after regular shift hours, they are beyond the protection of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The trial court held that these activities “are made necessary by the nature of the work performed”; that they fulfill “mutual obligations” between petitioners and their employees; that they “directly benefit” petitioners in the operation of their business, and that they “are so closely related to other duties performed by [petitioners’] employees as to be an integral part thereof and are, therefore, included among the principal activities of said employees.” It concluded that the time thereby consumed is not excluded from coverage by Section 4 of the Portal-to-Portal Act, but constitutes time worked within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed, likewise holding that the term “principal activity or activities” in Section 4 embraces all activities which are “an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities,” and that the activities in question fall within this category.
With this conclusion, we agree.
,The Portal-to-Portal Act was designed primarily to meet an “existing emergency” resulting from claims which, if allowed in accordance with Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U. S. 680, would have created “wholly unexpected liabilities, immense in amount and retroactive in operation.” This purpose was fulfilled by the enactment of Section 2. The trial court specifically limited the effect of this judgment to services rendered after the judgment becomes final. We are not, therefore, concerned with the provisions of Section 2, which is inapplicable to actions relating to activities of employees performed after May 14, 1947.
The language of Section 4 is not free from ambiguity and the legislative history of the Portal-to-Portal Act becomes of importance. That Act originated in a House bill, which had no provision comparable to Section 4, but rather gave similar treatment to retroactive and prospective claims; i. e., excluding coverage except by contract or custom in the industry. H. R. Rep. No. 326, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 12. The Conference Report stated that the language of Section 4 follows the Senate bill. S. Rep. No. 48, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 48. In the Senate, the colloquy between several Senators and Senator Cooper, a sponsor of the bill and a member of the three-man subcommittee that held hearings for the Committee on the Judiciary which reported it, demonstrates that the Senate intended the activities of changing clothes and showering to be within the protection of the Act if they are an integral part of and are essential to the principal activities of the employees.
There is some conflicting history in the House, but the Senate discussion is more clear cut and, because the Section originated in that body, is more persuasive.
In 1949, Section 3 (o) was added to the Act. Both sides apparently take comfort from it, but the position of the Government is strengthened by it since its clear implication is that clothes changing and washing, which are otherwise a part of the principal activity, may be expressly excluded from coverage by agreement. The congressional understanding of the scope of Section 4 is further marked by the fact that the Congress also enacted Section 16 (c) at the same time, after hearing from the Administrator his outstanding interpretation of the coverage of certain preparatory activities closely related to the principal activity and indispensable to its performance.
On the whole it is clear, we think, that while Congress intended to outlaw claims prior to 1947 for wages based on all employee activities unless provided for by contract or custom of the industry, including, of course, activities performed before or after regular hours of work, it did not intend to .deprive employees of the benefits of the Fair Labor Standards Act where they are an integral part of and indispensable to their principal activities. Had Congress intended the result urged by petitioner, the very different provisions of Sections 2 and 4 would have been unnecessary; Section 2 could have been given prospective as well as retroactive effect.
We, therefore, conclude that activities performed either before or after the regular work shift, on or off the production line, are compensable under the portal-to-portal provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act if those activities are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed and are not specifically excluded by Section 4 (a)(1).
We find no difficulty in fitting the facts of this case to that conclusion because it would be difficult to conjure up an instance where changing clothes and showering are more clearly an integral and indispensable part of the principal activity of the employment than in the case of these employees.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
Colloquy Between Senator Cooper and Other Senators.
“Mr. COOPER. . . . Before the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act an employee might have worked upon a lathe under a contract, and his contract may have provided that his pay should commence at a scheduled hour, say at 7 o’clock when the lathe began to run, and he began to apply his energy to a casting or to a block upon the lathe. After the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by interpretations of the Wage and Hour Administrator, it was held that certain preparatory activities such as sharpening the tools, oiling the machinery, preparing his machinery for work, were so closely related to his productive activity that the employer must compensate the employee for it. We believe that in the use of the words ‘principal activity’ we have preserved to the employee the rights and the benefits and the privileges which have been given to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act, because it is our opinion that those activities which are so closely related and are an integral part of the principal activity, indispensable to its performance, must be included in the concept of principal activity. And to make our position clear we have given examples in the report. . . .
“Mr. McGRATH. I think that at this point we might very definitely make contribution to the legislative history of what we are doing here. Am I correct in understanding the Senator to say that what the majority of the committee proposes is that any activity of a worker shall be considered a part of his principal activity if the doing of that act is indispensable to the performance of the rest of his day’s work?
“Mr. COOPER. I can read the language used in the report, and I think that language should be used in this connection, because the words and phrases it employs were adopted by the committee. On page 48 of the report, in the definition of 'principal activity,’ we find these words:
“ 'It will be observed that the particular time at which the employee commences his principal activity or activities and ceases his principal activity or activities marked the beginning and the end of his workday. The term “principal activity or activities” includes all activities which are an integral part thereof as illustrated by the following examples:
“ T. In connection with the operation of a lathe an employee will frequently at the commencement of his workday oil, grease, or clean his machine, or install a new cutting tool. Such activities are an integral part of the principal activity, and are included within such term.
“ ‘2. In the case of a garment worker in a textile mill, who is required to report 30 minutes before other employees report to commence their principal activities, and who during such 30 minutes distributes clothing or parts of clothing at the workbenches of other employees and gets machines in readiness for operation by other employees, such activities are among the principal activities of such employee.’
“We believe that our bill provides that the employee must receive compensation for such activities.
“Mr. McGRATH. . . . Then we can clear that point up by reiterating that what the committee means is that any amount of time spent in the performance of the type of activity expressed in examples 1 and 2 is to be hereafter regarded as compensable time.
“Mr. COOPER. I should certainly say so, as a part of the principal activity.
“Mr. McGRATH. Th$re are innumerable instances of operations which have to be performed that are not covered in these two particular examples. I think of one at the moment. In certain of our chemical plants workers are required to put on special clothing and to take off their clothing at the end of the workday, and in some of the plants they are required to take shower baths before they leave. Does the Senator regard such activity as that as coming within the compensable workday?
“Mr. COOPER. I am very happy that the Senator has asked the question, because I believe it gives the opportunity of drawing a fine distinction between the type of activity which we consider compensa-ble and the type which should not be compensable. In accordance with our intention as to the definition of ‘principal activity,’ if the employee could not perform his activity without putting on certain clothes, then the time used in changing into those clothes would be compensable as part of his principal activity. On the other hand, if changing clothes were merely a convenience to the employee and not directly related to the specific work, it would not be considered a part of his principal activity, and it follows that such time would not be compensable.” 93 Cong. Rec. 2297-2298.
“Mr. BARKLEY. . . . Suppose that a man is a machinist or a mechanic of some kind. He is required to go to work at 8 o’clock. Let us assume for a moment that he is not a member of an organization. He is required to enter upon the actual labor, which might be termed his principal employment, at 8 o’clock in the morning and to spend 8 hours at such principal employment. But let us suppose that his employer requires him to be on the grounds and within the shop at 7:30 in the morning in order that he may spend half an hour sharpening and preparing the tools with which he himself or his colleagues in the factory are to work. Can anybody say that under those circumstances the 40-hour workweek has been complied with, as intended by the Fair Labor Standards Act ? If he is required to do that every day, instead of working 8 hours a day he will be working 8% hours a day. If he works 6 days a week, instead of 40 hours a week, he will be working more than 50 hours, every moment of which he is under the control of his employer, working with tools which belong to his employer, and he must abide by his orders or run the risk of discharge from his employment.
“Is that a part of his principal employment, or is that preliminary ; or, if he is required to do it after the close of the shop in the afternoon, is that a part of the ‘postliminary’ work for which there is to be no compensation unless there is a contract or unless it has been the practice and custom for the employer to pay for the extra work done at his command ?
“Mr. COOPER. The distinguished Senator has perhaps not had the opportunity to read the report of the committee. Let me say that on page 48 of the report of the committee that exact situation, or one as nearly comparable to it as probably could be cited, is discussed. In the report it is clearly stated that under such circumstances it is the intention of the framers of the bill that such activities shall be compensable, as a part of the principal activity.” 93 Cong. Rec. 2350.
The only exception was one injured employee who, because of the danger of infection to his wounded foot in a common shower, bathed at his home which is about five blocks from the plant.
“Sec. 4. . . .
“(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, the Walsh-Healey Act, or the Bacon-Davis Act, on account of the failure of such employer to pay an employee minimum wages, or to pay an employee overtime compensation, for or on account of any of the following activities of such employee engaged in on or after the date of the enactment of this Act'—
“(1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is employed to perform, and
“(2) activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities, which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities.
“(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) which relieve an employer from liability and punishment with respect to an activity, the employer shall not be so relieved if such activity is compensable by either—
“(1) an express provision of a written or nonwritten contract in effect, at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective-bargaining representative and his employer; or
“(2) a custom or practice in effect, at the time of such activity, at the establishment or other place where such employee is employed, covering such activity, not inconsistent with a written or nonwritten contract, in effect at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective-bargaining representative and his employer.” 61 Stat. 86, 29 U. S. C. § 254.
§ 1 (a), 61 Stat. 84, 29 U. S. C. § 251 (a).
“Sec. 2. . . .
“(a) No employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, the Walsh-Heaiey Act, or the Bacon-Davis Act (in any action or proceeding commenced prior to or on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [May 14, 1947]), on account of the failure of such employer to pay an employee minimum wages, or to pay an employee overtime compensation, for or on account of any activity of an employee engaged in prior to the date of the enactment of this Act, except an activity which was compensable by either—
“(1) an express provision of a written or nonwritten contract in effect, at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective-bargaining representative and his employer; or
“ (2) a custom or practice in effect, at the time of such activity, at the establishment or other place where such employee was employed, covering such activity, not inconsistent with a written or nonwritten contract, in effect at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective-bargaining representative and his employer.” 61 Stat. 85, 29 U. S. C. § 252.
See the colloquy quoted in an appendix to this opinion, post, p. 256.
See Remarks of Representative Gwynne, 93 Cong. Rec. 4388-4389; Remarks of Representative Walter, id., at 4389; Remarks of Representative Michener, ibid.
“Sec. 3 (o). Hours Worked. — In determining for the purposes of sections 6 and 7 the hours for which an employee is employed, there shall be excluded any time spent in changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday which was excluded from measured working time during the week involved by the express terms of or by custom or practice under a bona fide collective-bargaining agreement applicable to the particular employee.” 63 Stat. 911, 29 U. S. C. § 203 (o).
“Sec. 16 (c). Any order, regulation, or interpretation of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division or of the Secretary of Labor, and any agreement entered into by the Administrator or the Secretary, in effect under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, on the effective date of this Act, shall remain in effect as an order, regulation, interpretation, or agreement of the Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be, pursuant to this Act, except to the extent that any such order, regulation, interpretation, or agreement may be inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or may from time to time be amended, modified, or rescinded by the Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” 63 Stat. 920.
29 CFR § 790.8.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. In the light of the representations of the Solicitor General, and an independent examination of the record, we believe . that the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was mistaken in its view that the petitioner’s amortization claims for the taxable years 1956 and 1957 were not properly before it. Although the record is not free from ambiguity, we take the Court of Appeals to have based its decision on the ground that the petitioner’s amortization claims derived solely from net operating loss deductions carried forward from prior years, and that no additional amortization deductions for 1956 and 1957 were sought. Since we find that the petitioner adequately presented its amortization claims for 1956 and 1957, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to .that court for the consideration of those claims, without intimation of any kind as to their merit.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the Government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell phone records that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user's past movements.
I
A
There are 396 million cell phone service accounts in the United States-for a Nation of 326 million people. Cell phones perform their wide and growing variety of functions by connecting to a set of radio antennas called "cell sites." Although cell sites are usually mounted on a tower, they can also be found on light posts, flagpoles, church steeples, or the sides of buildings. Cell sites typically have several directional antennas that divide the covered area into sectors.
Cell phones continuously scan their environment looking for the best signal, which generally comes from the closest cell site. Most modern devices, such as smartphones, tap into the wireless network several times a minute whenever their signal is on, even if the owner is not using one of the phone's features. Each time the phone connects to a cell site, it generates a time-stamped record known as cell-site location information (CSLI). The precision of this information depends on the size of the geographic area covered by the cell site. The greater the concentration of cell sites, the smaller the coverage area. As data usage from cell phones has increased, wireless carriers have installed more cell sites to handle the traffic. That has led to increasingly compact coverage areas, especially in urban areas.
Wireless carriers collect and store CSLI for their own business purposes, including finding weak spots in their network and applying "roaming" charges when another carrier routes data through their cell sites. In addition, wireless carriers often sell aggregated location records to data brokers, without individual identifying information of the sort at issue here. While carriers have long retained CSLI for the start and end of incoming calls, in recent years phone companies have also collected location information from the transmission of text messages and routine data connections. Accordingly, modern cell phones generate increasingly vast amounts of increasingly precise CSLI.
B
In 2011, police officers arrested four men suspected of robbing a series of Radio Shack and (ironically enough) T-Mobile stores in Detroit. One of the men confessed that, over the previous four months, the group (along with a rotating cast of getaway drivers and lookouts) had robbed nine different stores in Michigan and Ohio. The suspect identified 15 accomplices who had participated in the heists and gave the FBI some of their cell phone numbers; the FBI then reviewed his call records to identify additional numbers that he had called around the time of the robberies.
Based on that information, the prosecutors applied for court orders under the Stored Communications Act to obtain cell phone records for petitioner Timothy Carpenter and several other suspects. That statute, as amended in 1994, permits the Government to compel the disclosure of certain telecommunications records when it "offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe" that the records sought "are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d). Federal Magistrate Judges issued two orders directing Carpenter's wireless carriers-MetroPCS and Sprint-to disclose "cell/site sector [information] for [Carpenter's] telephone[ ] at call origination and at call termination for incoming and outgoing calls" during the four-month period when the string of robberies occurred. App. to Pet. for Cert. 60a, 72a. The first order sought 152 days of cell-site records from MetroPCS, which produced records spanning 127 days. The second order requested seven days of CSLI from Sprint, which produced two days of records covering the period when Carpenter's phone was "roaming" in northeastern Ohio. Altogether the Government obtained 12,898 location points cataloging Carpenter's movements-an average of 101 data points per day.
Carpenter was charged with six counts of robbery and an additional six counts of carrying a firearm during a federal crime of violence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 1951(a). Prior to trial, Carpenter moved to suppress the cell-site data provided by the wireless carriers. He argued that the Government's seizure of the records violated the Fourth Amendment because they had been obtained without a warrant supported by probable cause. The District Court denied the motion. App. to Pet. for Cert. 38a-39a.
At trial, seven of Carpenter's confederates pegged him as the leader of the operation. In addition, FBI agent Christopher Hess offered expert testimony about the cell-site data. Hess explained that each time a cell phone taps into the wireless network, the carrier logs a time-stamped record of the cell site and particular sector that were used. With this information, Hess produced maps that placed Carpenter's phone near four of the charged robberies. In the Government's view, the location records clinched the case: They confirmed that Carpenter was "right where the... robbery was at the exact time of the robbery." App. 131 (closing argument). Carpenter was convicted on all but one of the firearm counts and sentenced to more than 100 years in prison.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 819 F.3d 880 (2016). The court held that Carpenter lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location information collected by the FBI because he had shared that information with his wireless carriers. Given that cell phone users voluntarily convey cell-site data to their carriers as "a means of establishing communication," the court concluded that the resulting business records are not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection. Id., at 888 (quoting Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 741, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) ).
We granted certiorari. 582 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2211, 198 L.Ed.2d 657 (2017).
II
A
The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The "basic purpose of this Amendment," our cases have recognized, "is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 528, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). The Founding generation crafted the Fourth Amendment as a "response to the reviled 'general warrants' and 'writs of assistance' of the colonial era, which allowed British officers to rummage through homes in an unrestrained search for evidence of criminal activity." Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2494, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014). In fact, as John Adams recalled, the patriot James Otis's 1761 speech condemning writs of assistance was "the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain" and helped spark the Revolution itself. Id., at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2494 (quoting 10 Works of John Adams 248 (C. Adams ed. 1856)).
For much of our history, Fourth Amendment search doctrine was "tied to common-law trespass" and focused on whether the Government "obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area." United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 405, 406, n. 3, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012). More recently, the Court has recognized that "property rights are not the sole measure of Fourth Amendment violations." Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 64, 113 S.Ct. 538, 121 L.Ed.2d 450 (1992). In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), we established that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," and expanded our conception of the Amendment to protect certain expectations of privacy as well. When an individual "seeks to preserve something as private," and his expectation of privacy is "one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable," we have held that official intrusion into that private sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause. Smith, 442 U.S., at 740, 99 S.Ct. 2577 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Although no single rubric definitively resolves which expectations of privacy are entitled to protection, the analysis is informed by historical understandings "of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when [the Fourth Amendment] was adopted." Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). On this score, our cases have recognized some basic guideposts. First, that the Amendment seeks to secure "the privacies of life" against "arbitrary power." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886). Second, and relatedly, that a central aim of the Framers was "to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance." United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948).
We have kept this attention to Founding-era understandings in mind when applying the Fourth Amendment to innovations in surveillance tools. As technology has enhanced the Government's capacity to encroach upon areas normally guarded from inquisitive eyes, this Court has sought to "assure [ ] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted." Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001). For that reason, we rejected in Kyllo a "mechanical interpretation" of the Fourth Amendment and held that use of a thermal imager to detect heat radiating from the side of the defendant's home was a search. Id., at 35, 121 S.Ct. 2038. Because any other conclusion would leave homeowners "at the mercy of advancing technology," we determined that the Government-absent a warrant-could not capitalize on such new sense-enhancing technology to explore what was happening within the home. Ibid.
Likewise in Riley, the Court recognized the "immense storage capacity" of modern cell phones in holding that police officers must generally obtain a warrant before searching the contents of a phone. 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2489. We explained that while the general rule allowing warrantless searches incident to arrest "strikes the appropriate balance in the context of physical objects, neither of its rationales has much force with respect to" the vast store of sensitive information on a cell phone. Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2484.
B
The case before us involves the Government's acquisition of wireless carrier cell-site records revealing the location of Carpenter's cell phone whenever it made or received calls. This sort of digital data-personal location information maintained by a third party-does not fit neatly under existing precedents. Instead, requests for cell-site records lie at the intersection of two lines of cases, both of which inform our understanding of the privacy interests at stake.
The first set of cases addresses a person's expectation of privacy in his physical location and movements. In United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 103 S.Ct. 1081, 75 L.Ed.2d 55 (1983), we considered the Government's use of a "beeper" to aid in tracking a vehicle through traffic. Police officers in that case planted a beeper in a container of chloroform before it was purchased by one of Knotts's co-conspirators. The officers (with intermittent aerial assistance) then followed the automobile carrying the container from Minneapolis to Knotts's cabin in Wisconsin, relying on the beeper's signal to help keep the vehicle in view. The Court concluded that the "augment[ed]" visual surveillance did not constitute a search because "[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another." Id., at 281, 282, 103 S.Ct. 1081. Since the movements of the vehicle and its final destination had been "voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look," Knotts could not assert a privacy interest in the information obtained. Id., at 281, 103 S.Ct. 1081.
This Court in Knotts, however, was careful to distinguish between the rudimentary tracking facilitated by the beeper and more sweeping modes of surveillance. The Court emphasized the "limited use which the government made of the signals from this particular beeper" during a discrete "automotive journey." Id., at 284, 285, 103 S.Ct. 1081. Significantly, the Court reserved the question whether "different constitutional principles may be applicable" if "twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country [were] possible." Id., at 283-284, 103 S.Ct. 1081.
Three decades later, the Court considered more sophisticated surveillance of the sort envisioned in Knotts and found that different principles did indeed apply. In United States v. Jones, FBI agents installed a GPS tracking device on Jones's vehicle and remotely monitored the vehicle's movements for 28 days. The Court decided the case based on the Government's physical trespass of the vehicle. 565 U.S., at 404-405, 132 S.Ct. 945. At the same time, five Justices agreed that related privacy concerns would be raised by, for example, "surreptitiously activating a stolen vehicle detection system" in Jones's car to track Jones himself, or conducting GPS tracking of his cell phone. Id., at 426, 428, 132 S.Ct. 945 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 415, 132 S.Ct. 945 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring). Since GPS monitoring of a vehicle tracks "every movement" a person makes in that vehicle, the concurring Justices concluded that "longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy"-regardless whether those movements were disclosed to the public at large. Id., at 430, 132 S.Ct. 945 (opinion of Alito, J.); id., at 415, 132 S.Ct. 945 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.).
In a second set of decisions, the Court has drawn a line between what a person keeps to himself and what he shares with others. We have previously held that "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties." Smith, 442 U.S., at 743-744, 99 S.Ct. 2577. That remains true "even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose." United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443, 96 S.Ct. 1619, 48 L.Ed.2d 71 (1976). As a result, the Government is typically free to obtain such information from the recipient without triggering Fourth Amendment protections.
This third-party doctrine largely traces its roots to Miller. While investigating Miller for tax evasion, the Government subpoenaed his banks, seeking several months of canceled checks, deposit slips, and monthly statements. The Court rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to the records collection. For one, Miller could "assert neither ownership nor possession" of the documents; they were "business records of the banks." Id., at 440, 96 S.Ct. 1619. For another, the nature of those records confirmed Miller's limited expectation of privacy, because the checks were "not confidential communications but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions," and the bank statements contained information "exposed to [bank] employees in the ordinary course of business." Id., at 442, 96 S.Ct. 1619. The Court thus concluded that Miller had "take[n] the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information [would] be conveyed by that person to the Government." Id., at 443, 96 S.Ct. 1619.
Three years later, Smith applied the same principles in the context of information conveyed to a telephone company. The Court ruled that the Government's use of a pen register-a device that recorded the outgoing phone numbers dialed on a landline telephone-was not a search. Noting the pen register's "limited capabilities," the Court "doubt[ed] that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial." 442 U.S., at 742, 99 S.Ct. 2577. Telephone subscribers know, after all, that the numbers are used by the telephone company "for a variety of legitimate business purposes," including routing calls. Id., at 743, 99 S.Ct. 2577. And at any rate, the Court explained, such an expectation "is not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). When Smith placed a call, he "voluntarily conveyed" the dialed numbers to the phone company by "expos[ing] that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business." Id., at 744, 99 S.Ct. 2577 (internal quotation marks omitted). Once again, we held that the defendant "assumed the risk" that the company's records "would be divulged to police." Id., at 745, 99 S.Ct. 2577.
III
The question we confront today is how to apply the Fourth Amendment to a new phenomenon: the ability to chronicle a person's past movements through the record of his cell phone signals. Such tracking partakes of many of the qualities of the GPS monitoring we considered in Jones. Much like GPS tracking of a vehicle, cell phone location information is detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled.
At the same time, the fact that the individual continuously reveals his location to his wireless carrier implicates the third-party principle of Smith and Miller. But while the third-party doctrine applies to telephone numbers and bank records, it is not clear whether its logic extends to the qualitatively different category of cell-site records. After all, when Smith was decided in 1979, few could have imagined a society in which a phone goes wherever its owner goes, conveying to the wireless carrier not just dialed digits, but a detailed and comprehensive record of the person's movements.
We decline to extend Smith and Miller to cover these novel circumstances. Given the unique nature of cell phone location records, the fact that the information is held by a third party does not by itself overcome the user's claim to Fourth Amendment protection. Whether the Government employs its own surveillance technology as in Jones or leverages the technology of a wireless carrier, we hold that an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI. The location information obtained from Carpenter's wireless carriers was the product of a search.
A
A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, "what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz, 389 U.S., at 351-352, 88 S.Ct. 507. A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Jones, 565 U.S., at 430, 132 S.Ct. 945 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 415, 132 S.Ct. 945 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring). Prior to the digital age, law enforcement might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so "for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken." Id., at 429, 132 S.Ct. 945 (opinion of Alito, J.). For that reason, "society's expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not-and indeed, in the main, simply could not-secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual's car for a very long period." Id., at 430, 132 S.Ct. 945.
Allowing government access to cell-site records contravenes that expectation. Although such records are generated for commercial purposes, that distinction does not negate Carpenter's anticipation of privacy in his physical location. Mapping a cell phone's location over the course of 127 days provides an all-encompassing record of the holder's whereabouts. As with GPS information, the time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person's life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his "familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations." Id., at 415, 132 S.Ct. 945 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). These location records "hold for many Americans the 'privacies of life.' " Riley, 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2494-2495 (quoting Boyd, 116 U.S., at 630, 6 S.Ct. 524 ). And like GPS monitoring, cell phone tracking is remarkably easy, cheap, and efficient compared to traditional investigative tools. With just the click of a button, the Government can access each carrier's deep repository of historical location information at practically no expense.
In fact, historical cell-site records present even greater privacy concerns than the GPS monitoring of a vehicle we considered in Jones. Unlike the bugged container in Knotts or the car in Jones, a cell phone-almost a "feature of human anatomy," Riley, 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2484 -tracks nearly exactly the movements of its owner. While individuals regularly leave their vehicles, they compulsively carry cell phones with them all the time. A cell phone faithfully follows its owner beyond public thoroughfares and into private residences, doctor's offices, political headquarters, and other potentially revealing locales. See id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2490 (noting that "nearly three-quarters of smart phone users report being within five feet of their phones most of the time, with 12% admitting that they even use their phones in the shower"); contrast Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974) (plurality opinion) ("A car has little capacity for escaping public scrutiny."). Accordingly, when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone's user.
Moreover, the retrospective quality of the data here gives police access to a category of information otherwise unknowable. In the past, attempts to reconstruct a person's movements were limited by a dearth of records and the frailties of recollection. With access to CSLI, the Government can now travel back in time to retrace a person's whereabouts, subject only to the retention polices of the wireless carriers, which currently maintain records for up to five years. Critically, because location information is continually logged for all of the 400 million devices in the United States-not just those belonging to persons who might happen to come under investigation-this newfound tracking capacity runs against everyone. Unlike with the GPS device in Jones, police need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, or when.
Whoever the suspect turns out to be, he has effectively been tailed every moment of every day for five years, and the police may-in the Government's view-call upon the results of that surveillance without regard to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. Only the few without cell phones could escape this tireless and absolute surveillance.
The Government and Justice KENNEDY contend, however, that the collection of CSLI should be permitted because the data is less precise than GPS information. Not to worry, they maintain, because the location records did "not on their own suffice to place [Carpenter] at the crime scene"; they placed him within a wedge-shaped sector ranging from one-eighth to four square miles. Brief for United States 24; see post, at 2232 - 2233. Yet the Court has already rejected the proposition that "inference insulates a search." Kyllo, 533 U.S., at 36, 121 S.Ct. 2038. From the 127 days of location data it received, the Government could, in combination with other information, deduce a detailed log of Carpenter's movements, including when he was at the site of the robberies. And the Government thought the CSLI accurate enough to highlight it during the closing argument of his trial. App. 131.
At any rate, the rule the Court adopts "must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development."
Kyllo, 533 U.S., at 36, 121 S.Ct. 2038. While the records in this case reflect the state of technology at the start of the decade, the accuracy of CSLI is rapidly approaching GPS-level precision. As the number of cell sites has proliferated, the geographic area covered by each cell sector has shrunk, particularly in urban areas. In addition, with new technology measuring the time and angle of signals hitting their towers, wireless carriers already have the capability to pinpoint a phone's location within 50 meters. Brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae 12 (describing triangulation methods that estimate a device's location inside a given cell sector).
Accordingly, when the Government accessed CSLI from the wireless carriers, it invaded Carpenter's reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of his physical movements.
B
The Government's primary contention to the contrary is that the third-party doctrine governs this case. In its view, cell-site records are fair game because they are "business records" created and maintained by the wireless carriers. The Government (along with Justice KENNEDY) recognizes that this case features new technology, but asserts that the legal question nonetheless turns on a garden-variety request for information from a third-party witness. Brief for United States 32-34; post, at 2229 - 2231.
The Government's position fails to contend with the seismic shifts in digital technology that made possible the tracking of not only Carpenter's location but also everyone else's, not for a short period but for years and years. Sprint Corporation and its competitors are not your typical witnesses. Unlike the nosy neighbor who keeps an eye on comings and goings, they are ever alert, and their memory is nearly infallible. There is a world of difference between the limited types of personal information addressed in Smith and Miller and the exhaustive chronicle of location information casually collected by wireless carriers today. The Government thus is not asking for a straightforward application of the third-party doctrine, but instead a significant extension of it to a distinct category of information.
The third-party doctrine partly stems from the notion that an individual has a reduced expectation of privacy in information knowingly shared with another. But the fact of "diminished privacy interests does not mean that the Fourth Amendment falls out of the picture entirely." Riley, 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2488. Smith and Miller, after all, did not rely solely on the act of sharing. Instead, they considered "the nature of the particular documents sought" to determine whether "there is a legitimate 'expectation of privacy' concerning their contents." Miller, 425 U.S., at 442, 96 S.Ct. 1619. Smith pointed out the limited capabilities of a pen register; as explained in Riley, telephone call logs reveal little in the way of "identifying information." Smith, 442 U.S., at 742, 99 S.Ct. 2577 ; Riley, 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2493. Miller likewise noted that checks were "not confidential communications but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions." 425 U.S., at 442, 96 S.Ct. 1619. In mechanically applying the third-party doctrine to this case, the Government fails to appreciate that there are no comparable limitations on the revealing nature of CSLI.
The Court has in fact already shown special solicitude for location information in the third-party context. In Knotts, the Court relied on Smith to hold that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in public movements that he "voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look." Knotts, 460 U.S., at 281, 103 S.Ct. 1081 ; see id., at 283, 103 S.Ct. 1081 (discussing Smith ). But when confronted with more pervasive tracking, five Justices agreed that longer term GPS monitoring of even a vehicle traveling on public streets constitutes a search. Jones, 565 U.S., at 430, 132 S.Ct. 945 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 415, 132 S.Ct. 945 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring). Justice GORSUCH wonders why "someone's location when using a phone" is sensitive, post, at 2262, and Justice KENNEDY assumes that a person's discrete movements "are not particularly private," post, at 2232. Yet this case is not about "using a phone" or a person's movement at a particular time. It is about a detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence compiled every day, every moment, over several years. Such a chronicle implicates privacy concerns far beyond those considered in Smith and Miller.
Neither does the second rationale underlying the third-party doctrine-voluntary exposure-hold up when it comes to CSLI. Cell phone location information is not truly "shared" as one normally understands the term. In the first place, cell phones and the services they provide are "such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life" that carrying one is indispensable to participation in modern society. Riley, 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2484. Second, a cell phone logs a cell-site record by dint of its operation, without any affirmative act on the part of the user beyond powering up. Virtually any activity on the phone generates CSLI, including incoming calls, texts, or e-mails and countless other data connections that a phone automatically makes when checking for news, weather, or social media updates. Apart from disconnecting the phone from the network, there is no way to avoid leaving behind a trail of location data. As a result, in no meaningful sense does the user voluntarily "assume[ ] the risk" of turning over a comprehensive dossier of his physical movements. Smith, 442 U.S., at 745, 99 S.Ct. 2577.
We therefore decline to extend Smith and Miller to the collection of CSLI. Given the unique nature of cell phone location information, the fact that the Government obtained the information from a third party does not overcome Carpenter's claim to Fourth Amendment protection. The Government's acquisition of the cell-site records was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
* * *
Our decision today is a narrow one. We do not express a view on matters not before us: real-time CSLI or "tower dumps" (a download of information on all the devices that connected to a particular cell site during a particular interval). We do not disturb the application of Smith and Miller or call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras. Nor do we address other business records that might incidentally reveal location information. Further, our opinion does not consider other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security. As Justice Frankfurter noted when considering new innovations in airplanes and radios, the Court must tread carefully in such cases, to ensure that we do not "embarrass the future." Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292, 300, 64 S.Ct. 950, 88 L.Ed. 1283 (1944).
IV
Having found that the acquisition of Carpenter's CSLI was a search, we also conclude that the Government must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring such records. Although the "ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is'reasonableness,' " our cases establish that warrantless searches are typically unreasonable where "a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing." Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652-653, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995). Thus, "[i]n the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement." Riley, 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2482.
The Government acquired the cell-site records pursuant to a court order issued under the Stored Communications Act, which required the Government to show "reasonable grounds" for believing that the records were "relevant and material to an ongoing investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d). That showing falls well short of the probable cause required for a warrant. The Court usually requires "some quantum of individualized suspicion" before a search or seizure may take place. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 560-561, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976). Under the standard in the Stored Communications Act, however, law enforcement need only show that the cell-site evidence might be pertinent to an ongoing investigation-a "gigantic" departure from the probable cause rule, as the Government explained below. App. 34. Consequently, an order issued under Section 2703(d) of the Act is not a permissible mechanism for accessing historical cell-site records. Before compelling a wireless carrier to turn over a subscriber's CSLI, the Government's obligation is a familiar one-get a warrant.
Justice ALITO contends that the warrant requirement simply does not apply when the Government acquires records using compulsory process. Unlike an actual search, he says, subpoenas for documents do not involve the direct taking of evidence; they are at most a "constructive search" conducted by the target of the subpoena. Post, at 2252 - 2253. Given this lesser intrusion on personal privacy, Justice ALITO argues that the compulsory production of records is not held to the same probable cause standard. In his view, this Court's precedents set forth a categorical rule-separate and distinct from the third-party doctrine-subjecting subpoenas to lenient scrutiny without regard to the suspect's expectation of privacy in the records. Post, at 2250 - 2257.
But this Court has never held that the Government may subpoena third parties for records in which the suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Almost all of the examples Justice ALITO cites, see post, at 2253 - 2255, contemplated requests for evidence implicating diminished privacy interests or for a corporation's own books. The lone exception, of course, is Miller, where the Court's analysis of the third-party subpoena merged with the application of the third-party doctrine. 425 U.S., at 444, 96 S.Ct. 1619 (concluding that Miller lacked the necessary privacy interest to contest the issuance of a subpoena to his bank).
Justice ALITO overlooks the critical issue. At some point, the dissent should recognize that CSLI is an entirely different species of business record-something that implicates basic Fourth Amendment concerns about arbitrary government power much more directly than corporate tax or payroll ledgers. When confronting new concerns wrought by digital technology, this Court has been careful not to uncritically
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion of American Orthopsychiatric Association et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted.
This case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit involves the proper scope of three-judge-court jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 2281. Petitioners brought suit challenging allegedly unconstitutional punitive and inhumane conditions in Texas institutions housing juvenile delinquents, and the failure to provide juveniles with the rehabilitation or treatment that justified their confinement. A single District Judge determined that the juveniles’ constitutional rights had been violated, and ordered the parties to submit a curative plan. The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s decision on the ground that a three-judge court should have been convened in accordance with § 2281. 535 F. 2d 864 (1976).
The appellate court reasoned that the challenged, unwritten practices of the juvenile institutions administered by the Texas Youth Council were revealed during trial to be statewide in impact and that therefore they were equivalent to a statute with statewide applicability within the meaning of § 2281. Under the Court of Appeals’ analysis, the necessity of convening a three-judge court was thus not properly apparent until considerable factual development of the breadth and content of the Texas Youth Council’s administrative practices had taken place.
In construing § 2281, this Court has concluded that the three-judge court procedure is brought into play in any “suit which seeks to interpose the Constitution against enforcement of a state policy, whether such policy is defined in a state constitution or in an ordinary statute or through the delegated legislation of an ‘administrative board or commission.’ ” Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 251 (1941). We have never, however, considered the generalized, unwritten practices of administration to be equivalent to the “delegated legislation” of an administrative board. In fact that approach was specifically rejected in Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U. S. 308 (1976), involving a challenge brought in a single-judge court to the Rhode Island prison system’s unwritten rule forbidding counsel at disciplinary hearings. In rejecting the argument that a three-judge court was necessary to resolve that challenge, we noted that the complaint did not meet the threshold requirements of § 2281 jurisdiction; it “did not mention or challenge any rule or regulation of the Authority; nor did it seek an injunction against the enforcement of any identified rule.” 425 U. S., at 313 n. 2. That description applies equally to the complaint in this case.
The ruling in Baxter merely reflected the consistent recognition that the three-judge court procedure is not “a measure of broad social policy to be construed with great liberality, but . . . an enactment technical in the strict sense of the term and to be applied as such.” Phillips v. United States, supra, at 251; see also Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U. S. 90, 98 (1974). The Court of Appeals' ruling improperly deviated from that understanding, and in addition it effectively transformed the jurisdictional inquiry from a threshold question to one depending upon the shifting proof during litigation, injecting intolerable uncertainty and potential delay into important litigation.
Accordingly we hold that the single District Judge properly exercised jurisdiction to decide this case, and that his judgment is reviewable on the merits in the Court of Appeals. See 28 U. S. C. § 1291. The petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Public Law 94-381, Aug. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 1119, prospectively repealed 28 U. S. C. § 2281. For cases pending at the time of repeal, § 2281 still governs jurisdiction, and provides:
“An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes, shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Local Rule 13(d)(1) of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Montana provides that a jury for the trial of civil cases shall consist of six persons. When respondent District Court Judge set this diversity case for trial before a jury of six in compliance with the Rule, petitioner sought mandamus from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to direct respondent to impanel a 12-mem-ber jury. Petitioner contended that the local Rule (1) violated the Seventh Amendment; (2) violated the statutory provision, 28 U. S. C. § 2072, that rules “shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at common law and as declared by the Seventh Amendment.. and (3) was rendered invalid by Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 83 because “inconsistent with” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 48 that provides for juries of less than 12 when stipulated by the parties. The Court of Appeals found no merit in these contentions, sustained the validity of local Rule 13 (d) (1), and denied the writ, 456 F. 2d 1379 (1972). We granted certiorari, 409 U. S. 841 (1972). We affirm.
I
In Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78 (1970), the Court sustained the constitutionality of a Florida statute providing for six-member juries in certain criminal cases. The constitutional challenge rejected in that case relied on the guarantees of jury trial secured the accused by Art. Ill, § 2, cl. 3, of the Constitution and by the Sixth Amendment. We expressly reserved, however, the question whether “additional references to the 'common law’ that occur in the Seventh Amendment might support a different interpretation” with respect to jury trial in civil cases. Id., at 92 n. 30. We conclude that they do not.
The pertinent words of the Seventh Amendment are: “In Suits at common law... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved...” On its face, this language is not directed to jury characteristics, such as size, but rather defines the kind of cases for which jury trial is preserved, namely, “suits at common law.” And while it is true that “[w]e have almost no direct evidence concerning the intention of the framers of the seventh amendment itself,” the historical setting in which the Seventh Amendment was adopted highlighted a controversy that was generated, not by concern for preservation of jury characteristics at common law, but by fear that the civil jury itself would be abolished unless protected in express words. Almost a century and a half ago, this Court recognized that “[o]ne of the strongest objections originally taken against the constitution of the United States, was the want of an express provision securing the right of trial by jury in civil cases.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 445 (1830). But the omission of a protective clause from the Constitution was not because an effort was not made to include one. On the contrary, a proposal was made to include a provision in the Constitution to guarantee the right of trial by jury in civil cases but the proposal failed because the States varied widely as to the cases in which civil jury trial was provided, and the proponents of a civil jury guarantee found too difficult the task of fashioning words appropriate to cover the different state practices. The strong pressures for a civil jury provision in the Bill of Rights encountered the same difficulty. Thus, it was agreed that, with no federal practice to draw on and since state practices varied so widely, any compromising language would necessarily have to be general. As a result, although the Seventh Amendment achieved the primary goal of jury trial adherents to incorporate an explicit constitutional protection of the right of trial by jury in civil cases, the right was limited in general words to “suits at common law.” We can only conclude, therefore, that by referring to the “common law,” the Framers of the Seventh Amendment were concerned with preserving the right of trial by jury in civil cases where it existed at common law, rather than the various incidents of trial by jury. In short, what was said in Williams with respect to the criminal jury is equally applicable here: constitutional history reveals no intention on the part of the Framers “to equate the constitutional and common-law characteristics of the jury.” 399 U. S., at 99.
Consistently with the historical objective of the Seventh Amendment, our decisions have defined the jury right preserved in cases covered by the Amendment, as “the substance of the common-law right of trial by jury, as distinguished from mere matters of form or procedure....” Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U. S. 654, 657 (1935). The Amendment, therefore, does not “bind the federal courts to the exact procedural incidents or details of jury trial according to the common law in 1791,” Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S. 372, 390 (1943); see also Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 309 (1920); Walker v. New Mexico & S. P. R. Co., 165 U. S. 593, 596 (1897), and “[n]ew devices may be used to adapt the ancient institution to present needs and to make of it an efficient instrument in the administration of justice....” Ex parte Peterson, supra, at 309-310; Funk v. United States, 290 U. S. 371, 382 (1933).
Our inquiry turns, then, to whether a jury of 12 is of the substance of the common-law right of trial by jury. Keeping in mind the purpose of the jury trial in criminal cases to prevent government oppression, Williams, 399 U. S., at 100, and, in criminal and civil cases, to assure a fair and equitable resolution of factual issues, Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Co., 283 U. S. 494, 498 (1931), the question comes down to whether jury performance is a function of jury size. In Williams, we rejected the no-, tion that “the reliability of the jury as a factfinder... [is] a function of its size,” 399 U. S., at 100-101, and nothing has been suggested to lead us to alter that conclusion. Accordingly, we think it cannot be said that 12 members is a substantive aspect of the right of trial by jury.
It is true, of course, that several earlier decisions of this Court have made the statement that “trial by jury” means “a trial by a jury of twelve....” Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 1, 13 (1899); see also American Publishing Co. v. Fisher, 166 U. S. 464 (1897); Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 586 (1900). But in each case, the reference to “a jury of twelve” was clearly dictum and not a decision upon a question presented or litigated. Thus, in Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, supra, the case most often cited, the question presented was whether a civil action brought before a justice of the peace of the District of Columbia was triable by jury, and. that question turned on whether the justice of the peace was a judge empowered to instruct them on the law and advise them on the facts. Insofar as the Hof statement implied that the Seventh Amendment required a jury of 12, it was at best an assumption. And even if that assumption had support in common-law doctrine, our canvass of the relevant constitutional history, like the history canvassed in Williams concerning the criminal jury, "casts considerable doubt on the easy assumption in our past decisions that if a given feature existed in a jury at common law... then it was necessarily preserved in the Constitution.” 399 U. S., at 92-93. We cannot, therefore, accord the unsupported dicta of these earlier decisions the authority of decided precedents.
There remains, however, the question whether a jury of six satisfies the Seventh Amendment guarantee of “trial by jury.” We had no difficulty reaching the conclusion in Williams that a jury of six would guarantee an accused the trial by jury secured by Art. Ill and the Sixth Amendment. Significantly, our determination that there was "no discernible difference between the results reached by the two different-sized juries,” 399 U. S., at 101, drew largely upon the results of studies of the operations of juries of six in civil cases. Since then, much has been written about the six-member jury, but nothing that persuades us to depart from the conclusion reached in Williams. Thus, while we express no view as to whether any number less than six would suffice, we conclude that a jury of six satisfies the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of trial by jury in civil cases.
II
The statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2072, authorizes this Court to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but provides that “[s]uch rules... shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at common law and as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution.” Petitioner argues that in securing trial by jury “as at common law” and also “as declared by the Seventh Amendment,” Congress meant to provide a jury having the characteristics of the common-law jury even if the Seventh Amendment did not require a jury with those characteristics. As the Court of Appeals observed, “[t]his would indeed be a sweeping limitation.” 456 F. 2d, at 1380. Petitioner would impute to Congress an intention to saddle archaic and presently unworkable common-law procedures upon the federal courts and thereby to nullify innovative changes approved by this Court over the years that have now become commonplace and, for all practical purposes, “essential to the preservation of the right” of trial by jury in our modern society. Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S., at 310; Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S., at 390-391. For to say that Congress chose this means to render our system of civil jury trial immutable as of 1791, or some other date, is to say the Congress meant to deny the judiciary the “flexibility and capacity for growth and adaptation [which] is the peculiar boast and excellence of the common law.” Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 530 (1884); Funk v. United States, 290 U. S., at 382.
But petitioner’s extravagant contention has not the slightest support in the legislative history of the provision. Section 2072 is derived from the Enabling Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064. Section 2 of that Act gave this Court the “power to unite the general rules prescribed... for cases in equity with those in actions at law so as to secure one form of civil action and procedure for both.” H. R. Rep. No. 1829, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1934). As emphasized by the Court of Appeals, the language of § 2 preserving the right of trial by jury was included “to assure that with such union [of law and equity] the right of trial by jury would be neither expanded nor contracted.” 456 F. 2d, at 1381, citing 5 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 38.06, p. 44 (2d ed. 1971). See also Cooley v. Strickland Transportation Co., 459 F. 2d 779, 785 (CA5 1972). In other words, Congress used the language in question for the sole purpose of creating a statutory right coextensive with that under the Seventh Amendment itself. If Congress had meant to prescribe a jury number or to legislate common-law features generally, "it knew how to use express language to that effect.” Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S., at 97.
Ill
Petitioner’s argument that local Rule 13 (d)(1) is inconsistent with Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 48 rests on the proposition that Rule 48 implies a direction to impanel a jury of 12 in the absence of a stipulation of the parties for a lesser number. Rule 48 was drafted at the time the statement in Capital Traction Co. v. Hoj, supra, that trial by jury means a “jury of twelve,” was generally accepted. Plainly the assumption of the draftsmen that such was the case cannot be transmuted into an implied direction to impanel juries of 12 without regard to whether a jury of 12 was required by the Seventh Amendment. Our conclusion that the Hoj statement lacks prec-edential weight leaves Rule 48 without the support even of the draftsmen’s assumption and thus there is nothing in the Rule with which the local Rule is inconsistent. See Cooley v. Strickland Transportation Co., supra, at 783-785; Devitt, The Six Man Jury in the Federal Court, 53 F. R. D. 273, 274 n. 1 (1971).
Similarly, we reject the argument that the local Rule conflicts with Rule 48 because it deprives petitioner of the right to stipulate to a jury of “any number less than twelve.” Aside from the fact that there is no indication in the record that petitioner ever sought a jury of less than 12, Rule 48 “deals only with a stipulation by ‘[t]he parties.’ It does not purport to prevent court rules which provide for civil juries of reduced size.” Cooley v. Strickland Transportation Co., supra, at 784.
Affirmed.
Rule 13(d)(1) provides:
"A jury for the trial of civil cases shall consist of six persons plus such alternate jurors as may be impaneled.”
Similar local rules have been adopted by 54 other federal district courts, at least as to some civil cases. See the appendix to Fisher, The Seventh Amendment and the Common Law: No Magic in Numbers, 56 F. R. D. 507, 535-542 (1973) (the District Court of Delaware has since adopted a rule effective January 1, 1973). In addition, two bills were introduced in the 92d Congress to reduce to six the number of jurors in all federal civil cases. H. R. 7800, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971); H. R. 13496, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). H. R. 7800, insofar as it related to civil juries, has received the approval of the Committee on the Operation of the Jury System of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 1971 Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 41. That Conference itself at its March 1971 meeting endorsed “in principle” a reduction in the size of civil juries. Ibid.
The Seventh Amendment provides :
“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
State court decisions have usually turned on the interpretation of state constitutional provisions. See Ann., 47 A. L. R. 3d 895 (1973).
Title 28 U. S. C. §2072 provides:
“The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe by general rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure of the district courts and courts of appeals of the United States in civil actions....
“Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at common law and as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution.”
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 48 provides:
“The parties may stipulate that the jury shall consist of any number less than twelve or that a verdict or a finding of a stated majority of the jurors shall be taken as the verdict or finding of the jury.”
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 83 provides:
“Each district court by action of a majority of the judges thereof may from time to time make and amend rules governing its practice not inconsistent with these rules.... In all cases not provided for by rule, the district courts may regulate their practice in any manner not inconsistent with these rules.”
Art. Ill, §2, cl. 3, provides:
“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”
The Sixth Amendment provides:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
The reference to “common law” contained in the second clause of the Seventh Amendment is. irrelevant to our present inquiry because it deals exclusively with the prohibition contained in that clause against the indirect impairment of the right of trial by jury through judicial re-examination of factfindings of a jury other than as permitted in 1791. Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U. S. 654, 657 (1935); Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 447-448 (1830); 5 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 38.08 [5], pp. 86-90 (2d ed. 1971).
Henderson, The Background of the Seventh Amendment, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 289, 291 (1966).
See 2 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention 587 (1911). See also Henderson, supra, n. 7, at 292-294.
The question of a provision for the protection of the right to trial by jury in civil eases apparently was not presented at the Constitutional Convention until a proposed final draft of the Constitution was reported out of the Committee on Style and Arrangement. At that point, Mr. Williamson of North Carolina “observed to the House that no provision was yet made for juries in Civil cases and suggested the necessity of it.” 2 Farrand, supra, at 587. This provoked the following discussion:
“Mr. Gorham. It is not possible to discriminate equity eases from those in which juries are proper. The Representatives of the people may be safely trusted in this matter.
“Mr. Gerry urged the necessity of Juries to guard [against] corrupt Judges. He proposed that the Committee last appointed should be directed to provide a clause for securing the trial by Juries.
“Col. Mason perceived the difficulty mentioned by Mr. Gorham. The jury cases cannot be specified. A general principle laid down on this and some other points would be sufficient. He wished the plan had been prefaced with a Bill of Rights, & would second a Motion if made for the purpose....” Ibid.
Three days later, a proposal was made by Mr. Gerry and Mr. Pinckney to add the following language to the Art. Ill guarantee of trial by jury in criminal cases: “And a trial by jury shall be preserved as usual in civil cases.” This proposal prompted the following reaction:
“Mr. Gorham. The constitution of Juries is different in different States and the trial itself is usual in different cases in different States.
“Mr. King urged the same objections.
“Geni. Pinckney also. He thought such a clause in the Constitution would be pregnant with embarrassments.
“The motion was disagreed to nem. con.” Id., at 628.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania defended the omission at the Penn-sylvánia Convention convened to ratify the Constitution:
“The cases open to a jury, differed in the different states; it was therefore impracticable, on that ground, to have made a general rule. The want of uniformity would have rendered any reference to the practice of the states idle and useless: and it could not, with any propriety, be said, that ‘the trial by jury shall be as heretofore:’ since there has never existed any foederal system of jurisprudence, to which the declaration could relate. Besides, it is not in all cases that the trial by jury is adopted in civil questions: for causes depending in courts of admiralty, such as relate to maritime captures, and such as are agitated in the courts of equity, do not require the intervention of that tribunal. How, then, was the line of discrimination to be drawn? The convention found the task too difficult for them; and they left the business as it stands — in the fullest confidence, that no danger would possibly ensue, since the proceedings of the supreme court are to be regulated by the congress, which is a faithful representation of the people: and the oppression of govern-' ment is effectually barred, by declaring that in all criminal cases, the trial by jury shall be preserved.” 3 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention 101 (1911).
A proponent of a guarantee responded:
“The second and most important objection to the federal plan, which Mr. Wilson pretends to be made in a disingenuous form, is the entire abolition of the trial by jury in civil cases. It seems to me that Mr. Wilson’s pretended answer is much more disingenuous than the objection itself.... He says, ‘that the cases open to trial by jury differing in the different States, it was therefore impracticable to have made a general rule.’ This answer is extremely futile, because a reference might easily have been made to the common law of England, which obtains through every State, and cases in the maritime and civil law courts would, of course, be excepted....” Quoted in Henderson, swpra, n. 7, at 296-297. See also 1 J. Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (2d ed. 183-6).
That the words “common law” were used merely to establish a general rule of trial by jury in civil cases was the view of Mr. Justice Story in the discussion in his Commentaries of the Seventh Amendment and the Judiciary Act of 1789:
“The phrase, 'common law,’ found in this clause, is used in contradistinction to equity, and admiralty, and maritime jurisprudence. The constitution had declared, in the third article, 'that the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority,’ &c., and 'to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.’ It is well known, that in civil causes, in courts of equity and admiralty, juries do not intervene; and that courts of equity use the trial by jury only in extraordinary cases to inform the conscience of the court. When, therefore, we find, that the amendment requires, that the right of trial by jury shall be preserved in suits at common law, the natural conclusion is, that the distinction was present to the minds of the framers of the amendment. By common law they meant, what the constitution denominated in the third article ‘law’.... And congress seem to have acted with reference to this exposition in the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20, (which was contemporaneous with the proposal of this amendment;)....” 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 645-646 (1833).
Constitutional history does not reveal a single instance where concern was expressed for preservation of the traditional number 12. Indeed, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a member of the Constitutional Convention and later a Justice of this Court, stated: “When I speak of juries, I feel no peculiar predilection for the number twelve... 2 The Works of James Wilson 503 (R. McCloskey ed. 1967).
See also Scott, Trial by Jury and the Reform of Civil Procedure, 31 Harv. L. Rev. 669, 671 (1918):
“Although the incidents of trial by jury which existed at the time of the adoption of the constitutional guaranty are not thereby abolished, yet those incidents are not necessarily made unalterable. Only those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature. The question of the constitutionality of any particular modification of the law as to trial by jury resolves itself into a question of what requirements are fundamental and what are unessential, a question which is necessarily, in the last analysis, one of degree. The question, it is submitted, should be approached in a spirit of open-mindedness, of readiness to accept any changes which do not impair the fundamentals of trial by jury. It is a question of substance, not of form.”
Although Williams proceeded on the premise that the common-law jury was composed of 12 members, juries of less than 12 were common in this country throughout colonial times. See the cases and statutes cited in Fisher, supra, n. 1, at 529-532.
See Devitt, The Six Man Jury in the Federal Court, 53 F. R. D. 273, 274 (1971); Augelli, Six-Member Juries in Civil Actions in the Federal Judicial System, 3 Seton Hall L. Rev. 281, 285 (1972) ; Croake, Memorandum on the Advisability and Constitutionality of Six Man Juries and 5/6 Verdicts in Civil Cases, 44 N. Y. State B. J. 385 (1972). See also Leger v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 54 F. R. D. 574 (WD La. 1972); contra, Winsby v. John Oster Mfg. Co., 336 F. Supp. 663 (WD Pa. 1972).
Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78, 101 n. 48 (1970).
Arguments, pro and con, on the effectiveness of a jury of six compared to a jury of 12 will be found in Devitt, supra, n. 13; Augelli, supra, n. 13; Croake, supra, n. 13; Fisher, supra, n. 1; Bogue & Fritz, The Six-Man Jury, 17 S. D. L. Rev. 285 (1972); Moss, The Twelve Member Jury in Massachusetts — Can it be Reduced?, 56 Mass. L. Q. 65 (1971); Zeisel,... And Then There Were None: The Diminution of the Federal Jury, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 710 (1971) ; Zeisel, The Waning of the American Jury, 58 A. B. A. J. 367 (1972) ; Gibbons, The New Minijuries: Panacea or Pandora's Box?, 58 A. B. A. J. 594 (1972); Kaufman, The Harbingers of Jury Reform, 58 A. B. A. J. 695 (1972); Whalen, Remarks on Resolution of 7th Amendment Jury Trial Requirement, 54 F. R. D. 148 (1972); Note, Right to Twelve-Man Jury, 84 Harv. L. Rev. 165 (1970); Note, Reducing the Size of Juries, 5 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 87 (1971); Note, The Effect of Jury Size on the Probability of Conviction: An Evaluation of Williams v. Florida, 22 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 529 (1971); Comment, Defendant’s Right to a Jury Trial — Is Six Enough?, 59 Ky. L. J. 997 (1971).
Professor Zeisel has suggested that the six-member jury is more limited than the 12-member jury in representing the full spectrum of the community, and this in turn may result in differences between the verdicts reached by the two panels. Zeisel, supra, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev., at 716-719.
On the other hand, one study suggests that the decrease in the size of the jury from 12 to six is conducive to a more open discussion among the jurors, thereby improving the quality of the deliberative process. Note, supra, 5 U. Mich. J. L. Reform, at 99-106. See also C. Joiner, Civil Justice and the Jury 31, 83 (1962) (concluding prior to Williams that the deliberative process should be the same in either six- or 12-member juries).
In addition, four very recent studies have provided convincing empirical evidence of the correctness of the Williams conclusion that “there is no discernible difference between the results reached by the two different-sized juries.” Note, Six-Member and Twelve-Member Juries: An Empirical Study of Trial Results, 6 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 671 (1973); Institute of Judicial Administration, A Comparison of Six- and Twelve-Member Civil Juries in New Jersey Superior and County Courts (1972); Note, An Empirical Study of Six- and Twelve-Member Jury Decision-Making Processes, 6 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 712 (1973); Bermant & Coppock, Outcomes of Six- and Twelve-Member Jury Trials: An Analysis of 128 Civil Cases in the State of Washington, 48 Wash. L. Rev. 593 (1973).
What is required for a “jury” is a number large enough to facilitate group deliberation combined with a likelihood of obtaining a representative cross section of the community. Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S., at 100. It is undoubtedly true that at some point the number becomes too small to accomplish these goals, but, on the basis of presently available data, that cannot be concluded as to the number six. See Tamm, A Proposal for Five-Member Civil Juries in the Federal Courts, 50 A. B. A. J. 162 (1964); Tamm, The Five-Man Civil Jury: A Proposed Constitutional Amendment, 51 Geo. L. J. 120 (1962).
My Brother Marshall argues in dissent that the various incidents of trial by jury as they existed at common law are immutably saved by the Seventh Amendment's use of the word “preserved.” But obviously the Amendment commands only that the right of trial by jury be “preserved.” Since a jury of 12 is, as has been shown, not of the substance of the common-law right of trial by jury and since there is “no discernible difference between the results reached by the two different-sized juries,” Williams v. Florida, supra, at 101, the use of a six-member civil jury does not impair the right “preserved” by the Seventh Amendment. Indeed, as my Brother Marshall himself recognizes, post, at 179, several devices designed to improve the jury system and unknown to the common law have been approved by this Court over the years. See also Henderson, supra, n. 7; Scott, supra, n. 11. In each case, the determining factor was that the new device did not impair the right preserved by the Seventh Amendment. As Mr. Justice Brandéis aptly stated in response to the argument that a federal court was prevented by the Seventh Amendment from utilizing a special master because it would infringe upon the right of trial by jury:
“The command of the Seventh Amendment that ‘the right of trial by jury shall be preserved’... does not prohibit the introduction of new methods for determining what facts are actually in issue, nor does it prohibit the introduction of new rules of evidence. Changes in these may be made. New devices may be used to adapt the ancient institution to present needs and to make of it an efficient instrument in the administration of justice. Indeed, such changes are essential to the preservation of the right. The limitation imposed by the Amendment is merely that enjoyment of the right of trial by jury be not obstructed, and that the ultimate determination of issues of fact by the jury be not interfered with.” Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 309-310 (1920).
Section 2072 is in terms applicable only to the general Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribed by this Court. However, 28 U. S. C. § 2071, which authorizes federal district courts to prescribe local rules of practice and procedure, see Part III, infra, requires such rules to be “consistent with Acts of Congress” as well as the general Federal Rules. Thus, if § 2072 prohibits a jury of less than 12, the local rule in question would conflict with an Act of Congress and would therefore be invalid. See 3A W. Barron & A. Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1171, p. 179 (C. Wright ed. 1958).
See Henderson, supra, n. 7; Scott, supra, n. 11.
See 5 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 38.06 (2d ed. 1971). The pertinent provisions of the Enabling Act of 1934 were carried forward by the codifying act of 1948, 62 Stat. 961, and later became § 2072 of the Judicial Code, 28 XJ. S. C. § 1 et seq. Section 2072 has been amended several times since 1947, but none of the amendments is relevant to our present discussion.
Cf. Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U. S. 1, 10 (1941): “The second [proviso of the Enabling Act of 1934] is that if the rules are to prescribe a single form of action for cases at law and suits in equity, the constitutional right to jury trial inherent in the former must be preserved.”
This Rule was adopted pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 83, which in turn is derived from 28 U. S. C. § 2071:
“The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court.”
An amicus argues that the local Rule is invalid under our decision in Miner v. Atlass, 363 U. S. 641 (1960). That argument is misplaced. Miner struck down a local rule authorizing discovery-deposition practice in admiralty cases. A court of admiralty had no inherent power, independent of statute or rule, to order the taking of depositions for the purpose of discovery. In 1939, this Court omitted this “basic procedural innovation” from among the Civil Rules adopted as part of the Admiralty Rules. Miner held that this omission “must be taken as an advertent declination of the opportunity to institute the discovery-deposition procedure of Civil Rule 26 (a) throughout courts of admiralty,” id,., at 648, and therefore, for this and additional reasons stated in the opinion, that the local rule “is not consistent with the present General Admiralty Rules....” Id., at 647. In contrast, we hold in this case that Local Rule 13 (d) (1) is not inconsistent with Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 48.
Amicus also suggests that Miner should be read to hold
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent is a moving and storage company based in Santa Maria, California. In August 1967, Local 381 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America began a campaign to organize the employees of moving and storage firms in the area. By September 21, five of the respondent’s employees had signed union authorization cards; it is undisputed that they constituted a clear majority of what would be an appropriate bargaining unit. Instead of demanding recognition by the respondent, the Union on September 21, 1967, petitioned the National Labor Relations Board for certification as the exclusive bargaining agent of the respondent’s employees.
Shortly thereafter, on October 2 and 3, the Union held meetings where it was announced that the respondent had at first consented to a representation election but had later withdrawn its consent. It was decided at the October 3 meeting that all of the moving and storage companies involved in the Union organization campaign should be struck, and on October 4, picketing commenced at the respondent’s place of business.
Four of the respondent’s employees, Robert and Manuel Vasquez, Richard Dicus, and Salvador Casillas, were present at the respondent’s premises on the morning when picketing commenced. They refused to cross the picket line. The next morning, Robert and Manuel Vasquez and Richard Dicus received identical telegrams which read: “For failure to report to work as directed at 7 A. M. on Wednesday Oct. 4, 1967 you are being permanently replaced. [Signed] International Van Lines.” It is undisputed that at the time of the discharges, the respondent had not in fact hired permanent replacements.
Casillas sought reinstatement in late November, and the other three discharged employees made unconditional offers to return to work on December 12. At least as to these three, the respondent refused reinstatement, claiming that it had at that point hired permanent replacements. The Union then went to the National Labor Relations Board with unfair labor practice charges against the respondent.
The Board determined that the labor picketing that commenced on October 4 was activity protected under § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 452, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 157, and concluded that the subsequent discharges of striking employees discriminated against lawful union activity and were unfair labor practices under §§ 8 (a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158 (a)(1), (a)(3).
It is settled that an employer may refuse to reinstate economic strikers if in the interim he has taken on permanent replacements. NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U. S. 333, 345-346. It is equally settled that employees striking in protest of an employer’s unfair labor practices are entitled, absent some contractual or statutory provision to the contrary, to unconditional reinstatement with back pay, “even if replacements for them have been made.” Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U. S. 270, 278. Since the strike in the instant case continued after the unfair labor practices had been committed by the employer, the Board reasoned that the original economic strike became an unfair labor practice strike on October 5, when the three telegrams were sent. The Board held the four employees to be unfair labor practice strikers and, accordingly, ordered their unconditional reinstatement with back pay.
The Board then sought enforcement of its order in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals agreed that the labor picketing was a lawful economic strike, and that the discharges of the striking employees were unfair labor practices. 448 F. 2d 905, 910-911. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the Board’s order providing for reinstatement with back pay, reasoning as follows:
“The strikers whose discharges constituted the unfair labor practice were, at the time of their discharges, protesting only the original grievance. Any strikers subsequently discharged might legitimately be considered unfair labor practice strikers, for they would be protesting not only the original grievance but also the subsequent unfair labor practice. The initially discharged strikers were obviously not protesting their own discharges, which had not yet occurred. To assimilate their status to that of their co-workers who had not yet been discharged would eliminate the distinction between [the] economic-striker-reinstatement rule (Mackay Radio & Tele graph) and the unfair-labor-practice-striker-reinstatement rule (Mastro Plastics) in cases like this one.” Id., at 911-912.
Consistent with its determination that the discharged employees were economic strikers entitled to reinstatement only if the employer could not show legitimate and substantial business justifications for refusing to take them back, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for further findings concerning the reasons for the employer’s refusal to rehire them. Id., at 912. Because this decision appeared to involve principles important to the administration of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, we granted the Board’s petition for certiorari, 405 U. S. 953.
Both the Board and the Court of Appeals have agreed that the labor picketing was a lawful economic strike, and the validity of that conclusion is not before us. Given that hypothesis, the Board and the Court of Appeals were clearly correct in concluding that the respondent committed unfair labor practices when it fired its striking employees. “[T]he discharge of economic strikers prior ... to the time their places are filled constitutes an unfair labor practice.” NLRB v. Globe Wireless, 193 F. 2d 748, 750; NLRB v. Comfort, Inc., 365 F. 2d 867, 874; NLRB v. McCatron, 216 F. 2d 212, 215. We need not decide, however, whether the Board was correct in determining that the discharged employees assumed the status of unfair labor practice strikers on October 5, 1967, to reach the conclusion that the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to enforce the Board’s order of reinstatement with back pay.
Unconditional reinstatement of the discharged employees was proper for the simple reason that they were the victims of a plain unfair labor practice by their employer. Quite apart from any characterization of the strike that continued after the wrongful discharges occurred, the discharges themselves were a sufficient ground for the Board’s reinstatement order. “Reinstatement is the conventional correction for discriminatory discharges,” Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U. S. 177, 187, and was clearly within the Board’s authority. 29 U. S. C. § 160(c).
It would undercut the remedial powers of the Board with respect to § 8 violations, and subvert the protection of § 7 of the Act, to hold that the employees’ rights to reinstatement arising from the discriminatory discharges were somehow forfeited merely because they continued for a time to engage in their lawful strike after the unfair labor practices had been committed.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed insofar as it refused to enforce the Board’s order that the discharged employees be reinstated with back pay.
It is so ordered.
Casillas did not receive such a telegram, but the Court of Appeals found that he was discharged at about the same time as the other three, and for the same reasons. 448 F. 2d 905, 909.
There remains some question as to whether Casillas, a part-time employee, was actually denied subsequent employment or whether instead there had been no occasion for the employer to use his services. The Court of Appeals remanded to the Board for a determination of this question — a determination that will affect the amount of back pay, if any, that Casillas is entitled to receive.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the Board’s finding of an unfair labor practice in the form of conversations between the son of the respondent’s president and the employees, 448 F. 2d, at 908-909, but this aspect of the judgment is not before us.
The Court of Appeals construed the picketing as a strike for the purpose of forcing the respondent employer to agree to a consent election, 448 F. 2d, at 910, and held this to be protected under the Act. The respondent disagrees. But since no timely cross-petition for certiorari was filed by the respondents, this question is not before us. Alaska Industrial Board v. Chugach Electric Assn., 356 U. S. 320, 325; NLRB v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426, 431-432; Morley Construction Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 300 U. S. 185, 191. We therefore proceed on the premise that the Union was engaged in protected activity, while intimating no view on the merits of this portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals remanded to the Board for a determination of whether Casillas had actually been denied employment subsequent to his request for reinstatement, and did not reach the propriety of the bargaining order entered by the Board. We leave these aspects of the Court of Appeals decision undisturbed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides benefits to individuals who cannot obtain work because of a physical or mental disability. To determine whether an applicant is entitled to benefits, the agency may hold an informal hearing examining (among other things) the kind and number of jobs available for someone with the applicant's disability and other characteristics. The agency's factual findings on that score are "conclusive" in judicial review of the benefits decision so long as they are supported by "substantial evidence." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
This case arises from the SSA's reliance on an expert's testimony about the availability of certain jobs in the economy. The expert largely based her opinion on private market-survey data. The question presented is whether her refusal to provide that data upon the applicant's request categorically precludes her testimony from counting as "substantial evidence." We hold it does not.
I
Petitioner Michael Biestek once worked as a carpenter and general laborer on construction sites. But he stopped working after he developed degenerative disc disease, Hepatitis C, and depression. He then applied for social security disability benefits, claiming eligibility as of October 2009.
After some preliminary proceedings, the SSA assigned an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to hold a hearing on Biestek's application. Those hearings, as described in the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 620, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. , are recognizably adjudicative in nature. The ALJ may "receive evidence" and "examine witnesses" about the contested issues in a case. §§ 405(b)(1), 1383(c) (1)(A). But many of the rules governing such hearings are less rigid than those a court would follow. See Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 400-401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). An ALJ is to conduct a disability hearing in "an informal, non-adversarial manner." 20 CFR § 404.900(b) (2018) ; § 416.1400(b). Most notably, an ALJ may receive evidence in a disability hearing that "would not be admissible in court." §§ 404.950(c), 416.1450(c); see 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(b) (1), 1383(c)(1)(A).
To rule on Biestek's application, the ALJ had to determine whether the former construction laborer could successfully transition to less physically demanding work. That required exploring two issues. The ALJ needed to identify the types of jobs Biestek could perform notwithstanding his disabilities. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1560(c)(1), 416.960(c)(1). And the ALJ needed to ascertain whether those kinds of jobs "exist[ed] in significant numbers in the national economy." §§ 404.1560(c)(1), 416.960(c)(1) ; see §§ 404.1566, 416.966.
For guidance on such questions, ALJs often seek the views of "vocational experts." See §§ 404.1566(e), 416.966(e); SSA, Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law Manual I-2-5-50 (Aug. 29, 2014). Those experts are professionals under contract with SSA to provide impartial testimony in agency proceedings. See id. , at I-2-1-31.B.1 (June 16, 2016); id. , at I-2-5-48. They must have "expertise" and "current knowledge" of "[w]orking conditions and physical demands of various" jobs; "[k]nowledge of the existence and numbers of [those jobs] in the national economy"; and "[i]nvolvement in or knowledge of placing adult workers[ ] with disabilities[ ] into jobs." Id. , at I-2-1-31.B.1. Many vocational experts simultaneously work in the private sector locating employment for persons with disabilities. See C. Kubitschek & J. Dubin, Social Security Disability Law & Procedure in Federal Court § 3:89 (2019). When offering testimony, the experts may invoke not only publicly available sources but also "information obtained directly from employers" and data otherwise developed from their own "experience in job placement or career counseling." Social Security Ruling, SSR 00-4p, 65 Fed. Reg. 75760 (2000).
At Biestek's hearing, the ALJ asked a vocational expert named Erin O'Callaghan to identify a sampling of "sedentary" jobs that a person with Biestek's disabilities, education, and job history could perform. Tr. 59 (July 21, 2015); see 20 CFR §§ 404.1567(a), 416.967(a) (defining a "sedentary" job as one that "involves sitting" and requires "lifting no more than 10 pounds"). O'Callaghan had served as a vocational expert in SSA proceedings for five years; she also had more than ten years' experience counseling people with disabilities about employment opportunities. See Stachowiak v. Commissioner of Social Security , 2013 WL 593825, *1 (E.D. Mich., Jan. 11, 2013) ; Record in No. 16-10422 (ED Mich.), Doc. 17-13, p. 1274 (resume). In response to the ALJ's query, O'Callaghan listed sedentary jobs "such as a bench assembler [or] sorter" that did not require many skills. Tr. 58-59. And she further testified that 240,000 bench assembler jobs and 120,000 sorter jobs existed in the national economy. See ibid.
On cross-examination, Biestek's attorney asked O'Callaghan "where [she was] getting those [numbers] from." Id. , at 71. O'Callaghan replied that they came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and her "own individual labor market surveys." Ibid. The lawyer then requested that O'Callaghan turn over the private surveys so he could review them. Ibid. O'Callaghan responded that she wished to keep the surveys confidential because they were "part of [her] client files." Id ., at 72. The lawyer suggested that O'Callaghan could "take the clients' names out." Ibid. But at that point the ALJ interjected that he "would not require" O'Callaghan to produce the files in any form. Ibid. Biestek's counsel asked no further questions about the basis for O'Callaghan's assembler and sorter numbers.
After the hearing concluded, the ALJ issued a decision granting Biestek's application in part and denying it in part. According to the ALJ, Biestek was entitled to benefits beginning in May 2013, when his advancing age (he turned fifty that month) adversely affected his ability to find employment. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 19a, 112a-113a. But before that time, the ALJ held, Biestek's disabilities should not have prevented a "successful adjustment to other work." Id. , at 110a-112a. The ALJ based that conclusion on O'Callaghan's testimony about the availability in the economy of "sedentary unskilled occupations such as bench assembler [or] sorter."Id. , at 111a (emphasis deleted).
Biestek sought review in federal court of the ALJ's denial of benefits for the period between October 2009 and May 2013. On judicial review, an ALJ's factual findings-such as the determination that Biestek could have found sedentary work-"shall be conclusive" if supported by "substantial evidence." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ; see supra , at 1151. Biestek contended that O'Callaghan's testimony could not possibly constitute such evidence because she had declined, upon request, to produce her supporting data. See Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 16-10422 (ED Mich.), Doc. 22, p. 23. But the District Court rejected that argument. See 2017 WL 1173775, *2 (Mar. 30, 2017). And the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. See Biestek v. Commissioner of Social Security , 880 F.3d 778 (2017). That court recognized that the Seventh Circuit had adopted the categorical rule Biestek proposed, precluding a vocational expert's testimony from qualifying as substantial if the expert had declined an applicant's request to provide supporting data. See id. , at 790 (citing McKinnie v. Barnhart , 368 F.3d 907, 910-911 (2004) ). But that rule, the Sixth Circuit observed in joining the ranks of unconvinced courts, "ha[d] not been a popular export." 880 F.3d at 790 (internal quotation marks omitted).
And no more is it so today.
II
The phrase "substantial evidence" is a "term of art" used throughout administrative law to describe how courts are to review agency factfinding. T-Mobile South , LLC v. Roswell , 574 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 808, 815, 190 L.Ed.2d 679 (2015). Under the substantial-evidence standard, a court looks to an existing administrative record and asks whether it contains "sufficien[t] evidence" to support the agency's factual determinations. Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB , 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938) (emphasis deleted). And whatever the meaning of "substantial" in other contexts, the threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high. Substantial evidence, this Court has said, is "more than a mere scintilla." Ibid. ; see, e.g. , Perales , 402 U.S. at 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420 (internal quotation marks omitted). It means-and means only-"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Consolidated Edison , 305 U.S. at 229, 59 S.Ct. 206. See Dickinson v. Zurko , 527 U.S. 150, 153, 119 S.Ct. 1816, 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999) (comparing the substantial-evidence standard to the deferential clearly-erroneous standard).
Today, Biestek argues that the testimony of a vocational expert who (like O'Callaghan) refuses a request for supporting data about job availability can never clear the substantial-evidence bar. See Brief for Petitioner 21-34. As that formulation makes clear, Biestek's proposed rule is categorical, rendering expert testimony insufficient to sustain an ALJ's factfinding whenever such a refusal has occurred. But Biestek hastens to add two caveats. The first is to clarify what the rule is not, the second to stress where its limits lie.
Biestek initially takes pains-and understandably so-to distinguish his argument from a procedural claim. Reply Brief 12-14. At no stage in this litigation, Biestek says, has he ever espoused "a free-standing procedural rule under which a vocational expert would always have to produce [her underlying data] upon request." Id. , at 2. That kind of rule exists in federal court: There, an expert witness must produce all data she has considered in reaching her conclusions. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 26(a)(2)(B). But as Biestek appreciates, no similar requirement applies in SSA hearings. As explained above, Congress intended those proceedings to be "informal" and provided that the "strict rules of evidence, applicable in the courtroom, are not to" apply. Perales , 402 U.S. at 400, 91 S.Ct. 1420 ; see 42 U.S.C. § 405(b)(1) ; supra , at 1152. So Biestek does not press for a "procedural rule" governing "the means through which an evidentiary record [must be] created." Tr. of Oral Arg. 6; Reply Brief 13. Instead, he urges a "substantive rule" for "assess[ing] the quality and quantity of [record] evidence"-which would find testimony like O'Callaghan's inadequate, when taken alone, to support an ALJ's factfinding. Id. , at 12.
And Biestek also emphasizes a limitation within that proposed rule. For the rule to kick in, the applicant must make a demand for the expert's supporting data. See Brief for Petitioner i, 5, 18, 40, 55; Tr. of Oral Arg. 25-26. Consider two cases in which vocational experts rely on, but do not produce, nonpublic information. In the first, the applicant asks for the data; in the second, not. According to Biestek, the expert's testimony in the first case cannot possibly clear the substantial-evidence bar; but in the second case, it may well do so, even though the administrative record is otherwise the same. And Biestek underscores that this difference in outcome has nothing to do with waiver or forfeiture: As he acknowledges, an applicant "cannot waive the substantial evidence standard." Id. , at 27. It is just that the evidentiary problem arises from the expert's refusal of a demand, not from the data's absence alone. In his words, the testimony "can constitute substantial evidence if unchallenged, but not if challenged." Reply Brief 18.
To assess Biestek's proposal, we begin with the parties' common ground: Assuming no demand, a vocational expert's testimony may count as substantial evidence even when unaccompanied by supporting data. Take an example. Suppose an expert has top-of-the-line credentials, including professional qualifications and many years' experience; suppose, too, she has a history of giving sound testimony about job availability in similar cases (perhaps before the same ALJ). Now say that she testifies about the approximate number of various sedentary jobs an applicant for benefits could perform. She explains that she arrived at her figures by surveying a range of representative employers; amassing specific information about their labor needs and employment of people with disabilities; and extrapolating those findings to the national economy by means of a well-accepted methodology. She answers cogently and thoroughly all questions put to her by the ALJ and the applicant's lawyer. And nothing in the rest of the record conflicts with anything she says. But she never produces her survey data. Still, her testimony would be the kind of evidence-far "more than a mere scintilla"-that "a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support" a finding about job availability. Consolidated Edison , 305 U.S. at 229, 59 S.Ct. 206. Of course, the testimony would be even better-more reliable and probative-if she had produced supporting data; that would be a best practice for the SSA and its experts. And of course, a different (maybe less qualified) expert failing to produce such data might offer testimony that is so feeble, or contradicted, that it would fail to clear the substantial-evidence bar. The point is only-as, again, Biestek accepts-that expert testimony can sometimes surmount that bar absent underlying data.
But if that is true, why should one additional fact-a refusal to a request for that data-make a vocational expert's testimony categorically inadequate? Assume that an applicant challenges our hypothetical expert to turn over her supporting data; and assume the expert declines because the data reveals private information about her clients and making careful redactions will take a fair bit of time. Nothing in the expert's refusal changes her testimony (as described above) about job availability. Nor does it alter any other material in the record. So if our expert's opinion was sufficient-i.e. , qualified as substantial evidence-before the refusal, it is hard to see why the opinion has to be insufficient afterward.
Biestek suggests two reasons for that non-obvious result. First, he contends that the expert's rejection of a request for backup data necessarily "cast[s her testimony] into doubt." Reply Brief 16. And second, he avers that the refusal inevitably "deprives an applicant of the material necessary for an effective cross-examination." Id. , at 2. But Biestek states his arguments too broadly-and the nuggets of truth they contain cannot justify his proposed flat rule.
Consider Biestek's claim about how an expert's refusal undercuts her credibility. Biestek here invokes the established idea of an "adverse inference": If an expert declines to back up her testimony with information in her control, then the factfinder has a reason to think she is hiding something. See id. , at 16 (citing cases). We do not dispute that possibility-but the inference is far from always required. If an ALJ has no other reason to trust the expert, or finds her testimony iffy on its face, her refusal of the applicant's demand for supporting data may properly tip the scales against her opinion. (Indeed, more can be said: Even if the applicant makes no demand, such an expert's withholding of data may count against her.) But if (as in our prior hypothetical example, see supra , at 1154 - 1156) the ALJ views the expert and her testimony as otherwise trustworthy, and thinks she has good reason to keep her data private, her rejection of an applicant's demand need not make a difference. So too when a court reviews the ALJ's decision under the deferential substantial-evidence standard. In some cases, the refusal to disclose data, considered along with other shortcomings, will prevent a court from finding that "a reasonable mind" could accept the expert's testimony. Consolidated Edison , 305 U.S. at 229, 59 S.Ct. 206. But in other cases, that refusal will have no such consequence. Even taking it into account, the expert's opinion will qualify as "more than a mere scintilla" of evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusion. Which is to say it will count, contra Biestek, as substantial.
And much the same is true of Biestek's claim that an expert's refusal precludes meaningful cross-examination. We agree with Biestek that an ALJ and reviewing court may properly consider obstacles to such questioning when deciding how much to credit an expert's opinion. See Perales , 402 U.S. at 402-406, 91 S.Ct. 1420. But Biestek goes too far in suggesting that the refusal to provide supporting data always interferes with effective cross-examination, or that the absence of such testing always requires treating an opinion as unreliable. Even without specific data, an applicant may probe the strength of testimony by asking an expert about (for example) her sources and methods-where she got the information at issue and how she analyzed it and derived her conclusions.
See, e.g. , Chavez v. Berryhill , 895 F.3d 962, 969-970 (CA7 2018). And even without significant testing, a factfinder may conclude that testimony has sufficient indicia of reliability to support a conclusion about whether an applicant could find work. Indeed, Biestek effectively concedes both those points in cases where supporting data is missing, so long as an expert has not refused an applicant's demand. See supra , at 1154 - 1155. But once that much is acknowledged, Biestek's argument cannot hold. For with or without an express refusal, the absence of data places the selfsame limits on cross-examination.
Where Biestek goes wrong, at bottom, is in pressing for a categorical rule, applying to every case in which a vocational expert refuses a request for underlying data. Sometimes an expert's withholding of such data, when combined with other aspects of the record, will prevent her testimony from qualifying as substantial evidence. That would be so, for example, if the expert has no good reason to keep the data private and her testimony lacks other markers of reliability. But sometimes the reservation of data will have no such effect. Even though the applicant might wish for the data, the expert's testimony still will clear (even handily so) the more-than-a-mere-scintilla threshold. The inquiry, as is usually true in determining the substantiality of evidence, is case-by-case. See, e.g. , Perales , 402 U.S. at 399, 410, 91 S.Ct. 1420 (rejecting a categorical rule pertaining to the substantiality of medical reports in a disability hearing). It takes into account all features of the vocational expert's testimony, as well as the rest of the administrative record. And in so doing, it defers to the presiding ALJ, who has seen the hearing up close.
That much is sufficient to decide this case. Biestek petitioned us only to adopt the categorical rule we have now rejected. He did not ask us to decide whether, in the absence of that rule, substantial evidence supported the ALJ in denying him benefits. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment.
It is so ordered.
In contrast, the principal dissent cannot decide whether it favors such a categorical rule. At first, Justice GORSUCH endorses the rule Biestek and the Seventh Circuit have proposed. See post , at 1157. But in then addressing our opinion, he takes little or no issue with the reasoning we offer to show why that rule is too broad. See post , at 1153 - 1155. So the dissent tries to narrow the scope of Biestek's categorical rule-to only cases that look just like his. See post , at 1160 - 1161. And still more, it shelves all the "categorical" talk and concentrates on Biestek's case alone. See post , at 1158, 1160 - 1162. There, Justice GORSUCH's dissent joins Justice SOTOMAYOR's in concluding that the expert evidence in this case was insubstantial. But as we later explain, see infra , at 1157, Biestek did not petition us to resolve that factbound question; nor did his briefing and argument focus on anything other than the Seventh Circuit's categorical rule. We confine our opinion accordingly.
The SSA itself appears to agree. In the handbook given to vocational experts, the agency states: "You should have available, at the hearing, any vocational resource materials that you are likely to rely upon" because "the ALJ may ask you to provide relevant portions of [those] materials." SSA, Vocational Expert Handbook 37 (Aug. 2017), https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/public_experts/Vocational_Experts_ (VE)_Handbook-508.pdf (as last visited Mar. 28, 2019).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice O’Con-nor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas joined.
To address the problems associated with the availability of Internet pornography in public libraries, Congress enacted the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), 114 Stat. 2763A-335. Under CIPA, a public library may not receive federal assistance to provide Internet access unless it installs software to block images that constitute obscenity or child pornography, and to prevent minors from obtaining access to material that is harmful to them. The District Court held these provisions facially invalid on the ground that they induce public libraries to violate patrons’ First Amendment rights. We now reverse.
To help public libraries provide their patrons with Internet access, Congress offers two forms of federal assistance. First, the E-rate program established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 entitles qualifying libraries to buy Internet access at a discount. 110 Stat. 71, 47 U. S. C. § 254(h)(1)(B). In the year ending June 30, 2002, libraries received $58.5 million in such discounts. Redacted Joint Trial Stipulations of All Parties in Nos. 01-CV-1303, etc. (ED Pa.), ¶ 128, p. 16 (hereinafter Jt. Tr. Stip.). Second, pursuant to the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), 110 Stat. 3009-295, as amended, 20 U. S. C. §9101 et $eq., the Institute of Museum and Library Services makes grants to state library administrative agencies to “electronically lin[k] libraries with educational, social, or information services,” “assis[t] libraries in accessing information through electronic networks,” and “pa[y] costs for libraries to acquire or share computer systems and telecommunications technologies.” §§ 9141(a)(1)(B), (C), (E). In fiscal year 2002, Congress appropriated more than $149 million in LSTA grants. Jt. Tr. Stip. ¶ 185, p. 26. These programs have succeeded greatly in bringing Internet access to public libraries: By 2000, 95% of the . Nation’s libraries provided public Internet access. J. Bertot & C. McClure, Public Libraries and the Internet 2000: Summary Findings and Data Tables, p. 3 (Sept. 7, 2000), http://www.nclis.gov/statsurv/2000plo.pdf (all Internet materials as visited Mar. 25, 2003, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file).
•By connecting to the Internet, public libraries provide patrons with a vast amount of valuable information. But there is also an enormous amount of pornography on the Internet, much of which is easily obtained. 201 F. Supp. 2d 401, 419 (ED Pa. 2002). The accessibility of this material has created serious problems for libraries, which have found that patrons of all ages, including minors, regularly search for online pornography. Id., at 406. Some patrons also expose others to pornographic images by leaving them displayed on Internet terminals or printed at library printers. Id., at 423.
Upon discovering these problems, Congress became concerned that the E-rate and LSTA programs were facilitating access to illegal and harmful pornography. S. Rep. No. 105-226, p. 5 (1998). Congress learned that adults “us[e] library computers to access pornography that is then exposed to staff, passersby, and children,” and that “minors acces[s] child and adult pornography in libraries.”
But Congress also learned that filtering software that blocks access to pornographic Web sites could provide a reasonably effective way to prevent such uses of library resources. Id., at 20-26. By 2000, before Congress enacted CIPA, almost 17% of public libraries used such software on at least some of their Internet terminals, and 7% had filters on all of them. Library Research Center of U. Ill., Survey of Internet Access Management in Public Libraries 8, http:// alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/gslis/research/internet.pdf. A library can set such software to block categories of material, such as “Pornography” or “Violence.” 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 428. When a patron tries to view a site that falls within such a category, a screen appears indicating that the site is blocked. Id., at 429. But a filter set to block pornography may sometimes block other sites that present neither obscene nor pornographic material, but that nevertheless trigger the filter. To minimize this problem, a library can set its software to prevent the blocking of material that falls into categories like “Education,” “History,” and “Medical.” Id., at 428-429. A library may also add or delete specific sites from a blocking category, id., at 429, and anyone can ask companies that furnish filtering software to unblock particular sites, id., at 430.
Responding to this information, Congress enacted CIPA. It provides that a library may not receive E-rate or LSTA assistance unless it has “a policy of Internet safety for minors that includes the operation of a technology protection measure . . . that protects against access” by all persons to “visual depictions” that constitute “obscen[ity]” or “child pornography,” and that protects against access by minors to “visual depictions” that are “harmful to minors.” 20 U. S. C. §§9134<f)(l)(A)(i) and (B)(i); 47 U. S. C. §§254(h)(6)(B)(i) and (C)(i). The statute defines a “[tjechnology protection measure” as “a specific technology that blocks or filters Internet access to material covered by” CIPA. § 254(h)(7)(I). CIPA also permits the library to “disable” the filter “to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes.” 20 U. S. C. § 9134(f)(3); 47 U. S. C. § 254(h)(6)(D). Under the E-rate program, disabling is permitted “during use by an adult.” § 254(h)(6)(D). Under the LSTA program, disabling is permitted during use by any person. 20 U. S. C. § 9134(f)(3).
Appellees are a group of libraries, library associations, library patrons, and Web site publishers, including the American Library Association (ALA) and the Multnomah County Public Library in Portland, Oregon (Multnomah). They sued the United States and the Government agencies and officials responsible for administering the E-rate and LSTA programs in District Court, challenging the constitutionality of CIPA’s filtering provisions. A three-judge District Court convened pursuant to § 1741(a) of CIPA, 114 Stat. 2763A-351, note following 20 U. S. C. § 7001.
After a trial, the District Court ruled that CIPA was facially unconstitutional and enjoined the relevant agencies and officials from withholding federal assistance for failure to comply with CIPA. The District Court held that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Spending Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1, because, in the court’s view, “any public library that complies with CIPA’s conditions will necessarily violate the First Amendment.” 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 453. The court acknowledged that “generally the First Amendment subjects libraries’ content-based decisions about which print materials to acquire for their collections to only rational [basis] review.” Id., at 462. But it distinguished libraries’ decisions to make certain Internet material inaccessible. “The central difference,” the court stated, “is that by providing patrons with even filtered Internet access, the library permits patrons to receive speech on a virtually unlimited number of topics, from a virtually unlimited number of speakers, without attempting to restrict patrons’ access to speech that the library, in the exercise of its professional judgment, determines to be particularly valuable.” Ibid. Reasoning that “the provision of Internet access within a public library ... is for use by the public ... for expressive activity,” the court analyzed such access as a “designated public forum.” Id., at 457 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The District Court also likened Internet access in libraries to “traditional public fora ... such as sidewalks and parks” because it “promotes First Amendment values in an analogous manner.” Id., at 466.
Based on both of these grounds, the court held that the filtering software contemplated by CIPA was a content-based restriction on access to a public forum, and was therefore subject to strict scrutiny. Ibid. Applying this standard, the District Court held that, although the Government has a compelling interest “in preventing the dissemination of obscenity, child pornography, or, in the case of minors, material harmful to minors,” id., at 471, the use of software filters is not narrowly tailored to further those interests, id., at 479. We noted probable jurisdiction, 537 U. S. 1017 (2002), and now reverse.
Congress has wide latitude to attach conditions to the receipt of federal assistance in order to further its policy objectives. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203, 206 (1987). But Congress may not “induce” the recipient “to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional.” Id., at 210. To determine whether libraries would violate the First Amendment by employing the filtering software that CIPA requires, we must first examine the role of libraries in our society.
Public libraries pursue the worthy missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment. Appellee ALA’s Library Bill of Rights states that libraries should provide “[b]ooks and other . . . resources ... for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves.” 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 420 (internal quotation marks omitted). To fulfill their traditional missions, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons. Although they seek to provide a wide array of information, their goal has never been to provide “universal coverage.” Id., at 421. Instead, public libraries seek to provide materials “that would be of the greatest direct benefit or interest to the community.” Ibid. To this end, libraries collect only those materials deemed to have “requisite and appropriate quality.” Ibid. See W. Katz, Collection Development: The Selection of Materials for Libraries 6 (1980) (“The librarian’s responsibility ... is to separate out the gold from the garbage, not to preserve everything”); F. Drury, Book Selection xi (1930) (“[I]t is the aim of the selector to give the public, not everything it wants, but the best that it will read or use to advantage”); App. 636 (Rebuttal Expert Report of Donald G. Davis, Jr.) (“A hypothetical collection of everything that has been produced is not only of dubious value, but actually detrimental to users trying to find what they want to find and really need”).
We have held in two analogous contexts that the government has broad discretion to make content-based judgments in deciding what private speech to make available to the public. In Arkansas Ed. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U. S. 666, 672-673 (1998), we held that public forum principles do not generally apply to a public television station’s editorial judgments regarding the private speech it presents to its viewers. “[Bjroad rights of access for outside speakers would be antithetical, as a general rule, to the discretion that stations and their editorial staff must exercise to fulfill their journalistic purpose and statutory obligations.” Id., at 673. Recognizing a broad right of public access “would [also] risk implicating the courts in judgments that should be left to the exercise of journalistic discretion.” Id., at 674.
Similarly, in National Endowment for Arts v. Finley, 524 U. S. 569 (1998), we upheld an art funding program that required the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to use content-based criteria in making funding decisions. We explained that “[a]ny content-based considerations that may be taken into account in the grant-making process are a consequence of the nature of arts funding.” Id., at 585. In particular, “[t]he very assumption of the NEA is that grants will be awarded according to the ‘artistic worth of competing applicants,’ and absolute neutrality is simply inconceivable.” Ibid. (some internal quotation marks omitted). We expressly declined to apply forum analysis, reasoning that it would conflict with “NEA’s mandate ... to make esthetic judgments, and the inherently content-based ‘excellence’ threshold for NEA support.” Id., at 586.
The principles underlying Forbes and Finley also apply to a public library’s exercise of judgment in selecting the material it provides to its patrons. Just as forum analysis and heightened judicial scrutiny are incompatible with the role of public television stations and the role of the NEA, they are also incompatible with the discretion that public libraries must have to fulfill their traditional missions. Public library staffs necessarily consider content in making collection decisions and enjoy broad discretion in making them.
The public forum principles on which the District Court relied, 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 457-470, are out of place in the context of this case. Internet access in public libraries is neither a “traditional” nor a “designated” public forum. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 802 (1985) (describing types of forums). First, this resource — which did not exist until quite recently — has not “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind,... been used for purposes of assembly, communication of thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U. S. 672, 679 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have “rejected the view that traditional public forum status extends beyond its historic confines.” Forbes, supra, at 678. The doctrines surrounding traditional public forums may not be extended to situations where such history is lacking.
Nor does Internet access in a public library satisfy our definition of a “designated public forum.” To create such a forum, the government must make an affirmative choice to open up its property for use as a public forum. Cornelius, supra, at 802-803; Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45 (1983). “The government does not create a public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse.” Cornelius, supra, at 802. The District Court likened public libraries’ Internet terminals to the forum at issue in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995). 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 465. In Rosenberger, we considered the “Student Activity Fund” established by the University of Virginia that subsidized all manner of student publications except those based on religion. We held that the fund had created a limited public forum by giving public money to student groups who wished to publish, and therefore could not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.
The situation here is very different. A public library does not acquire Internet terminals in order to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves, any more than it collects books in order to provide a public forum for the authors of books to speak. It provides Internet access, not to “encourage a diversity of views from private speakers,” Rosenberger, supra, at 834, but for the same reasons it offers other library resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality. See Cornelius, supra, at 805 (noting, in upholding limits on participation in the Combined Federal Campaign (CFG), that “[t]he Government did not create the CFC for purposes of providing a forum for expressive activity”). As Congress recognized, “[t]he Internet is simply another method for making information available in a school or library.” S. Rep. No. 106-141, p. 7 (1999). It is “no more than a technological extension of the book stack.” Ibid.
The District Court disagreed because, whereas a library reviews and affirmatively chooses to acquire every book in its collection, it does not review every Web site that it makes available. 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 462-463. Based on this distinction, the court reasoned that a public library enjoys less discretion in deciding which Internet materials to make available than in making book selections. Ibid. We do not find this distinction constitutionally relevant. A library’s failure to make quality-based judgments about all the material it furnishes from the Web does not somehow taint the judgments it does make. A library’s need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material; it is no less entitled to play that role when it collects material from the Internet than when it collects material from any other source. Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion. We do not subject these decisions to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries’ judgments to block online pornography any differently, when these judgments are made for just the same reason.
Moreover, because of the vast quantity of material on the Internet and the rapid pace at which it changes, libraries cannot possibly segregate, item by item, all the Internet material that is appropriate for inclusion from all that is not. While a. library could limit its Internet collection to just those sites it found worthwhile, it could do so only at the cost of excluding an enormous amount of valuable information that it lacks the capacity to review. Given that tradeoff, it is entirely reasonable for public libraries to reject that approach and instead exclude certain categories of content, without making individualized judgments that everything they do make available has requisite and appropriate quality.
Like the District Court, the dissents fault the tendency of filtering software to “overblock” — that is, to erroneously block access to constitutionally protected speech that falls outside the categories that software users intend to block. See post, at 221-222 (opinion of Stevens, J.); post, at 233-234 (opinion of Souter, J.). Due to the software’s limitations, “[m]any erroneously blocked [Web] pages contain content that is completely innocuous for both adults and minors, and that no rational person could conclude matches the filtering companies’ category definitions, such as ‘pornography’ or ‘sex.’ ” 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 449. Assuming that such erroneous blocking presents constitutional difficulties, any such concerns are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled. When a patron encounters a blocked site, he need only ask a librarian to unblock it or (at least in the case of adults) disable the filter. As the District Court found, libraries have the capacity to permanently unblock any erroneously blocked site, id., at 429, and the Solicitor General stated at oral argument that a “library may . . . eliminate the filtering with respect to specific sites ... at the request of a patron,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 4. With respect to adults, CIPA also expressly authorizes library officials to “disable” a filter altogether “to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes.” 20 U. S. C. § 9134(f)(3) (disabling permitted for both adults and minors); 47 U. S. C. § 254(h)(6)(D) (disabling permitted for adults). The Solicitor General confirmed that a “librarian can, in response to a request from a patron, unblock the filtering mechanism altogether,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 11, and further explained that a patron would not “have to explain ... why he was asking a site to be unblocked or the filtering to be disabled,” id., at 4. The District Court viewed unblocking and disabling as inadequate because some patrons may be too embarrassed to request them. 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 411. But the Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment.
Appellees urge us to affirm the District Court’s judgment on the alternative ground that CIPA imposes an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal assistance. Under this doctrine, “the government ‘may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected . . . freedom of speech’ even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.” Board of Comm’rs, Wabaunsee Cty. v. Umbehr, 518 U. S. 668, 674 (1996) (quoting Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 597 (1972)). Appellees argue that CIPA imposes an unconstitutional condition on libraries that receive E-rate and LSTA subsidies by requiring them, as a condition on their receipt of federal funds, to surrender their First Amendment right to provide the public with access to constitutionally protected speech. The Government counters that this claim fails because Government entities do not have First Amendment rights. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 139 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring) (“The First Amendment protects the press from governmental interference; it confers no analogous protection on the government”); id., at 139, n. 7 (“‘The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect private expression’” (quoting T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 700 (1970))). See also Warner Cable Communications, Inc., v. Niceville, 911 F. 2d 634, 638 (CA11 1990); Student Govt. Assn. v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Mass., 868 F. 2d 473, 481 (CA1 1989); Estiverne v. Louisiana State Bar Assn., 863 F. 2d 371, 379 (CA5 1989).
We need not decide this question because, even assuming that appellees may assert an “unconstitutional conditions” claim, this claim would fail on the merits. Within broad limits, “when the Government appropriates public funds to establish a program it is entitled to define the limits of that program.” Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 194 (1991). In Rust, Congress had appropriated federal funding for family planning services and forbidden the use of such funds in programs that provided abortion counseling. Id., at 178. Recipients of these funds challenged this restriction, arguing that it impermissibly conditioned the receipt of a benefit on the relinquishment of their constitutional right to engage in abortion counseling. Id., at 196. We rejected that claim, recognizing that “the Government [was] not denying a benefit to anyone, but [was] instead simply insisting that public funds be spent for the purposes for which they were authorized.” Ibid.
The same is true here. The E-rate and LSTA programs were intended to help public libraries fulfill their traditional role of obtaining material of requisite and appropriate quality for educational and informational purposes. Congress may certainly insist that these “public funds be spent for the purposes for which they were authorized.” Ibid. Especially because public libraries have traditionally excluded pornographic material from their other collections, Congress could reasonably impose a parallel limitation on its Internet assistance programs. As the use of filtering software helps to carry out these programs, it is a permissible condition under Rust.
Justice Stevens asserts the premise that “[a] federal statute penalizing a library for failing to install filtering software on every one of its Internet-accessible computers would unquestionably violate [the First] Amendment.” Post, at 226. See also post, at 230-231. But — assuming again that public libraries have First Amendment rights — CIPA does not “penalize” libraries that choose not to install such software, or deny them the right to provide their patrons with unfiltered Internet access. Rather, CIPA simply reflects Congress’ decision not to subsidize their doing so. To the extent that libraries wish to offer unfiltered access, they are free to do so without federal assistance. “ ‘A refusal to fund protected activity, without more, cannot be equated with the imposition of a “penalty” on that activity.’ ” Rust, supra, at 193 (quoting Harris v. McRae, 448 U. S. 297, 317, n. 19 (1980)). “ ‘[A] legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right.’ ” Rust, supra, at 193 (quoting Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540, 549 (1983)).
Appellees mistakenly contend, in reliance on Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, 531 U. S. 533 (2001), that CIPA’s filtering conditions “[d]istor[t] the [u]sual [functioning of [p]ublic [libraries.” Brief for Appellees ALA et al. 40 (citing Velazquez, supra, at 543); Brief for Appellees Mult-nomah et al. 47-48 (same). In Velazquez, the Court concluded that a Government program of fiirnishing legal aid to the indigent differed from the program in Rust “[i]n th[e] vital respect” that the role of lawyers who represent clients in welfare disputes is to advocate against the Government, and there was thus an assumption that counsel would be free of state control. 531 U. S., at 542-543. The Court concluded that the restriction on advocacy in such welfare disputes would distort the usual functioning of the legal profession and the federal and state courts before which the lawyers appeared. Public libraries, by contrast, have no comparable role that pits them against the Government, and there is no comparable assumption that they must be free of any conditions that their benefactors might attach to the use of donated funds or other assistance.
Because public libraries’ use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons’ First Amendment rights, CIPA does not induce libraries to violate the Constitution, and is a valid exercise of Congress’ spending power. Nor does CIPA impose an unconstitutional condition on public libraries. Therefore, the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is
Reversed.
The Children’s Internet Protection Act: Hearing on S. 97 before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 106th Cong., 1st Sess., 49 (1999) (prepared statement of Bruce Taylor, President and Chief Counsel, National Law Center for Children and Families). See also Obscene Material Available Via The Internet: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the House Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., 1, 27 (2000) (citing D. Burt, Dangerous Access, 2000 Edition: Uncovering Internet Pornography in America’s Libraries (2000)) (noting more than 2,000 incidents of patrons, both adults and minors, using library computers to view online pornography, including obscenity and child pornography).
Justice Stevens misapprehends the analysis we must perform to determine whether CIPA exceeds Congress’ authority under the Spending Clause. He asks and answers whether it is constitutional for Congress to “impose [CIPA’s filtering] requirement” on public libraries, instead of “allowing local decisionmakers to tailor their responses to local problems.” Post, at 220 (dissenting opinion). But under our well-established Spending Clause precedent, that is not the proper inquiry. Rather, as the District Court correctly recognized, 201 F. Supp. 2d 401, 453 (ED Pa 2002), we must ask whether the condition that Congress requires “would ... be unconstitutional” if performed by the library itself Dole, 483 U. S., at 210.
CIPA does not directly regulate private conduct; rather, Congress has exercised its Spending Power by specifying conditions on the receipt of federal funds. Therefore, Dole provides the appropriate framework for assessing CIPA’s constitutionality.
Even if appellees had proffered more persuasive evidence that public libraries intended to create a forum for speech by connecting to the Internet, we would hesitate to import “the public forum doctrine ... wholesale into” the context of the Internet. Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727, 749 (1996) (opinion of Breyer, J.). “[W]e are wary of the notion that a partial analogy in one context, for which we have developed doctrines, can compel a fall range of decisions in such a new and changing area.” Ibid.
The dissents agree with the District Court that less restrictive alternatives to filtering software would suffice to meet Congress’ goals. Post, at 223 (opinion of Stevens, J.) (quoting 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 410); post, at 234 (opinion of SOUTER, J.) (quoting 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 422-427). But we require the Government to employ the least restrictive means only when the forum is a public one and strict scrutiny applies. For the reasons stated above, see supra, at 205-208, such is not the case here. In deciding not to collect pornographic material from the Internet, a public library need not satisfy a court that it has pursued the least restrictive means of implementing that decision.
In any case, the suggested alternatives have their own drawbacks. Close monitoring of computer users would be far more intrusive than the use of filtering software, and would risk transforming the role of a librarian from a professional to whom patrons turn for assistance into a compliance officer whom many patrons might wish to avoid. Moving terminals to places where their displays cannot easily be seen by other patrons, or installing privacy screens or recessed monitors, would not address a library’s interest in preventing patrons from deliberately using its computers to view online pornography. To the contrary, these alternatives would make it easier for patrons to do so.
The dissents argue that overblocking will “ ‘reduce the adult population . . . to reading only what is fit for children.”’ Post, at 222, n. 2 (opinion of Stevens, J.) (quoting Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380, 383 (1957)). See also post, at 222, and n. 2 (citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234, 252 (2002); United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 814 (2000); and Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 875 (1997)); see post, at 237-238 (opinion of SOUTER, J.). But these eases are inapposite because they addressed Congress’ direct regulation of private conduct, not exercises of its Spending Power.
The dissents also argue that because some library patrons would not make specific unblocking requests, the interest of authors of blocked Internet material “in reaching the widest possible audience would be abridged.” Post, at 225 (opinion of Stevens, J.); see post, at 242-243, n. 8 (opinion of Souter, J.). But this mistakes a public library’s purpose for acquiring Internet terminals: A library does so to provide its patrons with materials of requisite and appropriate quality, not to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves. See supra, at 206-208.
Justice Stevens further argues that, because some libraries’ procedures will make it difficult for patrons to have blocked material unblocked, CIPA “will create a significant prior restraint on adult access to protected speech.” Post, at 225. But this argument, which the District Court did not address, mistakenly extends prior restraint doctrine to the context of public libraries’ collection decisions. A library’s decision to use filtering software is a collection decision, not a restraint on private speech. Contrary to Justice Stevens’ belief, a public library does not have an obligation to add material to its collection simply because the material is constitutionally protected.
See 20 U. S. C. § 9121 (“It is the purpose of [LSTA] (2) to stimulate excellence and promote access to learning and information resources in all types of libraries for individuals of all ages”); S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, p. 132 (1996) (The E-rate program “will help open new worlds of knowledge, learning and education to all Americans .... [It is] intended, for example, to provide the ability to browse library collections, review the collections of museums, or find new information on the treatment of an illness, to Americans everywhere via ... libraries”).
These holdings, which Justice Stevens ignores, also make clear that his reliance on Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U. S. 62 (1990), Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347 (1976), and Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183 (1952), is misplaced. See post, at 227. The invalidated state action in those cases involved true penalties, such as denial of a promotion or outright discharge from employment, not nonsubsidies.
Relying on Velazquez, Justice Stevens argues mistakenly that Rust is inapposite because that case “only involved, and only applies to, . . . situations in which the government seeks to communicate a specific message,” post, at 228, and unlike the Title X program in Rust, the E-rate and LSTA programs “are not designed to foster or transmit any particular governmental message.” Post, at 229. But he misreads our cases discussing Rust, and again misapprehends the purpose of providing Internet terminals in public libraries. Velazquez held only that viewpoint-based restrictions are improper ‘“when the [government] does not itself speak or subsidize transmittal of a message it favors but instead expends funds to encourage a diversity of views from private speakers.’” 531 U. S., at 542 (quoting Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 834 (1995) (emphasis added)). See also 531 U. S., at 542 (“[T]he salient point is that, like the program in Rosenberger, the LSC [Legal Services Corporation] program was designed to facilitate private speech . ..” (emphasis added)); Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U. S. 217, 229 (2000) (“The University of Wisconsin exacts the fee at issue for the sole purpose of facilitating the free and open exchange of ideas”); Rosenberger, supra, at 830, 834 (“The [Student Activities Fund] is a forum”; “[T]he University .. . expends funds to encourage a diversity of views from private speakers”). Indeed, this very distinction led us to state in Southworth that that case did not implicate our unconstitutional conditions jurisprudence. 529 U. S., at 229 (“The case we decide here ... does not raise the issue of the government’s right ... to use its own funds to advance a particular message”). As we have stated above, supra, at 206-208, public libraries do not install Internet terminals to provide a forum for Web publishers to express themselves, but rather to provide patrons with online material of requisite and appropriate quality.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case turns on the conditions for certifying a mandatory settlement class on a limited fund theory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B). We hold that applicants for contested certification on this rationale must show that the fund is limited by more than the agreement of the parties, and has been allocated to claimants belonging within the class by a process addressing any conflicting interests of class members.
I
Like Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), this case is a class action prompted by the elephantine mass of asbestos eases, and our discussion in Amchem will suffice to show how this litigation defies customary judicial administration and calls for national legislation. In 1967, one of the first actions for personal asbestos injury was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against a group of asbestos manufacturers. App. to Pet. for Cert. 252a. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, plaintiffs’ lawyers throughout the country, particularly in East Texas, honed the litigation of asbestos claims to the point of almost mechanical regularity, improving the forensic identification of diseases caused by asbestos, refining theories of liability, and often settling large inventories of cases. See D. Hensler, W. Felstiner, M. Selvin, & P. Ebener, Asbestos in the Courts: The Challenge of Mass Toxic Torts vii (1985); McGovern, Resolving Mature Mass Tort Litigation, 69 B. U. L. Rev. 659, 660-661 (1989); see also App. to Pet. for Cert. 253a.
Respondent Fibreboard Corporation was a defendant in the 1967 action. Although it was primarily a timber company, from the 1920’s through 1971 the company manufactured a variety of products containing asbestos, mainly for high-temperature industrial applications. As the tide of asbestos litigation rose, Fibreboard found itself litigating on two fronts. On one, plaintiffs were filing a stream of personal injury claims against it, swelling throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s to thousands of new claims for compensatory damages each year. Id., at 265a; App. 1040a. On the second front, Fibreboard was battling for funds to pay its tort claimants. From May 1957 through March 1959, respondent Continental Casualty Company had provided Fibreboard with a comprehensive general liability policy with limits of $1 million per occurrence, $500,000 per claim, and no aggregate limit. Fibreboard also claimed that respondent Pacific Indemnity Company had insured it from 1956 to 1957 under a similar policy. App. to Pet. for Cert. 267a-268a. Beginning in 1979, Fibreboard was locked in coverage litigation with Continental and Pacific in a California state trial court, which in 1990 held Continental and Pacific responsible for indemnification as to any claim by a claimant exposed to Fi-breboard asbestos products prior to their policies’ respective expiration dates. Id., at 268a-269a. The decree also required the insurers to pay the full cost of defense for each claim covered. Ibid. The insurance companies appealed.
With asbestos case filings continuing unabated, and its secure insurance assets almost depleted, Fibreboard in 1988 began a practice of “structured settlement,” paying plaintiffs 40 percent of the settlement figure up front with the balance contingent upon a successful resolution of the coverage dispute. By 1991, however, the pace of filings forced Fibre-board to start settling cases entirely with the assignments of its rights against Continental, with no initial payment. To reflect the risk that Continental might prevail in the coverage dispute, these assignment agreements generally carried a figure about twice the nominal amount of earlier settlements. Continental challenged Fibreboard’s right to make unilateral assignments, but in 1992 a California state court ruled for Fibreboard in that dispute.
Meanwhile, in the aftermath of a 1990 Federal Judicial Center conference on the asbestos litigation crisis, Fibre-board approached a group of leading asbestos plaintiffs’ lawyers, offering to discuss a “global settlement” of its asbestos personal-injury liability. Early negotiations bore relatively little fruit, save for the December 1992 settlement by assignment of a significant inventory of pending claims. This settlement brought Fibreboard’s deferred settlement obligations to more than $1.2 billion, all contingent upon victory over Continental on the scope of coverage and the validity of the settlement assignments.
In February 1993, after Continental had lost on both issues at the trial level, and thus faced the possibility of practically unbounded liability, it too joined the global settlement negotiations. Because Continental conditioned its part in any settlement on a guarantee of “total peace,” ensuring no unknown future liabilities, talks focused on the feasibility of a mandatory class action, one binding all potential plaintiffs and giving none of them any choice to opt out of the certified class. Negotiations continued throughout the spring and summer of 1993, but the difficulty of settling both actually pending and potential future claims simultaneously led to an agreement in early August to segregate and settle an inventory of some 45,000 pending claims, being substantially all those filed by one of the plaintiffs’ firms negotiating the global settlement. The settlement amounts per claim were higher than average, with one-half due on closing and the remainder contingent upon either a global settlement or Fi-breboard’s success in the coverage litigation. This agreement provided the model for settling inventory claims of other firms.
With the insurance companies’ appeal of the consolidated coverage case set to be heard on August 27, the negotiating parties faced a motivating deadline, and about midnight before the argument, in a coffee shop in Tyler, Texas, the negotiators finally agreed upon $1,535 billion as the key term of a “Global Settlement Agreement.” $1,525 billion of this sum would come from Continental and Pacific, in the proportion established by the California trial court in the coverage case, while Fibreboard would contribute $10 million, all but $500,000 of it from other insurance proceeds, App. 84a. The negotiators also agreed to identify unsettled present claims against Fibreboard and set aside an as-then unspecified fund to resolve them, anticipating that the bulk of any excess left in that fund would be transferred to class claimants. Ahearn v. Fibreboard Corp., 162 F. R. D. 505, 517 (ED Tex. 1995). The next day, as a hedge against the possibility that the Global Settlement Agreement might fail, plaintiffs’ counsel insisted as a condition of that agreement that Fibreboard and its two insurers settle the. coverage dispute by what came to be known as the “Trilateral Settlement Agreement.” The two insurers agreed to provide Fibreboard with funds eventually set at $2 billion to defend against asbestos claimants and pay the winners, should the Global Settlement Agreement fail to win approval. Id., at 517, 521; see also App. to Pet. for Cert. 492a.
On September 9, 1993, as agreed, a group of named plaintiffs filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, seeking certification for settlement purposes of a mandatory class comprising three groups: all persons with personal injury claims against Fibreboard for asbestos exposure who had not yet brought suit or settled their claims before the previous August 27; those who had dismissed such a claim but retained the right to bring a future action against Fibreboard; and “past, present and future spouses, parents, children, and other relatives” of class members exposed to Fibreboard asbestos. The class did not include claimants with actions presently pending against Fi-breboard or claimants “who filed and, for cash payment or some other negotiated value, dismissed claims against Fibre-board, and whose only retained right is to sue Fibreboard upon development of an asbestos-related malignancy.” Id., at 534a-535a. The complaint pleaded personal injury claims against Fibreboard, and, as justification for class certification, relied on the shared necessity of ensuring insurance funds sufficient for compensation. Id., at 552a-569a. After Continental and Pacific had obtained leave to intervene as party-defendants, the District Court provisionally granted class certification, enjoined commencement of further separate litigation against Fibreboard by class members, and appointed a guardian ad litem to review the fairness of the settlement to the class members. See In re Asbestos Litigation, 90 F. 3d 963, 972 (CA5 1996).
As finally negotiated, the Global Settlement Agreement provided that in exchange for fall releases from class members, Fibreboard, Continental, and Pacific would establish a trust to process and pay class members’ asbestos personal injury and death claims. Claimants seeking compensation would be required to try to settle with the trust. If initial settlement attempts failed, claimants would have to proceed to mediation, arbitration, and a mandatory settlement conference. Only after exhausting that process could claimants go to court against the trust, subject to a limit of $500,000 per claim, with punitive damages and prejudgment interest barred. Claims resolved without litigation would be discharged over three years, while judgments would be paid out over a 5- to 10-year period. The Global Settlement Agreement also contained spendthrift provisions to conserve the trust, and provided for paying more serious claims first in the event of a shortfall in any given year. Id., at 973.
After an extensive campaign to give notice of the pending settlement to potential class members, the District Court allowed groups of objectors, including petitioners here, to intervene. After an 8-day fairness hearing, the District Court certified the class and approved the settlement as “fair, adequate, and reasonable” under Rule 23(e). Ahearn, 162 F. R. D., at 527. Satisfied that the requirements of Rule 23(a) were met, id., at 528-526, the District Court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), citing the risk that Fibre-board might lose or fare poorly on appeal of the coverage case or lose the assignment-settlement dispute, leaving it without funds to pay all claims. Id., at 526. The “allowance of individual adjudications by class members,” the District Court concluded, “would have destroyed the opportunity to compromise the insurance coverage dispute by creating the settlement fund, and would have exposed the class members to the very risks that the settlement addresses.” Id., at 527. In response to intervenors’ objections that the absence of a “limited fund” precluded certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), the District Court ruled that although the subdivision is not so restricted, if it were, this case would qualify. It found both the “disputed insurance asset liquidated by the $1,535 billion Global Settlement,” and, alternatively, “the sum of the value of Fibreboard plus the value of its insurance coverage,” as measured by the insurance funds’ settlement value, to be relevant “limited funds.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 491a-492a.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed both as to class certification and adequacy of settlement. In re Asbestos Litiga tion, supra. Agreeing with the District Court’s application of Rule 23(a), the Court of Appeals found that there was commonality in class members’ shared interest in securing and equitably distributing maximum possible settlement funds, and that the representative plaintiffs were sufficiently typical both in sharing that interest and in basing their claims on the same legal and remedial theories that absent class members might raise. Id., at 975-976. The Fifth Circuit also thought that there were no conflicts of interest sufficiently serious to undermine the adequacy of class counsel's representation. Id., at 976-982. As to Rule 23(b)(1)(B), the court approved the class certification on a “limited fund” rationale based on the threat to “the ability of other members of the class to receive full payment for their injuries from Fibreboard’s limited assets.” Id., at 982. The Court of Appeals cited expert testimony that Fibreboard faced enormous potential liabilities and defense costs that would likely equal or exceed the amount of damages paid out, and concluded that even combining Fibreboard’s value of some $235 million with the $2 billion provided in the Trilateral Settlement Agreement, the company would be unable to pay all valid claims against it within five to nine years. Ibid. Judge Smith dissented, arguing among other things that the majority had skimped on serious due process concerns, had glossed over problems of commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, and had ignored a number of justiciability issues. See generally id., at 993-1026.
Shortly thereafter, this Court decided Amchem and proceeded to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remand for further consideration in light of that decision. 521 U. S. 1114 (1997). On remand, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed, in a brief per curiam opinion, distinguishing Amchem on the grounds that the instant action proceeded under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) rather than (b)(3), and did not allocate awards according to the nature of the claimant’s injury. In re Asbestos Litigation, 134 F. 3d 668, 669-670 (1998). Again citing the findings on certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), the Fifth Circuit affirmed as “incontestable” the District Court’s conclusion that the terms of the subdivision had been met. Id., at 670. The Court of Appeals acknowledged Amchem’s admonition that settlement class actions may not proceed unless the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met, but noted that the District Court had made extensive findings supporting its Rule 23(a) determinations. Ibid. Judge Smith again dissented, reiterating his previous concerns, and argued specifically that the District Court erred in certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) on a “limited fund” theory because the only limited fund in the ease was a creature of the settlement itself. Id., at 671-674.
We granted certiorari, 524 U. S. 936 (1998), and now reverse.
II
The nub of this case is the certification of the class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) on a limited fund rationale, but before we reach that issue, there are two threshold matters. First, petitioners eall the class claims nonjusticiable under Article III, saying that this is a feigned action initiated by Fibre-board to control its future asbestos tort liability, with the “vast majority” of the “exposure-only” class members being without injury in fact and hence without standing to sue. Brief for Petitioners 44-50. Ordinarily, of course, this or any other Article III court must be sure of its own jurisdiction before getting to the merits. Steel Co. v. Citizens For Better Environment, 528 U. S. 83, 88-89 (1998). But the class certification issues are, as they were in Amchem, “logically antecedent” to Article III concerns, 521 U. S., at 612, and themselves pertain to statutory standing, which may properly be treated before Article III standing, see Steel Co., supra, at 92. Thus the issue about Rule 23 certification should be treated first, “mindful that [the Rule’s] requirements must be interpreted in keeping with Article III constraints....” Amchem, supra, at 612-613.
Petitioners also argue that the Fifth Circuit on remand disregarded Amchem in passing on the Rule 23(a) issues of commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Brief for Petitioners 13-22. We agree that in reinstating its affirmance of the District Court’s certification decision, the Fifth Circuit fell short in its attention to Amchem’s explanation of the governing legal standards. Two aspects in particular of the District Court’s certification should have received more detailed treatment by the Court of Appeals. First, the District Court’s enquiry into both commonality and typicality focused almost entirely on the terms of the settlement. See Ahearn, 162 F. R. D., at 524. Second, and more significantly, the District Court took no steps at the outset to ensure that the potentially conflicting interests of easily identifiable categories of claimants be protected by provisional certification of subclasses under Rule 23(c)(4), relying instead on its post hoc findings at the fairness hearing that these subclasses in fact had been adequately represented. As will be seen, however, these points will reappear when we review the certification on the Court of Appeals’s “limited fund” theory under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). We accordingly turn directly to that.
III
A
Although representative suits have been recognized in various forms since the earliest days of English law, see generally S. Yeazell, From Medieval Group Litigation to the Modern Class Action (1987); see also Marcin, Searching for the Origin of the Class Action, 23 Cath. U. L. Rev. 515, 517-524 (1973), class actions as we recognize them today developed as an exception to the formal rigidity of the necessary parties rule in equity, see Hazard, Gedid, & Sowle, An Historical Analysis of the Binding Effect of Class Suits, 146 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1849, 1859-1860 (1998) (hereinafter Hazard, Gedid, & Sowle), as well as from the bill of peace, an equitable device for combining multiple suits, see Z. Chafee, Some Problems of Equity 161-167, 200-203 (1950). The necessary parties rule in equity mandated that “all persons materially interested, either as plaintiffs or defendants in the subject matter of the bill ought to be made parties to the suit, however numerous they may be.” West v. Randall, 29 F. Cas. 718, 721 (No. 17,424) (CC RI) (1820) (Story, J.). But because that rule would at times unfairly deny recovery to the party before the court, equity developed exceptions, among them one to cover situations “where the parties are very numerous, and the court perceives, that it will be almost impossible to bring them all before the court; or where the question is of general interest, and a few may sue for the benefit of the whole; or where the parties form a part of a voluntary association for public or private purposes, and may be fairly supposed to represent the rights and interests of the whole....” Id., at 722; see J. Story, Commentaries on Equity Pleadings § 97 (J. Gould 10th rev. ed. 1892); F. Calvert, A Treatise upon the Law Respecting Parties to Suits in Equity 17-29 (1837) (hereinafter Calvert, Parties to Suits in Equity). From these roots, modern class action practice emerged in the 1966 revision of Rule 23. In drafting Rule 23(b), the Advisory Committee sought to catalogue in “functional” terms “those recurrent life patterns which call for mass litigation through representative parties.” Kaplan, A Prefatory Note, 10 B. C. Ind. & Com. L. Rev. 497 (1969).
Rule 23(b)(1)(B) speaks from “a vantage point within the class, [from which the Advisory Committee) spied out situations where lawsuits conducted with individual members of the class would have the practical if not technical effect of concluding the interests of the other members as well, or of impairing the ability of the others to protect their own interests.” Kaplan, Continuing Work of the Civil Committee: 1966 Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (I), 81 Harv. L. Rev. 356,388 (1967) (hereinafter Kaplan, Continuing Work). Thus, the subdivision (read with subdivision (e)(2)) provides for certification of a class whose members have no right to withdraw, when “the prosecution of separate actions... would create a risk” of “adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(b)(1)(B). Classic examples of such a risk of impairment may, for example, be found in suits brought to reorganize fraternal-benefit societies, see, e. g., Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U. S. 356 (1921); actions by shareholders to declare a dividend or otherwise to “fix [their] rights,” Kaplan, Continuing Work 388; and actions charging “a breach of trust by an indenture trustee or other fiduciary similarly affecting the members of a large class” of beneficiaries, requiring an accounting or similar procedure “to restore the subject of the trust,” Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 696 (hereinafter Adv. Comm. Notes). In each of these categories, the shared character of rights claimed or relief awarded entails that any individual adjudication by a class member disposes of, or substantially affects, the interests of absent class members.
Among the traditional varieties of representative suit encompassed by Rule 23(b)(1)(B) were those involving “the presence of property which callfed] for distribution or management,” J. Moore & J. Friedman, 2 Federal Practice 2240 (1938) (hereinafter Moore & Friedman). One recurring type of such suits was the limited fund class action, aggregating “claims... made by numerous persons against a fund insufficient to satisfy all claims.” Adv. Comm. Notes 697; ef. 1 Newberg §4.09, at 4-33 (“Classic” limited fund class actions “include claimants to trust assets, a bank account, insurance proceeds, company assets in a liquidation sale, proceeds of a ship sale in a maritime accident suit, and others”). The Advisory Committee cited Dickinson v. Burnham, 197 F. 2d 973 (CA2), cert. denied, 344 U. S. 875 (1952), as illustrative of this tradition. In Dickinson, investors hoping to save a failing company had contributed some $600,000, which had been misused until nothing was left but a pool of secret profits on a fraction of the original investment. In a class action, the District Court took charge of this fund, subjecting it to a constructive trust for division among subscribers who demonstrated their claims, in amounts proportional to each class member's percentage of all substantiated claims. 197 F. 2d, at 978. The Second Circuit approved the class aetion and the distribution of the entire pool to claimants, noting that “[although none of the contributors has been paid in full, no one... now asserts or suggests that they should have full recovery... as on an ordinary tort liability for conspiracy and defrauding. The court’s power of disposition over the fund was therefore absolute and final,” Id., at 980. As the Advisory Committee recognized in describing Dickinson, equity required absent parties to be represented, joinder being impractical, where individual claims to be satisfied from the one asset would, as a practical matter, prejudice the rights of absent claimants against a fund inadequate to pay them all.
Equity, of course, recognized the same necessity to bind absent claimants to a limited fund when no formal imposition of a constructive trust was entailed. In Guffanti v. National Surety Co., 196 N. Y. 452, 458, 90 N. E. 174, 176 (1909), for example, the defendant received money to supply steamship tickets and had posted a $15,000 bond as required by state law. He converted to personal use funds collected from more than 150 ticket purchasers, was then adjudged bankrupt, and absconded. One of the defrauded ticket purchasers sued the surety in equity on behalf of himself and all others like him. Over the defendant’s objection, the New York Court of Appeals sustained the equitable class suit, citing among other considerations the fact that all recovery had to come from a “limited fund out of which the aggregate recoveries must be sought” that was inadequate to pay all claims, and subject to pro rata distribution. Id., at 458, 90 N. E., at 176. See Hazard, Gedid, & Sowle 1915 (“[Guffanti] explained that when a debtor’s assets were less than the total of the creditors’ claims, a binding class action was not only permitted but was required; otherwise some creditors (the parties) would be paid and others (the absentees) would not”). See also Morrison v. Warren 174 Misc. 233, 234, 20 N. Y. S. 2d 26, 27 (Sup. Ct. N. Y. Cty. 1940) (suit on behalf of more than 400 beneficiaries of an insurance policy following a fire appropriate where “the amount of the claims... greatly exceeds the amount of the insurance”); National Surety Co. v. Graves, 211 Ala. 533, 534, 101 So. 190 (1924) (suit against a surety company by stockholders “for the benefit of themselves and all others similarly situate who will join the suit” where it was alleged that individual suits were being filed on surety bonds that “would result in the exhaustion of the penalties of the bonds, leaving many stockholders without remedy”).
Ross v. Crary, 1 Paige Ch. 416, 417-418 (N. Y. Ch. 1829), presents the concept of the limited fund class action in another incarnation. “[D]ivers suits for general legacies,” id., at 417, were brought by various legatees against the executor of a decedent’s estate. The Ross court stated that where “there is an allegation of a deficiency of the fund, so that an account of the estate is necessary,” the court will “direc[t] an account in one cause only” and “stay the proceeding[s] in the others, leaving all the parties interested in the fund, to come in under the decree.” Id., at 417-418. Thus, in equity, legatee and creditor bills against the assets of a decedent’s estate had to be brought on behalf of all similarly situated claimants where it was clear from the pleadings that the available portion of the estate could not satisfy the aggregate claims against it.
B
The cases forming this pedigree of the limited fund class action as understood by the drafters of Rule 23 have a number of common characteristics, despite the variety of circumstances from which they arose. The points of resemblance are not necessarily the points of contention resolved in the particular cases, but they show what the Advisory Committee must have assumed would be at least a sufficient set of conditions to justify binding absent members of a class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), from which no one has the right to secede.
The first and most distinctive characteristic is that the totals of the aggregated liquidated claims and the fund available for satisfying them, set definitely at their máximums, demonstrate the inadequacy of the fund to pay all the claims. The concept driving this type of suit was insufficiency, whieh alone justified the limit on an early feast to avoid a later famine. See, e. g., Guffanti, supra, at 457, 90 N. E., at 176 (“The total amount of the claims exceeds the penalty of the bond.... A just and equitable payment from the bond would be a distribution pro rata upon the amount of the several embezzlements. Unless in a case like this the amount of the bond is so distributed among the persons having claims which are secured thereby, it must necessarily result in a scramble for precedence in payment, and the amount of the bond may be paid to the favored, or to those first obtaining knowledge of the embezzlements”); Graves, supra, at 534, 101 So., at 190 (“The primary equity of the bill is the adjustment of claims and the equitable apportionment of a fund provided by law, which is insufficient to pay claimants in full”). The equity of the limitation is its necessity.
Second, the whole of the inadequate fund was to be devoted to the overwhelming claims. See, e.g., Dickinson, 197 F. 2d, at 979-980 (rejecting a challenge by holder of funds to the court’s disposition of the entire fund); see also United States v. Butterworth-Judson Corp., 269 U. S. 504, 513 (1926) (“Here, the fund being less than the debts, the creditors are entitled to have all of it distributed among them according to their rights and priorities”). It went without saying that the defendant or estate or constructive trustee with the inadequate assets had no opportunity to benefit himself or claimants of lower priority by holding back on the amount distributed to the class. The limited fund cases thus ensured that the class as a whole was given the best deal; they did not give a defendant a better deal than seriatim litigation would have produced.
Third, the claimants identified by a common theory of recovery were treated equitably among themselves. The cases assume that the class will comprise everyone who might state a claim on a single or repeated set of facts, invoking a common theory of recovery, to be satisfied from the limited fund as the source of payment. Each of the people represented in Ross, for example, had comparable entitlement as a legatee under the testator’s will. Those subject to representation in Dickinson had a common source of claims in the solicitation of funds by parties whose subsequent defalcation left them without their investment, while in Guffanti the individuals represented had each entrusted money for ticket purchases. In these eases the hope of recovery was limited, respectively, by estate assets, the residuum of profits, and the amount of the bond. Once the represented classes were so identified, there was np question of omitting anyone whose claim shared the common theory of liability and would contribute to the calculated shortfall of recovery. See Railroad Co. v. Orr, 18 Wall. 471, 474 (1878) (reciting the “well settled” general rule “that when it appears on the face of the bill that there will be a deficiency in the fund, and that there are other creditors or legatees who are entitled to a ratable distribution with the complainants, and who have a common interest with them, such creditors or legatees should be made parties to the bill, or the suit should be brought by the complainants in behalf of themselves and all others standing in a similar situation”). The plaintiff appeared on behalf of all similarly situated parties, see Calvert, Parties to Suits in Equity 24 (“[I]t is not sufficient that the plaintiff appear on behalf of numerous parties: the rule seems to be, that he must appear on behalf of all who are interested”); thus, the creditors’ bill was brought on behalf of all creditors, cf. Leigh v. Thomas, 2 Ves. Sen. 312, 313, 28 Eng. Rep. 201 (Ch. 1751) (“No doubt but a bill may be by a few creditors in behalf of themselves and the rest... but there is no instance of a bill by three or four to have an account of the estate, without saying they bring it in behalf of themselves and the rest of the creditors”), the constructive trust was asserted on behalf of all victims of the fraud, and the surety suit was brought on behalf of all entitled to a share of the bond. Once all similar claims were brought directly or by representation before the court, these antecedents of the mandatory class action presented straightforward models of equitable treatment, with the simple equity of a pro rata distribution providing the required fairness, see 1 J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence §407, pp. 764-765 (4th ed. 1918) (“[I]f the fund is not sufficient to discharge all claims upon it in full... equity will incline to regard all the demands as standing upon an equal footing, and will decree a pro rata distribution or payment”).
In sum, mandatory class treatment through representative actions on a limited fund theory was justified with reference to a “fund” with a definitely ascertained limit, all of which would be distributed to satisfy all those with liquidated claims based on a common theory of liability, by an equitable, pro rata distribution.
C
The Advisory Committee, and presumably the Congress in approving subdivision (b)(1)(B), must have assumed that an action with these characteristics would satisfy the limited fund rationale cognizable under that subdivision. The question remains how far the same characteristics are necessary for limited fund treatment. While we cannot settle all the details of a subdivision (b)(1)(B) limited fund here (and so cannot decide the ultimate question whether settlements of multitudes of related tort actions are amenable to mandatory class treatment), there are good reasons to treat these characteristics as presumptively necessary, and not merely sufficient, to satisfy the limited fund rationale for a mandatory action. At the least, the burden of justification rests on the proponent of any departure from the traditional norm.
It is true, of course, that the text of Rule 23(b)(1)(B) is on its face open to a more lenient limited fund concept, just as it covers more historical antecedents than the limited fund. But the greater the leniency in departing from the historical limited fund model, the greater the likelihood of abuse in ways that will be apparent when we apply the limited fund criteria to the case before us. The prudent course, therefore, is to presume that when subdivision (b)(1)(B) was devised to cover limited fund actions, the object was to stay close to the historical model. As will be seen, this limiting construction finds support in the Advisory Committee’s expressions of understanding, minimizes potential conflict with the Rules Enabling Act, and avoids serious constitutional concerns raised by the mandatory class resolution of individual legal claims, especially where a case seeks to resolve future liability in a settlement-only action.
To begin with, the Advisory Committee looked cautiously at the potential for creativity under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), at least in comparison with Rule 23(b)(3). Although the Committee crafted all three subdivisions of the Rule in general, practical terms, without the formalism that had bedeviled the original Rule 23, see Kaplan, Continuing Work 380-386, the Committee was consciously retrospective with intent to codify pre-Rule categories under Rule 23(b)(1), not forward looking as it was in anticipating innovations under Rule 23(b)(3). Compare Civil Rules Advisory Committee Meeting, Oct. 31-Nov. 2, 1963, Congressional Information Service Records of the U. S. Judicial Conference, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure 1935-1988, No. CI-7104-53, p. 11 (hereinafter Civil Rules Meeting) (comments of Reporter Kaplan) (Rule 23(b)(3) represents “the growing point of the law"); id., at 16 (comments of Committee Member Prof. Albert M. Sacks) (Rule 23(b)(3) is “an evolving area”). Thus, the Committee intended subdivision (b)(1) to capture the “‘standard’” class actions recognized in pre-Rule practice, Kaplan, Continuing Work 394.
Consistent with its backward look under subdivision (b)(1), as commentators have pointed out, it is clear that the Advisory Committee did not contemplate that the mandatory class action codified in subdivision (b)(1)(B) would be used to aggregate unliquidated tort claims on a limited fund rationale. See Monaghan, Antisuit Injunctions and Preclusion Against Absent Nonresident Class Members, 98 Colum. L. Rev. 1148, 1164 (1998) (“The ‘framers’ of Rule 23 did not envision the expansive interpretations of the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1972, petitioner Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. (Seatrain) received a construction-differential subsidy (CDS) of $27.2 million pursuant to Title V of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, 49 Stat. 1995, as amended, 46 U. S. C. § 1151 et seq., to construct the 225,000-deadweight-ton supertanker Stuyvesant. As required by § 506 of the Act, 46 U. S. C. § 1156, Seatrain and its affiliate, petitioner Polk Tanker Corp., the initial owner of the Stuyvesant, agreed to operate the supertanker exclusively in the foreign trade except as otherwise authorized in that section. By the time the vessel was completed in 1977, however, petitioners wanted to operate it in the domestic trade. Accordingly, they asked the Secretary of Commerce permanently to lift all restrictions on the Stuyvesant’s operation in domestic commerce in exchange for their fully secured, 20-year interest-bearing note repaying in full the vessel’s CDS. The Secretary granted the application, accepted the promissory note, and deleted the applicable restrictions from the CDS contract. The primary question for decision is whether the Secretary of Commerce may terminate the restrictions imposed pursuant to § 506 when the owners of a vessel constructed with a CDS repay that subsidy in full. The District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that the Secretary had such authority, Shell Oil Co. v. Kreps, 445 F. Supp. 1128 (1977). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed and reversed. Alaska Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Kreps, 194 U. S. App. D. C. 7, 595 F. 2d 814 (1979). We granted certiorari. 442 U. S. 940 (1979). We reverse.
I
The costs of constructing ships in American shipyards and manning them with American crews are higher than comparable costs in foreign ports. Accordingly, Congress has taken a number of steps to protect and support the United States’ shipping and shipbuilding industries. The Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. § 883, has, since 1920, reserved the United States domestic trade exclusively for vessels built in this country and owned by its citizens. The Merchant Marine Act, 1936, 46 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq., established a number of programs to help American vessels compete effectively in foreign trade with vessels constructed and staffed abroad. Specifically, Title V of that Act, 46 U. S. C. § 1151 et seq., authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to grant a CDS for up to 50% of the cost of constructing a ship in this country. The owners of vessels built with these subsidies are required by § 506, 46 U. S. C. § 1156, to agree that they will operate only in foreign trade unless they come within one of two explicit statutory exceptions. Neither exception may be invoked unless the owner remits to the Government an appropriate pro rata portion of the outstanding subsidy.
In 1969, petitioner Seatrain began constructing a series of supertankers at the former Brooklyn Navy Yard. The venture received substantial amounts of federal aid. By its completion, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the Department of Commerce had advanced $5 million as a direct loan and had guaranteed 90% of $82 million in loans from other sources to help finance modernization and operation of the Navy Yard facilities and a major on-the-job training program. Moreover, the Department granted a CDS for each of the four supertankers built by Seatrain, in addition to guaranteeing various construction loans.
The Stuyvesant was the third of the Seatrain tankers. In the mid-1970's, while it was under construction, demand for such vessels began to decline in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, increasing crude oil prices and the economic problems that ensued. By 1977, when the vessel was completed, there was a significant oversupply of tankers on the world market and no opportunity in foreign trade for the fledgling Stuyvesant. Foreseeing this problem, the owners had begun to explore prospects for employing the vessel in the transportation of Alaskan crude from Valdez around Cape Horn to the Eastern United States and the Caribbean. This relatively new trade required sizeable tankers, and since the Jones Act restricted it to American-flag vessels the demand remained high despite the abundance of otherwise suitable foreign vessels.
In mid-1977, petitioner Polk Tanker Corp. executed an agreement with Standard Oil of Ohio (SOHIO) for a 3-year charter of the Stuyvesant for use in the Alaskan trade. The agreement was conditioned upon Polk’s obtaining from the Secretary of Commerce a release from the foreign-trade-only restriction imposed pursuant to § 506. This was obtained at the end of August in the form of letters to Polk and Queensway Tankers, Inc., the proposed operator of the vessel. Those letters recited the findings upon which the agency based its decision. These were: (1) that there were no other opportunities for employment of the Stuyvesant, (2) that the SOHIO charter would strengthen the collateral securing obligations the Government had guaranteed, (3) that the charter might prevent default on those obligations, and (4) that failure to approve the proposal would jeopardize the continued operation of Seatrain.
The complex closing of several transactions necessary to finance repayment of the CDS, refinance various other obligations, and transfer the Stuyvesant to new owners and operators was scheduled for September 23, 1977. On September 22, respondents, three competitors in the Alaskan trade, brought suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia against various Department of Commerce officials. The complaints sought declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the Secretary from granting a permanent release from the § 506 foreign-trade-only requirement. They argued (1) that the Secretary lacked authority to grant such a release and (2) that, even if the Secretary had authority to do so in certain cases, that authority should not have been exercised with regard to the Stuyvesant. In addition, they alleged violations of various procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and asserted that the Secretary was without power to accept a promissory note as repayment for the CDS. Petitioners Seatrain and Polk were permitted to intervene as defendants.
On November 22, 1977, ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court held (1) that the Secretary had the authority to release vessels from trade restrictions imposed pursuant to § 506 in exchange for full CDS repayment and could accept a promissory note, (2) that releasing the Stuyvesant from such restrictions without analyzing the economic effect of that vessel’s entry into the Alaskan trade was an abuse of discretion, and (3) that there existed material issues of fact which made summary judgment on portions of the Administrative Procedure Act claim improper. The court remanded the case to the Secretary for consideration of the competitive consequences of the Stuyvesant decision. Eight days later, on the motion of the respondents, the court amended its decision by dismissing the Administrative Procedure Act claim and — relying on Rule 54 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — certifying its decision as a “final judgment.”
Respondents appealed from this certified final judgment, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that by specifying two exceptions to the foreign-trade-only requirement § 506 occupied the field and impliedly prohibited the Secretary from making any other exceptions under the Act’s more general provisions. 194 U. S. App. D. C., at 15-22, 595 F. 2d, at 822-829. Judge Bazelon dissented, id., at 33, 595 F. 2d, at 840, stating that he would hold that § 506 did not limit the Secretary’s power in this regard. He observed that after full repayment of the CDS and appropriate interest the Stuyvesant would be on precisely the same footing as other vessels in the unsubsidized domestic fleet.
II
We are met at the outset with the contention that we lack jurisdiction to hear this case. Raised for the first time in a footnote to the federal parties’ petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeals, the argument is that the District Court’s November 30 judgment and order was not a “final decision” for purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 1291 because it remanded the case to the Secretary for consideration of the economic consequences of permitting the Stuyvesant to enter the Alaskan oil trade. Respondents, the federal parties assert, sought but one form of relief — an order barring the Stuyvesant from competing with their own vessels. They advanced two legal theories to support that prayer, one general — that the Secretary has no power to grant a permanent release from restrictions imposed pursuant to § 506 — and the other particular — that even if the Secretary has the power to do so in some circumstances, the exercise of that power with regard to the Stuyvesant was an abuse of discretion. On remand, the federal parties continue, the Secretary might have concluded that the termination of § 506 restrictions was unwise. Alternatively, the Secretary might have decided to adhere to the original administrative decision and then been reversed by the courts. In either case, the federal parties argue, respondents would have obtained all the relief they sought. Accordingly, the District Court’s November 30 order did not “ 'en[d] the litigation on the merits and leav[e] nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment,’ ” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 467 (1978), quoting from Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229, 233 (1945), and thus was not a “final decision.” As a result, the argument concludes, the November 30, 1977, order was not appealable to the Court of Appeals and this Court is therefore without jurisdiction to hear the case.
The difficulty with the federal parties’ argument is that it misapprehends the nature of at least one of the complaints which commenced this litigation — that of Alaska Bulk Carriers, Inc., and Trinidad Corp. Fairly read, that complaint seeks not only relief from competition from the Stuyvesant, but also a general declaration that the Secretary of Commerce is without power to permit any vessel constructed with the assistance of a CDS to enter the domestic trade under any circumstances save those narrow exceptions specifically mentioned in the statute itself. In this regard, the complaint alleged that the Secretary would in the future grant a Stuyvesant-like waiver to that vessel’s sister ship, the Bay Ridge, It stated that the owners of unsubsidized vessels would be harmed by competition from the Stuyvesant “and from other CDS-built vessels with respect to which... the agency may likewise lift operating restrictions if this action is permitted to stand.” And its prayer for relief sought (1) declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the Stuyvesant itself, (2) a declaration that the Secretary lacks authority permanently to waive § 506 restrictions under any circumstances, (3) an injunction barring the Secretary from amending CDS contracts or taking any other action to lift § 506 restrictions, and (4) such other relief as the court deemed necessary. There were, in short, two claims made and two quite different sorts of relief sought.
In their reply brief, the federal parties attempt to answer the contention that respondents made two separate claims for relief by asserting that as to one of them — the request for a determination that the Secretary lacked power to grant a permanent release — the case-or-controversy requirement of Art. Ill of the Constitution has not been satisfied. Terming the question “abstract” and “hypothetical,” the federal parties maintain that this claim was in effect a request for an advisory opinion, that it could not stand alone. We disagree. In our judgment, respondents’ claim that the Merchant Marine Act does not permit the Secretary to grant a permanent release from § 506 restrictions satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement quite apart from the fate of the particular decision with respect to the Stuyvesant. First, there is at least one other vessel on the horizon as to which a similar waiver may well be sought and granted — the Bay Ridge. Built in the same yard for the same purpose, faced with a similar plight, and likely to have a similar effect on the Alaskan market if the same solution to that plight is sought, the Bay Ridge is a prime candidate for release from § 506 restrictions, and the prospect of its release is sufficient to create a live controversy. In this respect, the present case is very different from Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, 106-107, 109-110 (1969), on which the federal parties rely. Second, the Secretary’s decision to grant a full release for the Stuyvesant is clear evidence of administrative willingness to grant such releases in appropriate cases if they are in fact lawful. Accordingly, there is nothing speculative about the assertion that, unless restrained or at least given the benefit of an authoritative ruling of law by this Court, the agency will grant such waivers in the future. Compare Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459 (1974), and id., at 476 (concurring opinion), with O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 493-498 (1974). And third, the Stuyvesant itself contributes to the concrete controversy between respondents and the agency. As a practical matter, whether that vessel operates in the Alaskan trade is likely to depend almost entirely on the outcome of this litigation. And even were it determined on review of the remand decision that under the circumstances existing at the time a waiver was improper, both the Stuyvesant and the Bay Ridge would remain in the wings as likely prospects for future waivers if circumstances were to change. Accordingly, we conclude that the respondents’ claim for relief respecting the general powers of the Secretary meets the case-or-controversy requirement of Art. III.
Having determined that there were two separate claims, each within the jurisdiction of the courts below, we need only note that the appeal from the District Court decision comported fully with Rule 54 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That Rule states in relevant part that “[w]hen more than one claim for relief is presented in an action... the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims... only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” In the present case, more than one claim for relief was presented and the District Court found there was no reason for delay prior to directing the entry of final judgment as to one of the claims. As a result, the determination that the Secretary was empowered to waive permanently the restrictions required by § 506 was a final decision certifiable under Rule 54 (b) and appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1291.
Ill
Prior to 1936, Congress assisted the American maritime industry in two ways: (1) it provided substantial low-interest loans to aid the construction of vessels destined for foreign trade, and (2) it appropriated large amounts of money for oceangoing mail contracts — amounts considerably in excess of actual cost and clearly intended as a subsidy for American shipping. Neither effort was very successful. Loan repayment was difficult to secure, few ships were constructed, and the hidden mail subsidy proved unwieldy in addition to being somewhat disingenuous.
In 1935, President Roosevelt proposed that Congress end the subterfuge and adopt a forthright and sensibly tailored program, to subsidize and stimulate American shipping and shipbuilding. The result was the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. Its basic goals were set forth in § 101, 46 U. S. C. § 1101. There Congress declared it to be the policy of the United States “to foster the development and encourage the maintenance” of a large and effective merchant marine capable of meeting the Nation’s future commercial and military needs. The fleet was to be modern and efficient. And Congress intended that it be supported by substantial shipbuilding and repair facilities.
The Secretary of Commerce was given broad authority to oversee administration of the Act. Thus, he was called upon to undertake a survey of the merchant marine, to note its needs, and to adopt a long-range program for meeting those needs. § 210, 46 U. S. C. § 1120. He was directed to investigate and keep current records of essential routes and lines to foreign ports, bulk-cargo carrying service requirements, needs for various types of vessels in various routes, construction and operating costs here and abroad, shipyard conditions, and new designs and technologies. § 211, 46 U. S. C. § 1121. He was authorized to devise means of encouraging use of American-flag vessels and improving those vessels in collaboration with vessel owners and shipbuilders. § 212, 46 U. S. C. § 1122. And he was empowered to “enter into such contracts, upon behalf of the United States,... as may, in... his discretion, be necessary to carry on the activities authorized by this chapter, or to protect, preserve, or improve the collateral held by the [Federal Maritime] Commission or Secretary to secure indebtedness, in the same manner that a private corporation may contract within the scope of the authority conferred by its charter.” § 207, as set forth in 46 U. S. C. § 1117.
Central to the legislative scheme was the creation of an arsenal of grant and loan programs for use in the Secretary’s efforts to stimulate domestic construction and make operation by domestic crews competitive. Included were an operating subsidy program, Title VI, 46 U. S. C. § 1171 et seq.; a program pursuant to which the Secretary could directly acquire new or reconditioned vessels and charter or sell them, Title VII, 46 U. S. C. § 1191 et seq.; a loan guarantee program, Title XI, 46 U. S. C. § 1271 et seq.; and the CDS program that lies at the core of the present litigation, Title V, 46 U. S. C. § 1151 et seq. Again, the Secretary’s discretion in administering these programs was substantial.
It was recognized from the outset that substantial limits would have to be placed upon the entry of subsidized vessels into the domestic trade. Any other result would have been disastrous for the unsubsidized Jones Act fleet for which that trade was (and is) reserved. Burdened by higher construction costs, greater outstanding debt, and higher operating expenses, that fleet would simply have been unable to compete with new vessels enjoying the benefits of the 1936 Act.
The congressional response to this problem as it relates to the CDS program was § 506. Basically, that section confines subsidized vessels to the foreign trade. Congress recognized, however, that an entirely rigid prohibition on entry into domestic commerce might be impractical — incidental domestic operation on one segment of a voyage in foreign trade might well be efficient, and other circumstances might also arise in which some flexibility would be desirable. Accordingly, Congress permitted subsidized vessels to carry domestic cargoes on one leg of certain foreign voyages and provided in addition that the Secretary could authorize such vessels actually to enter the domestic trade for six months or less in any year upon finding that such entry would be “necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter.” In an effort to ensure that subsidized vessels operating in domestic trade pursuant to these exceptions would compete on an equal footing with unsubsidized vessels similarly employed, Congress required the repayment of that portion of the outstanding subsidy allocable to the vessel's domestic activities.
The Court of Appeals was of the view that the specific exceptions in § 506 marked the limit of the Secretary’s authority to approve entry of subsidized vessels into the domestic trade. By its logic, detail, and legislative history, the panel majority reasoned, that section prohibits transactions like the one before us. In consequence, that court found the broad sweep of the Secretary’s power under the balance of the Act irrelevant, the express language giving the Secretary authority to make and amend contracts unimportant, and the policy arguments advanced by the Secretary unpersuasive.
We disagree. On the face of the statute, the Secretary’s broad contracting powers and discretion to administer the Act seem to comprehend the authority urged by petitioners here. Indeed, as the Secretary found in the present case, a permanent release from the foreign-trade-only requirement may quite directly further the general goals of the Act by protecting the Government’s position as guarantor of substantial financial obligations and improving the chances that a domestic shipyard will survive. Further, we are hard pressed to find anything in § 506 that suggests that the Secretary is forbidden to approve transactions of this sort under these circumstances. Certainly nothing in the language of that section so manacles the Secretary as to require the result reached below. Rather, § 506 simply mandates that vessels enjoying the benefits of a subsidy may move in and out of domestic commerce only under narrowly circumscribed conditions. It speaks to temporary releases from the foreign-trade-only requirement, and only to such releases. Moreover, for Congress to draft a section directed to the particular problems posed by temporary entry into the domestic trade was entirely logical since such releases pose problems not present in permanent releases of the sort at issue here. Specifically, a vessel with an outstanding CDS that was completely free to enter and depart the domestic trade would be in an extraordinarily favorable competitive situation even if it was required to repay a proportionate amount of its subsidy whenever it did so. Absent some restriction on its ability to move from one market to the other, it would be a formidable force in both, capable of taking advantage of every shift in trade and profitability, skimming the cream and leaving what remains to those less mobile. It could, in a very real sense, have the best of both worlds.
Section 506 responds to this problem by permitting a vessel that enjoys the benefits of a CDS to operate outside the foreign market only in narrow circumstances, generally upon a highly discretionary administrative decision, and for no more than six months a year. And we have no doubt that it would be flatly inconsistent with the congressional intent were the Secretary or this Court to conclude that a temporary release not meeting these conditions was proper. But a permanent release upon full repayment is quite different. It irrevocably locates the vessel in the unsubsidized fleet and thus poses no danger of a supercompetitor skimming the cream from each market. It creates no long-term instability. And it confers no windfall. On the contrary, at least where repayment of the CDS includes some amount reflecting capital costs which would have been incurred had no subsidy been available, such a transaction merely permits a once subsidized vessel to enter the domestic trade on a footing equal to that of vessels already in that trade. It was not the purpose of the Act to prohibit such entry, and we accordingly agree with the District Court that “nothing in section 506, [or] in any other provision of Title V,... either expressly or implicitly addresses the issue of permanent revocation of a CDS contract.” 445 F. Supp., at 1135 (emphasis in original).
We turn now to the Court of Appeals’ arguments concerning the legislative history of § 506. The panel majority was of the view that that history demonstrates that Congress addressed the problem before us and affirmatively decided not to permit the Secretary to approve transactions like the one at issue. We disagree. At most, we find the legislative history ambiguous, even puzzling. We do not find that it demonstrates that Congress has decided the present question.
We begin with the version of § 506 originally enacted as part of the 1936 Act. The first sentence of that version stated that it would be unlawful to operate any subsidized vessel other than exclusively in foreign trade or on incidental domestic portions of voyages in foreign trade, but provided that the Maritime Commission had authority to consent to operation that would otherwise be unlawful so long as the owner agreed to repay “an amount which bears the same proportion to the construction subsidy theretofore paid... as the remaining economic life of the vessel bears to its entire economic life.” The second sentence provided that in cases of “emergency” the Commission could permit transfer of a subsidized vessel to “service other than exclusive operation in foreign trade” provided that no operating subsidy were paid during the emergency period and that period was limited to three months. And the third sentence specified that owners of a vessel operated on incidental domestic portions of voyages in foreign trade would have to make a proportionate subsidy repayment. It seems abundantly clear that this section provided for three different exceptions to the foreign-trade-only requirement: (1) subsidized vessels could also carry out incidental tasks in domestic trade (sentence one) — in which case consent of the Commission would not be required, but pro rata subsidy repayment would have to be made (sentence three), (2) such vessels could operate permanently in domestic trade upon the consent of the Commission and repayment of the unamortized portion of the subsidy (sentence one), and (3) such vessels could, upon a Commission finding of emergency, enter domestic trade for up to three months without subsidy repayment (sentence two).
In 1938, § 506 was rewritten into substantially its present form. The objective consequences of that rewriting were, first, that all the language suggesting that a permanent release from trade restrictions upon full subsidy repayment would be appropriate was deleted and, second, that the provision authorizing a 3-month “emergency” release with no subsidy repayment was altered by eliminating the emergency requirement, changing the 3-month limit to 6 months and requiring proportionate subsidy repayment. In substance, the balance of the provision was left unchanged.
Respondents and the Court of Appeals contend that this rewriting embodied a considered congressional judgment that permanent release upon full repayment should not be permitted. They rely to a considerable extent upon the comments of Joseph P. Kennedy, Chairman of the Maritime Commission. During hearings on the measure he stated as follows:
“Section 506 has been entirely rewritten to remove ambiguities and confusion. The section now provides that the owner can only engage in foreign trade exclusively with certain enumerated excepted services, for which services the owner is required to repay part of the construction-differential subsidy. There are also provisions which appear to give owners the right to engage in services other than the excepted ones, if the Commission consents to such use and the owner repays part of the construction-differential subsidy. Whether this right is restricted to the cases of emergency and to periods of 3 months as mentioned in the section, it is difficult to determine.”
The ambiguity referred to by Mr. Kennedy, the Court of Appeals concluded, was that hinted at in the final sentence of the quoted remarks — whether the “right to engage in services other than excepted ones” upon subsidy repayment was restricted to 3-month emergencies. And that ambiguity was resolved, the argument goes, by the decision to delete all language authorizing a permanent release and to rewrite the temporary release provision so that the “right” referred to by Mr. Kennedy could only be exercised for six months in any year. Accordingly, we are told, the intention of Congress to bar the transaction at issue here was “unmistakably manifested.” 194 U. S. App. D. C., at 22, 595 F. 2d, at 829.
We find the contention that anything was unmistakable in these snippets of legislative history exceedingly curious. In the first place, it seems scarcely possible that Congress actually thought the original version ambiguous in the regard apparently referred to by Mr. Kennedy. As we have already noted, no reading of that provision other than one permitting permanent waiver is possible given the mechanism set forth for calculation of the amount of subsidy repayment due. Moreover, there is in fact no indication that Congress intended to make the major alterations claimed. Indeed, the House Report states that “[n]o fundamental change in the original purpose of the section has been effected,” and the Senate Report, while to some extent tracking Mr. Kennedy’s comments, seems to identify the major change effected by the amendments as the addition of language making it “perfectly clear that unless the owner operates exclusively in foreign trade, he must repay a portion of the construction-differential subsidy for any service in which the vessel is engaged which includes domestic ports....” There is no language suggesting that Congress intended to rule out permanent releases of the type at issue here.
We do not go so far as to assert with confidence that the deletion of the authorization contained in the second half of the first sentence of the 1936 version was inadvertent. Rather we are simply unsure of the precise significance of that deletion. What does seem clear is that it did not represent a considered congressional judgment that the permanent-release/ full-repayment transaction before us should be prohibited.
IV
Our conclusion that Congress did not forbid the transactions here at issue is buttressed by two additional factors. First, the agency has consistently interpreted the Act to permit full-repayment/permanent-release arrangements. Thus, in 1964 two vessels owned by Grace Line were permitted to repay the unamortized portion of subsidies in exchange for the removal of restrictions on their entry into domestic trade. And in late 1976 and early 1977 two conditional requests for permanent release were granted to the owners of vessels employed in the Virgin Islands trade. The owners were concerned with the prospect that that trade might in the future be classified as domestic and were informed that they could obtain waivers if that eventuality were to occur. While the agency’s rationale has not always been entirely persuasive, it has not wavered from its general understanding of its powers and the extent to which their exercise is consistent with the goals of the Act.
More importantly, in 1971 and 1972 Congress seems clearly to have contemplated transactions of the sort challenged here. In 1972, a new § 1104 (a) (3), 86 Stat. 911, 46 U. S. C. § 1274 (a)(3), was added to the Act. As originally proposed, the section provided that the agency could aid in financing repayment of “any amount of construction-differential subsidy paid with respect to a vessel pursuant to Title V of this Act... in order to release such vessel from all restrictions imposed as a result of the payment of [that] subsidy...
As enacted, the section did not include the language relating to release from all restrictions. The House Committee explained the deletion as follows:
“In the entire history of the administration of the 1936 Act there has been only one instance where a construction-differential subsidy repayment, authorized by the Secretary under very special circumstances, could have called into play the provisions of this paragraph. Your Committee questions the desirability of general legislation to deal with such an unusual situation, and feels that Title XI assistance should be extended to all instances of subsidy repayments under Title V, so as to include the relatively frequent situation of repayments under the first sentence of section 506 of the Act. Your Committee has therefore amended the legislation by deleting the language [relating to release from all restrictions]. This paragraph in Title XI does not in any way extend or affect the application of Title Y of the Act.”
The understanding of the 92d Congress seems clear. And while the views of subsequent Congresses cannot override the unmistakable intent of the enacting one, Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 354, n. 39 (1977), such views are entitled to significant weight, NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U. S. 267, 275 (1974), and particularly so when the precise intent of the enacting Congress is obscure.
V
In conclusion, we hold that the Act empowers the Secretary to approve full-repayment/permanent-release transactions of the type at issue here. We express no view upon respondents’ claim that if such authority exists under the Act full repayment may not be made by promissory note. This issue was not addressed by the Court of Appeals and is open for its consideration on remand. Further, we express no view upon the merits of the Secretary’s particular exercise of discretion with regard to the Stuyvesant since that issue is not before us.
Reversed and remanded.
Some form of prohibition on use of foreign vessels in domestic trade predates the Jones Act by more than a century. See, e. g., Act of Mar. 1, 1817, 3 Stat. 351. See generally G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 963, and nn. 34 and 35 (2d ed. 1975).
Section 506 of the Act, 49 Stat. 1999, as amended, 46 U. S. C. § 1156, provides as follows:
"Every owner of a vessel for which a construction-differential subsidy has been paid shall agree that the vessel shall be operated exclusively in foreign trade, or on a round-the-world voyage, or on a round voyage from the west coast of the United States to a European port or ports which includes intercoastal ports of the United States, or a round voyage from the Atlantic coast of the United States to the Orient which includes inter-coastal ports of the United States, or on a voyage in foreign trade on which the vessel may stop at the State of Hawaii, or an island possession or island territory of the United States, and that if the vessel is operated in the domestic trade on any of the above-enumerated services, he will pay annually to the Secretary of Commerce that proportion of one-twenty-fifth of the construction-differential subsidy paid for such vessel as the gross revenue derived from the domestic trade bears to the gross revenue derived from the entire voyages completed during the preceding year. The Secretary may consent in writing to the temporary transfer of such vessel to service other than the service covered by such agreement for periods not exceeding six months in any year, whenever the Secretary may determine that such transfer is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter. Such consent shall be conditioned upon the agreement by the owner to pay to the Secretary, upon such terms and conditions as he may prescribe, an amount which bears the same proportion to the construction-differential subsidy paid by the Secretary as such temporary period bears to the entire economic life of the vessel. No operating-differential subsidy shall be paid for the operation of such vessel for such temporary period.”
Seatrain also invested some $38 million of its own funds in the project.
The first two tankers, the Brooklyn and the Williamsburg, initially-found employment in the foreign trade and subsequently were placed in layup. App. 112. The decision in this case may have some bearing on the fate of the fourth, the Bay Ridge. See infra, at 580-582.
In addition to'the $27.2 million CDS, loans of $30.2 million were guaranteed under Title XI of the Act, 46 U. S. C. § 1271 et seq., for construction of the Stuyvesant. Similar financial support was made available for the Bay Ridge, which received a CDS of $28.8 million and Title XI loan guarantees of $34.5 million.
This drop in tanker demand had caused Seatrain to halt construction of both the Stuyvesant and the Bay Ridge in early 1975 — a halt that necessitated the layoff of most of the shipyard’s 2,500 employees and virtually shut the facility down. The yard reopened and construction resumed only after the EDA provided 90% guarantees for additional bank loans of $40 million. From that time on Seatrain apparently was on the lookout for prospects for employing the two supertankers in the domestic trade.
See 46 U. S. C. § 883; n. 1, supra.
The preceding month, Polk had sought permission to operate the Stuyvesant in coastal trade for three years in exchange for pro rata repayment of the CDS. This application was withdrawn in the face of strong protests from prospective competitors.
Letter of James S. Dawson, Jr., Secretary of Maritime Administration, to Polk Tanker Corp., Aug. 31,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1952 the State of Arizona invoked the' original jurisdiction of this Court by filing a complaint against' the State of California and seven of its public agencies. Later, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and the United States; were added as parties either voluntarily or on motion. The basic controversy in the case is over how much water each State has a legal right to use out of the waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries. After preliminary pleadings, we referred the case to ■ George I. Haight; Esquire, and upon his death in 1955 to Simon H. Rif kind,. Esquire, as Special Master to take evidence, find facts, state- conclusions of law, and recommend a decree, all “subject to consideration, revision, or approval by the Court.” The Master conducted a trial lasting from June 14, 1956, to August 28, 1958, during which 340 witnesses were heard orally or by deposition, thousands of exhibits were received, and 25,000 pages of transcript were filled. Following many motions, arguments, and briefs, the Master in a 433-page volume reported his findings, conclusions, and recomménded decree, received by the Court on January 16,1961. The case has been extensively briefed here and orally argued twice, the first time about 16 hours, the second, over six. As we see this case, the question of each State’s share of the waters of the Colorado and its tributaries turns on the meaning and the scope of the Boulder Canyon Project Act passed by Congress in 1928. That meaning and scope can be better understood when the Act is set against its background — the gravity of. the Southwest's water problems; the inability of local groups or individual States to deal with these enormous problems; the' continued failure of the States to agree on how to conserve and divide the waters; and the ultimate action by Congress at the request of the States creating a.-great system of dams and public works nationally built, controlled, and operated for the purpose of conserving and distributing the' water.
The Colorado River itself rises in the mountains of Colorado and flows generally in a southwesterly direction for about 1,300 miles through Colorado, Utah, and Arizona and along the Arizona-Nevadá and Arizona-California boundaries, after which it passes into Mexico and empties into the Mexican waters of the Gulf of California. On its way to the sea it receives tributary waters from Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. The' river and its tributaries flow in a natural basin almost surrounded by large mountain ranges and drain 242,000 square miles, an area about 900 miles long from north to south and 300 to 500 miles wide from east to west — practically one-twelfth the area of the continental United States excluding Alaska. Much of this large basin is so arid that it is, as it always has been, largely dependent upon managed use of the.waters of the Colorado River System to make it productive and inhabitable. The Master refers to archaeological evidence.that as long as 2,000 years ago the ancient Hohokam tribe built and maintained irrigation canals near what is now Phoenix, Arizona, and that American Indians were practicing irrigation in that region at the time white men first explored it. In the second half of the nineteenth century a group of people interested in California’s Imperial Valley conceived plans to divert water from the mainstream of the Colorado to give life and growth to the parched and barren soil of that valley. As the most feasible route was through Mexico, a Mexican corporation was formed and a canal dug partly in Mexico and partly in the United States. Difficulties which arose because the canal was subject to the sovereignty of both countries generated hopes in this country that some day there would be a canal wholly within the United States, an all-American canal.
During the latter part of the nineteenth and the first part of the twentieth centuries, people in the Southwest continued to seek new ways to satisfy their water needs, which by that time were increasing rapidly/as new settlers moved into this fast-developing region.,But none of the more or less primitive diversions made from the mainstream of the Colorado conserved enough water to meet the growing needs of the basin. The natural flow of the Colorado was too erratic', the river at many places in canyons too deep, and the engineering and economic hurdles too great for small farmers, larger groups, or even States to build storage dams, construct canals, and install the expensive works necessary for a dependable year-round water supply. Nor were droughts the basin’s only problem; spring floods due to melting snows and seasonal storms were a recurring menace, especially disastrous in California’s Imperial Valley where, even after the Mexican canal provided a more dependable water supply, the threat of flood remained at least as serious as before.. Another troublesome problem was the erosion of land' and the deposit of silt which fouled waters, choked irrigation works, and damaged good farmland and crops.
It is not surprising that the pressing necessity to transform the erratic and often destructive flow of the Colorado River into a controlled and dependable water supply desperately needed in so many States began tó be talked about and recognized as far more than a purely -local problem which could be solved on a farmer-by-farmer, group-by-group, or even state-by-state basis, desirable as this kind of solution might have been.' The inadequacy of a local solution was recognized in the Report of the All-American Canal Boarc] of the United' States Department of the Interior on July 22, 1919, which detailed the widespread benefits that could be expected from construction by the United States of a large reservoir on the mainstream of the Colorado and an all-American canal to the Imperial Valley. Some months later, May 18, 1920, Congress passed a bill offered by Congressman Kinkaid of. Nebraska directing the Secretary of the Interior to make a study and report of diversions which might be made from the Colorado River for irrigation in the Imperial Valley. The Fall-Davis Report, submitted to Congress in compliance.with the Kinkaid Act, began by declaring, “The control of the floods and' development of the resources of the Colorado River are peculiarly national problems...” and then went on to give reasons why this was so, concluding with the statement that the job was so big that only the Federal Government could do it. Quite naturally,.therefore, the Report recommended that the United States construct as a government project not only an alLAmerican canal from the Colorado River to the Imperial Valley but also a dam and reservoir at or near Boulder Canyon.
The prospect that the United States.would undertake to build as a national project the necessary works to control floods and store river -waters for irrigation was apparently a welcome one for the basin States. But it brought to life strong fears in the northern basin States that additional waters made available by the storage and canal projects might be gobbled up in perpetuity by faster growing lower basin areas, particularly California, before the upper States could appropriate what they believed to be their fair share. These fears were not without foundation,. since the law of prior appropriation prevailed in most of the Western States, Under that law the One who first appropriates water and puts it to beneficial use thereby acquires a vested right to continue to divert and use that quantity of water against, all claimants junior to him in point of time. “First in time, first in right” is the shorthand expression of this legal principle. In 1922, only four months after the Fall-Davis Report, this Court in Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419, held that the doctrine of prior appropriation could be given interstate effect. This decision intensified fears of Upper Basin States that they would not get their fair share of Colorado River water. In view of California’s '.phenomenal growth, the Upper Basin States had particular reason to fear that California, by appropriating and. using Colorado River water before the upper States, would', under the interstate application of the prior appropriation doctrine, be “first in time” and therefore “first in right.”'Nor were such fears limited to the northernmost States. Nevada, Utah, and especially Arizona.were all apprehensive that California’s rapid declaration of appropriative claims would deprive them of their just share of basin water available after construction of the proposed United States project. It seemed for a time that these fears would keep the States from agreeing- on any kind of division of the river waters. Hoping to prevent “conflicts” and “expensive litigation” which would hold up or prevent the tremendous benefits expected from extensive federal development of the river, the basin States requested and Congress passed an Act on August 19, 1921,- giving the States consent to negotiate and enter into a compact for the “equitable division and apportionment... of the water supply of the Colorado River.”
Pursuant to -this congressional authority, the seven States appointed Commissioners who, after negotiating for the better part of a year, reached an agreement at Santa Fe, New Mexico, on November 24, 1922. The ágreement, known as the Colorado River Compact, failed to fulfill the hope of Congress that the States would themselves agree on each State’s share of the water. The most the Commissioners were able to accomplish in the Compact was to adopt a compromise suggestion of Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoovér, specially designated as United States representative. This, compromise divides the entire basin into two parts, the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, separated at a point on the river in northern Arizona known as Lee Ferry. (A map showing the two basins and other points of interest in this controversy is printed as an Appendix facing p./602.) Article III (a) of the Compact apportions to each basin in perpetuity-7,500,000 acre-feet of water a year from the Colorado River System, defined in Article II (a) as “the Colorado River and its tributaries within' the United States of America.” In addition, Article III (b) gives the Lower Basin “the right to increase its beneficial consumptive use of such waters by one million acre-féet per annum.” Article III.(c) provides that future Mexican water rights recognized by the United States shall be supplied first out of surplus over and above the aggregate of the quantities specified in (a) and (b), and if this surplus is not enough the deficiency shall be borne equally by the two basins. Article III (d) requires the Upper Basin not to deplete the Lee Ferry flow below an aggregate- of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any 10 consecutive years. Article III (f) and (g) provide a way for further apportionment by a compact of “Colorado River System” waters at any time after October 1, 1963. While these allocations quieted rivalries between the Upper and Lower Basins, major differences between the States in the Lower Basin continued. Failure of the Compact to determine each State’s share of the water left Nevada and Arizona with their fears that the law of prior appropriation would be not a protection but a menace because California-could use that law to get for herself the lion’s share of the waters allotted to the Lower Basin. Moreover, Arizona, because of her particularly strong interest in the Gila, intensely resented the Compact’s inclusion of the Colorado River tributaries in its allocation scheme and was bitterly hostile to having Arizona tributaries,' again particularly the Gila, forced to contribute to the Mexican burden. Largely for these reasons, Arizona alone, of all the States in both basins, refused to ratify the Compact.
Seeking means which would permit ratification by all seven basin States, the Governors of those States met at Denver in 1925 and again in 1927. As a result of these meetings the Governors of the upper States suggested, as a fair apportionment of water among the Lower Basin States, that out of the average annual delivery of water at Lee Ferry required by the Compact — 7,500,000 acre-feet— Nevada be given 300,000 acre-feet, Arizona 3,000,000, and California 4,200,000, and that unapportioned waters, subject to reapportionment after 1963, be shared equally by Arizona and California. Each Lower Basin State would have “the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of such tributaries within its boundaries before the same empty into thé main stream,” except that Arizona tributary waters in excess of '1,000,000 acre-feet could under some circumstances be subject to diminution by reason of a United States treaty with Mexico. This proposal foundered because California held out for 4,600,000 acre-feet instead of 4,200,000 and because Arizona held out for complete exemption of its tributaries from any part of the Mexican burden.
Between 1922 and 1927 Congressman Philip Swing and Senator Hiram Johnson, both of California, made three attempts to have Swing-Johnson bills enacted, authorizing construction of a dam in the canyon section of the Colorado River and an all-American canal. These bills would have carried put the original Fall-Davis Report’s recommendations that the river problem be recognized and treated as national, not local. Arizona’s Senators and Congressmen, still insisting upon a definite guaranty of water from the. mainstream,-, bitterly fought these proposals because they failed to provide for exclusive use of her own tributaries, particularly the Gila, and for exemption of these tributaries from the Mexican burden.
Finally, the fourth Swing-Johnson bill passed both Houses and became the Boulder Canyon Project Act of December 21, 1928, 45 Stat. 1057. The Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain a dam and other works in order to control floods, improve navigation, regulate the river’s flow, store and distribute waters for reclamation and other beneficial uses, and generate electrical power. The projects authorized by the Act were the same as those provided for in the prior defeated measures, but in other significant respects the Act was strikingly different. The earlier bills •had offered no method whatever of apportioning the waiters among the States of the Lower Basin. The Act as finally passed did provide such a method, and, as we view it, the method chosen was a complete statutory apportionment intended to put an end to the long-standing dispute over Colorado River waters. To protect the Upper Basin against California should Arizona still refuse to ratify the Compact, § 4 (a) of the Act as finally passed provided that, if fewer than seven States ratified within six months, the Act should not take effect unless six States including California ratified and unless California, by its legislature, agreed “irrevocably and unconditionally... as an express covenant” to a limit on its annual consumption of Colorado River water of “four million four hundred thousand acre-feet of the waters apportioned to the lower basin States by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado River compact, plus not more than one-half of any excess or surplus waters unapportioned by said compact.” Congress in the same section showed its continuing desire to have California, Arizona, and Nevada settle their own differences by authorizing them to make an agreement apportioning to Nevada 300,000 acre-feet, and to Arizona 2,800,000 acre-feet plus half of any surplus waters unap-portioned by the Compact. The permitted agreement also was to allow Arizona exclusive use of the Gila River, wholly free from any Mexican obligation, a. position Arizona had taken from the beginning. Sections-5 and 8 (b) of the Project Act made provisions for the sale of the stored waters. The Secretary of the Interior was authorized by § 5 “under such general regulations as he may prescribe, to contract for the storage of water in said reservoir and for the delivery thereof at such points on the river and on said canal as may be agreed upon, for irrigation and domestic uses....” Section 5 required these contracts to be “for permanent service” and further provided, “No person shall have or be entitled to have the use for any purpose of the water stored as aforesaid except by contract made as herein stated.” Section 8 (b) provided that the Secretary’s contracts would be subject to any compact dividing the benefits of the water between Arizona, California, and Nevada, or any two of them, approved by Congress on or before January 1, 1929, but that any such compact approved after that date should be “subject to all contracts, if any, made by the Secretary of the Interior under section 5 hereof prior to the date of such approval and consent by Congress.”
The Project Act became effective on June 25, 1929, by Presidential Proclamation, after six States, including California, had ratified the Colorado River Compact and the California legislature had accepted the limitation of 4,400,000 acre-feet as required by the Act. Neither the three States nor any two of them ever entered into any apportionment compact as authorized by §§ 4 (a) and 8 (b). After the construction of Boulder Dam the Secretary of the Interior, purporting to act under the authority of the Project Act, made contracts with various water users in California for 5,362,000 acre-feet, with Nevada for 300,000 acre-feet, and with Arizona for 2,800,000 acre-feet of water from that stored at Lake Mead.
The Special Master appointed by this Court found that the Colorado River Compact, the law of prior appropriation, and the doctrine of equitable apportionment — by which doctrine' this Court in the absence of statute resolves interstate claims according to the equities — do not control the issues in this case. The Master concluded that, since the Lower Basin States had failed to make a corppact to allocate the waters among themselves as authorized by §§ 4 (a) and 8 (b), the Secretary’s contracts with the States had within the statutory scheme of §§ 4 (a), 5, and 8 (b) effected an apportionment of the waters of the mainstream which, according to the Master, were the only waters to be apportioned under the Act. The Master further held • that, in the event of a shortage of water making it impossible for the Secretary to supply all the water due California, Arizona, and Nevada under their contracts, the burden of the shortage must be borne by each State in proportion to her share of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet allocated to the Lower Basin, that is, — by California, — by Arizona, and by Nevada, without regard to the law of prior appropriation.
Arizona, Nevada, and the United States support with. few exceptions the analysis, conclusions, and becommen-dations of the Special Master’s report. These parties agree that Congress did not leave division of the waters to an equitable apportionment by this Court but instead created a comprehensive statutory scheme for the allocation of mainstream waters. Arizona, however, believes that the allocation formula established by the Secretary’s contracts was in fact the formula required by the Act. The United States, along with California, thinks the Master should not have invalidated the provisions of the Arizona and Nevada water contracts requiring those States to deduct from their allocations any diversions of water above Lake Mead which reduce the flow into that lake.
California is in basic disagreement with almost all of the Master’s Report. She argues that the Project Act, like the Colorado River Compact, deals with the entire Colorado River System, not just the mainstream. This would mean that diversions within Arizona and Nevada of tributary waters flowing in those States would be charged against their apportionments and that, because tributary water would be added to the mainstream water in computing the first 7,500,000 acre-feet available to the States, there would be a greater likelihood of a surplus, of which California gets one-half. The result of California’s argument would be much more water for California and much less for Arizona. California also argues that the Act neither allocates the Colorado River waters nor gives the Secretary authority to make an allocation. Rather she takes the position that the judicial’doctrine of equitable apportionment giving full interstate effect to the traditional western water law of prior appropriation should determine the rights of the parties to the water. Finally, California claims that in any event the Act does not control in time of shortage. Under such circumstances, she says, this Court should divide the waters according to the doctrine of equitable apportionment or the law of prior appropriation, either of which, she argues, should result in protecting her prior uses.
Our jurisdiction to entertain this suit is not challenged and could not well be since Art. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution gives this Court original jurisdiction of actions in which States are parties. In exercising that jurisdiction, we are mindful of this Court’s often expressed preference that, where possible, States settle their controversies by “mutual accommodation and agreement.” Those cases and others make it clear, however, that this Court does have a serious responsibility to adjudicate cases where there are actual, existing controversies over how interstate streams should be apportioned among States. This case is the most recent phase of a continuing controversy over the water of the Colorado River, which the States despite repeated efforts have been unable to settle. Resolution of this dispute’requires a determination of what apportionment, if any, is made by the Project Act and what powers are conferred by the Act upon the Secretary of the Interior. Unless many of the issues presented here are adjudicated, the conflicting claims of the parties will continue, as they do now, to raise serious doubts as to the extent of each State’s right to appropriate water from the Colorado River System for existing or new uses. In this situation we should and do exercise our jurisdiction.
I.
Allocation of Water Among the States and Distribution to Users.
iWe have concluded, for reasons to be stated, that Congress in passing the Project Act intended to and did create its own comprehensive scheme for. the apportionment among California, Arizona, and Nevada of the Lower Basin’s share of the mainstream waters of the Colorado River, leaving each State its tributaries. Congress decided that a fair division of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of’ such mainstream waters would give 4,40.0,000 acre-feet to California, 2,800,000 to Arizona, and 300,000 to Nevada; Arizona and California would each get one-half of any surplus. Prior approval was therefore given in the Act for a tri-state compact to incorporate these terms. The States, subject to subsequent congressional approval, were also permitted to agree on a compact with different terms. Division of the water did not, however, depend on the States’ agreeing to a compact, for Congress gave the Secretary of the Interior adequate authority to accomplish the division. Congress did this by giving the Secretary power to make contracts for the delivery of water and by providing that no person could have water without a contract.
A. Relevancy of Judicial Apportionment and Colorado River Compact. — We agree’ with the Master that apportionment of the Lower Basin waters of the Colorado River is- not controlled by the doctrine of equitable apportionment or by the Colorado River Compact. It is true that the Court has used the doctrine of equitable apportionment to decide river controversies between States. But in those cases Congress had not made any statutory apportionment. In this case, we have decided that Congress has provided its own method for allocating among the Lower Basin States the mainstream water to which they are entitled under the Compact. Where Congress has so exercised its constitutional power over waters, courts have no power to substitute their own notions of an “equitable apportionment” for the apportionment chosen by Congress. Nor does the Colorado River Compact control this case. Nothing in that Compact purports to divide water among the Lower Basin States nor in any way to affect or control any future apportionment among those States or any distribution of water within a State. That the Commissioners were able to accomplish even a division of water between the basins is due to what is generally known as the “Hoover Compromise.”
“Participants [in the Compact negotiations] have stated that the negotiations would have broken up but for Mr. Hoover’s proposal: that the Commission limit its efforts to a division of water between the upper basin and the lower basin, leaving to each basin the future internal allocation of its share.”
And in fact this is all the Compact did. However, the Project Act, by referring to the Compact in several places, does make the Compact relevant to a limited extent. To begin with, the Act explicitly approves the Compact and thereby fixes a division of the waters between the basins which must be respected. Further, in several places the Act refers to terms contained in the Compact. For example, § 12 of the Act adopts the Compact definition of “domestic,” and § 6 requires satisfaction of “present' perfected rights” as used in the Compact. Obviously, therefore, those particular terms, though originally formulated only for the Compact’s allocation of water between basins, are incorporated into the Act and are made applicable to the Project Act’s allocation among Lower Basin States. The Act also declares that' the Secretary of the Interior and the United States in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the dam and other works and in the making of contracts shall be subject to and controlled by the Colorado River Compact. These latter references to the Compact are quite different from the Act’s adoption of Compact terms. Such references, unlike the explicit adoption of terms, were, used only to show that the Act and its provisions were in no way to upset, alter, or affect the Compact’s congressionally approved division of water between the basins. They were not intended to make the Compact and its provisions control or affect the Act’s allocation among and distribution of water within the States of the Lower Basin. Therefore, we look to the Compact for terms specifically incorporated in the Act, and we would also look to it to resolve disputes between the Upper and Lower Basins, were any involved in this case. But no such questions are here. We must determine what apportionment and delivery scheme in the Lower Basin has been effected through the Secretary’s contracts. For that determination, we look to the Project Act alone.
B. Mainstream Apportionment. — The congressional scheme of apportionment cannot be understood without knowing what water Congress wanted apportioned. Under California’s view, which we reject, the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of Lower Basin water, of which California has agreed to use only 4,400,000, is made up of both mainstream and tributary water, not just mainstream water. Under the view of Arizona, Nevada, and the United States, with which we agree, the tributaries are not included in the waters to be divided but remain for the exclusive use of each State. Assuming 7,500,000 acre-feet or more in the mainstreám and 2,000,000 in the tributaries, California would get 1,000,000 acre-feet more if the tributaries are included and Arizona 1,000,000 less.
California’s argument that the Project Act, like the Colorado River Compact, deals with the main river and all its tributaries rests on § 4 (a) of the Act, which limits California to 4,400,000 acre-feet “of the waters apportioned to the lower basin States by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado River compact, plus not more than one-half of any excess or surplus waters unappor-tioned by said compact....” And Article III (a), referred to by § 4 (a), apportioned in perpetuity to the Lower Basin the use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum “from the Colorado River System,” which was defined in the Compact as “that portion of the Colorado River and its tributaries within the United States of America.”
Arizona argues that the Compact apportions between basins only the waters of the mainstream, not the mainstream and the tributaries. We need not reach that question, however, for we have concluded that whatever waters the Compact apportioned the Project Act itself déalt only with water of the mainstream. In the first place, the Act, in § 4 (a), states that the California limitation, which is in reality her share of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of Lower Basin water, is on “water of and from the Colorado River,” not of and from the “Colorado River System.” But more importantly, the negotiations among the States and the congressional debates leading to the passage of the Project Act clearly show that the language used by Congress in the Act was meant to refer to mainstream waters only. Inclusion qf the tributaries in the Compact was natural in view of the upper States’ strong feeling that the Lower Basin tributaries should be made to share the burden of any obligation to deliver water to Mexico which a future treaty might impose.. But when it came to an apportionment among the Lower Basin States, the Gila, by far the most important Lower Basin tributary, would not logically be included, since Arizona alone of the States could effectively use that river. Therefore, with minor exceptions, the proposals and counterproposals over the years, culminating in the Project Act, consistently provided for division of the mainstream only, reserving the tributaries to each State’s exclusive use.
The most important negotiations among the States, which in fact formed the basis of the debates leading to passage of the Act, took place in 1927 when the Governors of the seven basin States met at Denver in an effort to work out an allocation- of the Lower Basin waters acceptable to Arizona, California, and Nevada. Arizona and California made proposals, both of which suggested giving Nevada 300,000 acre-feet out of the mainstream of the Colorado River and reserving to each State the exclusive use of her own tributaries. Arizona proposed that all remaining mainstream water be divided equally between herself and California, which would, give each State 3,600,000 acre-feet out of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstream water. California rejected the proposed'equal division of the water, suggesting figures that would result in her getting about 4,600,000 out of the 7,500,000. The Governors of the four Upper Basin States, trying to bring Arizona and California together, asked each State to reduce its demands and suggested this compromise: Nevada 300,000 acre-feet, Arizona 3,000,000,.and California 4,200,000. These allocations were to come only out of the mainstream, that is, as stated by the Governors, out of "the average annual delivery of water to be provided by the states of the upper division at Lees Ferry, under the terms of the Colorado River Compact.” The Governors’ suggestions, like those of the States, explicitly reserved to each State as against the other States the exclusive use of her own tributaries. Arizona agreed to the Governors’ proposal, but she wanted it made clear that her tributaries were to be exempted from any Mexican obligation. California rejected the whole proposal, insisting that she must have 4,600,000 acre-feet from the mainstream, or, as she put it, “from the waters to be provided by the States of the upper division at Lee Ferry under the Colorado River' compact.”' Neither in the States’ original offers, nor in the Governors’ suggestions, nor in the States’ responses was the “Colorado River System” — mainstream plus tributaries — ever used as the basis for Lower Basin allocations; rather, it was always mainstream water, or the water to be delivered by the upper States at Lee Ferry, that is to say, an annual average of 7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstream water.
With the continued failure of Arizona and California to reach accord, there was mounting impetus for a congressional solution. A Swing-Johnson bill containing no limitation on California’s uses finally passed the House in 1928 over objections by Representatives from Arizona and Utah..When the bill reached the Senate, it was amended in committee to provide that the Secretary in his water delivery contracts must limit California to 4,600,000 ■ acre-feet “of the water allocated to the lower basin by the Colorado River compact... and one-half of the unallocated, excess, and/or surplus water....” On the floor, Senator Phipps of Colorado proposed an amendment which would allow the Act to go into effect without any limitation on California if seven States ratified the Compact; if only six States ratified and if the California Legislature accepted the limitation,- the Act could still become effective. Arizona’s Senator Hayden had already proposed an amendment reducing California’s share to 4,200,000 acre-feet (the Governors’ proposal), plus half of the surplus, leaving Arizona exclusive use of the Gila free from any Mexican obligation, but this the Senate rejected. Senator Bratton of New Mexico, noting that only 400,000 acre-feet kept Arizona and California apart, immediately suggested an amendment by which they would split the difference, California getting 4,400,000 acre-feet “of the waters apportioned to the lower basin States by the Colorado River compact,” plus half of the surplus. It was this Bratton amendment that became part of the Act as passed, which had been amended on the floor so that the limitation referred to waters apportioned to the Lower Basin “by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado River compact,” instead of waters apportioned “by the Colorado River compact.”
Statements made throughout the debates make it quite clear..that Congress intended the 7,500,000 acre-feet it was allocating, and out of which California was limited to 4,400,000, to be mainstream water only. In the first place, the basin Senators expressly acknowledged as the starting point for their debate the Denver Governors’ proposal that specific allocations be made to Arizona, California, and Nevada from the mainstream, leaving the tributaries to the States! For example, Senator Johnson, leading spokesman for California, and Senator Hayden, leading spokesman for Arizona, agreed that the Governors’ recommendations could be used as “a basis for discussion.” Hayden went on to observe that the Committee amendment would give California the same 4,600,000 acre-feet she had sought at Denver. Later, Nevada’s Senator Pittman stated that the committee “put the amount in there that California demanded before the four governors at Denver,” and said that the Bratton amendment would split the 400,000 acre-feet separating the Governors’ figure and the Committee’s figure. All the leaders in the debate — Johnson, Bratton, King, Hayden, Phipps, and Pittman — expressed a common understanding that • the key issue separating Arizona and California was the difference of 400,000 acre-feet, precisely the same 400,000 acre-feet of mainstream water that had separated the States at Denver. Were we to sustain California’s argument here that tributaries must be included, California would actually get more than she was willing to settle for at Denver.
That the apportionment was from the mainstream only is also strongly indicated by an analysis of the second paragraph of § 4 (a) of the.Act. There Congress authorized Arizona, Nevada, and California to make a compact allocating to Nevada 300,00.0 acre-feet and.to Arizona 2,800,000 plus one-half of the surplus, which,' with California’s 4,400,000 and half of the surplus, would under California’s interpretation of the Act exhaust the Lower Basin waters, both mainstream and tributaries. But Utah and New Mexico, as Congress knew, had interests in Lower Basin tributaries which Congress surely would have protected in some way had it meant for the tributaries of those two States to be included in the water to be divided among Arizona, Nevada, and California. We cannot believe that Congress would have permitted three States to divide among themselves water belonging to five States. Nor can we believe that the representatives of Utah and New Mexico would have sat quietly by and acquiesced in a congressional attempt to include, their tributaries in waters given the other three States. ■
Finally, in considering California’s claim to share in the tributaries of other States, it is important that from the beginning of the discussions and negotiations which led to the Project Act, Arizona consistently claimed that she must have sole use of the Gila,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
This case involves an attempt by the State of Arkansas to attach certain federal benefits paid to individuals who are incarcerated in Arkansas prisons. In 1981, Arkansas adopted the State Prison Inmate Care and Custody Reimbursement Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 46-1701 et seq. (Supp. 1985), a statute that authorizes the State to seize a prisoner’s property or “estate” in order to help defray the cost of maintaining its prison system. The Act specifically defines “estate” to include a prisoner’s federal Social Security benefits, as well as other types of pension or retirement benefits. §46-1702(d). The State filed separate actions in state court seeking to attach Social Security benefits that had been paid to petitioner Bennett and Veterans’ Administration (VA) disability pension benefits that were paid to another inmate, Shelton. In relevant part, the inmates responded by arguing that the Arkansas statute violates the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution because it permits the State to attach funds that federal law exempts from legal process. In particular, petitioner pointed to 42 U. S. C. § 407(a) (1982 ed., Supp. III), which provides that “none of the moneys paid or payable . . . under [the Social Security Act] shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process. ” Similarly, Shelton- contended that attachment of his VA benefits is inconsistent with 38 U. S. C. § 3101(a), which provides that such benefits “shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.”
The state trial court rejected the inmates’ arguments and directed that a portion of each of their benefits be seized. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, with one justice dissenting. 290 Ark. 47, 716 S. W. 2d 755 (1986). Briefly stated, the court found that there is no conflict between the federal and state statutes because “the federal statutes contain an implied exception to the exemption from legal process when the State provides for the care and maintenance of a beneficiary of social security or veterans’ funds.” Id., at 49, 716 S. W. 2d, at 756. We granted Bennett’s petition for certiorari. 484 U. S. 895 (1987).
We think — contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas — that there is a clear inconsistency between the Arkansas statute and 42 U. S. C. § 407(a) (1982 ed., Supp. III). Section 407(a) unambiguously rules out any attempt to attach Social Security benefits. The Arkansas statute just as unambiguously allows the State to attach those benefits. As we see it, this amounts to a “conflict” under the Supremacy Clause — a conflict that the State cannot win. See Rose v. Arkansas State Police, 479 U. S. 1 (1986). We reject the State’s attempt to avoid this conclusion by arguing that the federal statute contains an “implied exception” that would allow attachment of otherwise exempted federal payments simply because the State has provided the recipient with “care and maintenance.” We declined to find such an exception in Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 U. S. 413 (1973), where we held that § 407 bars a State from attempting to attach Social Security benefits as reimbursement for state welfare assistance payments. Philpott may be factually distinguishable on the ground that there the State provided for only part of the needs of the Social Security recipient while here the State provides for all of the prisoners’ needs, see Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, State of Fla. v. Davis, 616 F. 2d 828, 830 (CA5 1980) (relying on such a distinction). But we do not think that such a distinction carries the day given the express language of § 407(a) and the clear intent of Congress that Social Security benefits not be attachable.
Nor do we think that the State’s “implied exception” argument is supported by our decision last Term in Rose v. Rose, 481 U. S. 619 (1987). There we held that 38 U. S.C. § 3101 did not bar a state court from holding a disabled veteran in contempt for failing to pay child support, even though the veteran’s only means of paying his obligation was to use his VA disability benefits. But in that case we held that the benefits in question were designed by Congress to support not only the recipient of the benefits, but also his dependents. Accordingly, allowing the state court in that case to enforce a valid child support order was fully consistent with the underlying intent of § 3101, which was in part to “'prevent the deprivation and depletion of the means of subsistence’ ” of the beneficiaries of the federal payments. Id., at 630 (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-1243, pp. 147-148 (1976)). Here, in contrast, the State cannot be said to be a “beneficiary” of petitioner’s Social Security benefits.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas is
Reversed.
Arkansas Stat. Ann. § 46-1704(a) (Supp. 1985) provides that the estate of a person incarcerated in a penal facility of the Arkansas Department of Correction “may be subjected to the payment to the State of the expenses paid and to be paid by it on behalf of said person as a prisoner.” Arkansas Stat. Ann. § 46-1702(b) (Supp. 1985) defines “estate” as “any properties, tangible or intangible, real or personal, belonging to or due an inmate confined to an institution of the Department of Correction, including income or payments to such inmate from Social Security, previously earned salary or wages, bonuses, annuities, pensions or retirement benefits, or from any source whatsoever.”
Shelton’s separate petition for certiorari was not docketed by the Court due to his failure to file an affidavit to accompany his motion to proceed informa pauperis. See this Court’s Rule 46.1. Accordingly the only issue directly before us is the propriety of the State’s attempt to attach Bennett’s Social Security benefits.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
A Louisiana statute forbids performance of an abortion on a minor without her parents’ consent, or her husband’s consent if she is married. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana enjoined enforcement of the statute. Its decision discusses only these special requirements for abortions on minors, but the injunction appears to extend to the entire statute, and thus includes “informed consent” requirements applicable to all women. We vacate the injunction insofar as it bars enforcement of the “informed consent” requirements, and remand to the District Court so that it may consider the construction of those requirements, their validity in light of this Court’s intervening decision in Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 65-67 (1976), and their severability from the remainder of the statute.
So ordered.
"Louisiana Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.33 (D) (Supp. 1976) reads as follows:
“No abortion shall be performed on any woman unless prior to the abortion she shall have been advised, orally and in writing, that she is not required to submit to the abortion and that she may refuse any abortion for any reason and without explanation and that she shall not be deprived of any governmental assistance or any other kind of benefits for refusing to submit to an abortion. This provision shall be of full force and effect notwithstanding the fact that the woman in question is a minor, in which event said minor’s parents or if a minor emancipated by marriage, the minor’s husband, shall also be fully advised of their right to refuse an abortion for the minor in the same manner as the minor is advised. Compliance with this provision shall be evidenced by the written consent of the woman that she submits to the abortion voluntarily and of her own free will, and by written consent of her parents, if she is an unmarried minor, and by consent of her husband if she is a minor emancipated by marriage, such written consent to set forth the written advice given and the written consent and acknowledgment that a full explanation of the abortion procedure to be performed has been given and is understood.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | E | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Hablan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellee Knox has been charged with six counts of violation of federal law in connection with his wagering activities. The first four counts of the indictment charge that between July 1964 and October 1965 he engaged in the business of accepting wagers without first filing Internal Revenue Service Eorm 11-C, the special return and registration application required by § 4412 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and without first paying the occupational tax imposed by § 4411 of the Code. Counts Five and Six charge that when Knox did file such a form on October 14, 1965, and when he filed a supplemental form the next day, he knowingly and willfully understated the number of employees accepting wagers on his behalf — in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1001, a general criminal provision punishing fraudulent statements made to any federal agency.
Knox moved to dismiss the indictment, asserting that this Court’s decisions in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39 (1968), and Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62 (1968), had held invalid the provisions of the wagering tax laws that required him to file the special return. The Government in response stated that it would not pursue the first four counts but argued that Knox’s objections based on the Marchetti and Grosso decisions were “largely irrelevant” to Counts Five and Six. The District Court disagreed. It dismissed all six counts, reasoning that Knox could not be prosecuted for his “failure to answer the wagering form correctly” since his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination would have prevented prosecution for “failure to answer the form in any respect.” 298 F. Supp. 1260, 1261. The United States filed a direct appeal to this Court from the dismissal of the two counts charging violations of § 1001, and we noted probable jurisdiction, 394 U. S. 971 (1969).
In Bryson v. United States, ante, p. 64, decided today, we reaffirmed the holding of Dennis v. United States, 384 U. S. 855 (1966), that one who furnishes false information to the Government in feigned compliance with a statutory requirement cannot defend against prosecution for his fraud by challenging the validity of the requirement itself. Bryson, like Dennis, involved § 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, 61 Stat. 146, which was attacked as an abridgment of First Amendment freedoms and as a bill of attainder forbidden by Art. I, § 9, of the Constitution. In contrast, Knox alleges infringement of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. We do not think that the different constitutional source for Knox’s claim removes his case from the ambit of the principle laid down in those decisions. The validity of the Government’s demand for information is no more an element of a violation of § 1001 here than it was in Bryson,
The indictment charges that the forms Knox filed with the District Director of Internal Revenue contained false, material information, an accusation that con-cededly falls within the terms of § 1001. However, Knox claims that the Fifth Amendment bars punishing him for the filings because they were not voluntary but were compelled by § § 4412 and 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code. He points out that if he had filed truthful and complete forms as required by § 4412, he would have incriminated himself under Texas wagering laws. On the other hand, if he had filed no forms at all, he would have subjected himself to criminal prosecution under § 7203. In choosing the third alternative, submission of a fraudulent form, he merely opted for the least of three evils, under a form of duress that allegedly makes his choice involuntary for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.
For this proposition Knox relies on United States v. Lookretis, 398 F. 2d 64 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1968), where, after this Court had remanded for reconsideration in light of Marchetti, see 390 U. S. 338 (1968), the Court of Appeals ruled that truthful disclosures made under the compulsion of § 4412 could not be introduced against their maker in a criminal proceeding. However, the Fifth Amendment was offended in Lookretis precisely because the defendant had succumbed to the statutory compulsion by furnishing the requested incriminatory information. Knox does not claim that his prosecution is based upon any incriminatory information contained in the forms he filed, nor that he is being prosecuted for a failure to supply incriminatory information. He has taken a course other than the one that the statute was designed to compel, a course that the Fifth Amendment gave him no privilege to take.
This is not to deny that the presence of §§4412 and 7203 injected an element of pressure into Knox’s predicament at the time he filed the forms. At that time, this Court’s decisions in United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22 (1953), and Lewis v. United States, 348 U. S. 419 (1955), established that the Fifth Amendment did not bar prosecution for failure to file a form such as 11-C. But when Knox responded to the pressure under which he found himself by communicating false information, this was simply not testimonial compulsion. Knox’s ground for complaint is not that his false information inculpated him for a prior or subsequent criminal act; rather, it is that under the compulsion of §§4412 and 7203 he committed a criminal act, that of giving false information to the Government. If the compulsion was unlawful under Marchetti, Knox may have a defense to this prosecution under the traditional doctrine that a person is not criminally responsible for an act committed under duress. See generally Model Penal Code § § 2.09, 3.02 (Proposed Official Draft, 1962); id., § 2.09, Comment (Tent. Draft No. 10, 1960). It is only in this sense that there is any relevance to Knox’s attempted distinction of this case from Dennis, Bryson, and their predecessors, United States v. Kapp, 302 U. S. 214 (1937), and Kay v. United States, 303 U. S. 1 (1938), on the ground that in those cases the false statements were voluntarily filed for the purpose of obtaining benefits from the Government.
Knox argues that the criminal sanction for failure to file, coupled with the danger of incrimination if he filed truthfully, was more coercive in its effect than, for example, the prospect that the petitioners in Dennis would lose their jobs as union officers unless they filed non-Communist affidavits. While this may be so, the question whether Knox’s predicament contains the seeds of a “duress” defense, or perhaps whether his false statement was not made “willfully” as required by § 1001, is one that must be determined initially at his trial. It is not before us on this appeal from dismissal of the indictment, and we intimate no view on the matter.
The judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
But see nn. 3, 6, infra.
Such a direct appeal is authorized by the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, which provides: “An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the United States from the district courts direct to the Supreme Court of the United States in all criminal cases in the following instances:
“From a decision or judgment setting aside, or dismissing any indictment or information, or any count thereof, where such decision or judgment is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment or information is founded.
“From the decision or judgment sustaining a motion in bar, when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy.”
The District Court sustained the claim of privilege not on the basis of facts peculiar to this case but on the basis of its conclusion that the Fifth Amendment provides a defense to any prosecution under § 1001 based on misstatements on a Form 11-C. This amounts to a holding that § 1001, as applied to this class of cases, is constitutionally invalid. The generality of the impact of the District Court’s holding appears to us to render our jurisdictional holding a fortiori compared to analogous jurisdictional holdings in such cases as Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282 (1921); Fleming v. Rhodes, 331 U. S. 100, 102-104 (1947); Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U. S. 655 (1950); Department of Employment v. United States, 385 U. S. 355, 356-357 (1966). We prefer to rest our jurisdiction on this aspect of § 3731 rather than, as advocated by the Government, the statute’s “motion in bar” provision, in light of the fact that the scope of the latter provision will be the subject of full-dress consideration, as will certain problems under the “dismissing any indictment” provision not present in this case, in United States v. Sisson, consideration of jurisdiction postponed, post, p. 812.
Knox argues that his false Forms 11-C were not filed “in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States,” a necessary element of a violation of § 1001, because Marchetti and Grosso held that the Internal Revenue Service was not authorized to require the filing of the forms. Even if his reading of those decisions were correct, his argument would fail for the reasons explained in Bryson. The Internal Revenue Service has express statutory authority to require the filing, and when Knox submitted his forms this Court had held that such a requirement raised no self-incrimination problem. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22 (1953); Lewis v. United States, 348 U. S. 419 (1955). Further, in Marchetti we did not hold that the Government is constitutionally forbidden to direct the filing of the form, but only that a proper assertion of the constitutional privilege bars prosecution for failure to comply with the direction. See n. 6, infra; see also Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S., at 69-70, n. 7.
Knox claims on appeal that neither Count Five nor Count Six charges any affirmative misstatements, but only omissions. Count Five charges that the statements on the form filed on October 14, 1965, “were not true, correct, and complete, in that the number of employees and/or agents engaged in receiving wagers in his behalf were misrepresented and understated, in that the number, name, special stamp number, street address, and city and state of employees and/or agents engaged in receiving wagers in the said JAMES D. KNOX’s behalf had been omitted . . . .” Count Six contains language identical except for an apparently inadvertent difference in punctuation. Although the wording is not entirely clear, we need not decide whether on a fair reading the indictment encompasses affirmative misstatements. The District Court read the indictment as alleging that Knox violated § 1001 “by wilfully and knowingly making a false statement” on the forms, and it was on the basis of this construction that the court dismissed Counts Five and Six. We have no jurisdiction on this direct appeal to review the construction of the indictment. E. g., United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612 (1954); United States v. Petrillo, 332 U. S. 1 (1947); United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 193 (1939). But see United States v. CIO, 335 U. S. 106 (1948). See also n. 2, supra.
Title 26 IT. S. C. § 7203 provides: “Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return (other than a return required under authority of section 6015 or section 6016), keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep sueh records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”
We stressed in Marchetti “that we do not hold that these wagering tax provisions are as such constitutionally impermissible; we hold only that those who properly assert the constitutional privilege as to these provisions may not be criminally punished for failure to comply with their requirements. If, in different circumstances, a taxpayer is not confronted by substantial hazards of self-incrimination, or if he is otherwise outside the privilege’s protection, nothing we decide today would shield him from the various penalties prescribed by the wagering tax statutes.” 390 U. S., at 61. Nothing before us indicates that the hazard of incrimination faced by Knox was less substantial than that faced by Marchetti, or that Knox would have been disqualified for any other reason from asserting the privilege in defense of a prosecution for failure to comply with § 4412.
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which cautions the trial judge that he may consider on a motion to dismiss the indictment only those objections that are “capable of determination without the trial of the general issue,” indicates that evidentiary questions of this type should not be determined on such a motion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner was indicted and found guilty by a jury of three capital offenses — rape, kidnaping with bodily injury, and murder with malice aforethought. Under Georgia law, a jury may impose the death penalty if it finds that the offender committed a capital felony under at least 1 of 10 statutorily enumerated aggravating circumstances. Ga. Code § 27-2534.1 (b) (1975). The only such circumstance relevant here is that
“[t]he [capital] offense . . . was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of another capital felony . . . §27-2534.1 (b)(2).
At the penalty phase of petitioner’s trial, the jury was instructed that it could impose the death penalty (1) for rape if that offense was committed while petitioner was engaged in the commission of murder, (2) for kidnaping with bodily injury if that offense was committed while petitioner was engaged in the commission of rape, or (3) for murder if that offense was committed while petitioner was engaged in the commission of “kidnapping with bodily harm, aggravated sodomy.” The jury found that all three offenses were committed during the commission of the specified additional offenses, and it imposed three death sentences on petitioner.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the first two death sentences imposed by the jury could not stand. 241 Ga. 49, 52, 64, 243 S. E. 2d 496, 501, 508 (1978). Both sentences depended upon petitioner’s having committed forcible rape, and the court determined that the jury had not properly convicted petitioner of that offense.
In addition, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the State could not rely upon sodomy as constituting the bodily injury associated with the kidnaping. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the jury had been instructed that the death penalty for murder depended upon a finding that it was committed while petitioner was engaged in “kidnapping with bodily harm, aggravated sodomy” (emphasis added), the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the third death penalty imposed by the jury. It did so on the theory that, despite the lack of a jury finding of forcible rape, evidence in the record supported the conclusion that petitioner was guilty of that offense, which in turn established the element of bodily harm necessary to make the kidnaping a sufficiently aggravating circumstance to justify the death sentence.
In Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U. S. 196 (1948), petitioners were convicted at trial of one offense but their convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Arkansas on the basis of evidence in the record indicating that they had committed another offense on which the jury had not been instructed. In reversing the convictions, Mr. Justice Black wrote for a unanimous Court:
“It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made. . . .
“To conform to due process of law, petitioners were entitled to have the validity of their convictions appraised on consideration of the case as it was tried and as the issues were determined in the trial court.” Id., at 201-202.
These fundamental principles of procedural fairness apply with no less force at the penalty phase of a trial in a capital case than they do in the guilt-determining phase of any criminal trial. Cf. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349 (1977). In light of these principles, the death sentence for the crime of murder with malice aforethought cannot stand.
Insofar as the petition for certiorari challenges the conviction for kidnaping with bodily injury and the imposition of the death sentence, it is granted along with petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia affirming the conviction for kid-naping with bodily injury and the death sentence for murder is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Insofar as the petition challenges the convictions for murder, kidnaping, and statutory rape, it is denied.
It is so ordered.
Petitioner was indicted and found guilty by the jury of “rape.” Because the jury had been instructed both on forcible and statutory rape, but did not in its verdict specify which offense it had found, the Supreme Court of Georgia interpreted the “rape” conviction as one for statutory rape — an offense that includes no element of bodily harm. Moreover, there was no jury finding of forcible rape at the penalty phase of the trial.
Although the Georgia Supreme Court did not explain this holding, the holding itself is unambiguous. First, the Georgia court unequivocally stated:
“The only evidence of bodily injury, to support the crime of the kidnapping with bodily injury of the older child, is the bodily injury which resulted from the rape of that child.” 241 Ga., at 52, 243 S. E. 2d, at 501. Second, after concluding that the evidence of forcible rape could supply the bodily injury element of the crime of kidnaping, the Georgia court added:
“The state’s attempted reliance upon sodomy as constituting the bodily injury associated with the kidnapping of the older child is not ground for retrial.” Ibid., 243 S. E. 2d, at 502.
In the present case, when the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled on petitioner’s motion for rehearing it recognized that, prior to its opinion in the case, petitioner had no notice, either in the indictment, in the instructions to the jury, or elsewhere, that the State was relying on the rape to establish the bodily injury component of aggravated kidnaping:
“On motion for rehearing the defendant urges, among other things, that he was not on notice that evidence as to the older child’s injuries which resulted from her being raped would provide the evidence of her bodily injury to convict him of her kidnapping with bodily injury. He was on notice, however, that he was charged with forcible rape as well as kidnapping with bodily injury of the older child.
“Motion for rehearing denied." Id., at 67, 243 S. E. 2d, at 510.
Because the jury convicted petitioner of the same offense that it relied upon to find the statutory aggravating circumstances necessary to impose the death penalty — kidnaping with bodily injury, to wit, aggravated sodomy — the Georgia Supreme Court’s affirmance of that conviction on the basis of the bodily injury resulting from the rape is also unconstitutional under Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U. S. 196 (1948). Accordingly, under the dictates of that case, id., at 200, 202, the conviction must be reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent employer was brought before the National Labor Relations Board to answer a complaint that its inauguration of a premium pay plan during the term of a collective agreement, without prior consultation with the union representing its employees, violated the duties imposed by §§ 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board issued a cease-and-desist order, rejecting the claim that the respondent’s action was authorized by the collective agreement. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused, however, to enforce the Board’s order. It reasoned that a provision in the agreement between the union and the employer, which “arguably” allowed the employer to institute the premium pay plan, divested the Board of jurisdiction to entertain the union’s unfair labor practice charge. 351 F. 2d 224. We granted certiorari to consider a substantial question of federal labor law. 384 U. S. 903.
In August 1962, the Plywood, Lumber, and Saw Mill Workers Local No. 2405 was certified as the bargaining representative of the respondent’s production and maintenance employees. The agreement which resulted from collective bargaining contained the following provision:
“Article XVII
“WAGES
“A. A classified wage scale has been agreed upon by the Employer and Union, and has been signed by the parties and thereby made a part of the written agreement. The Employer reserves the right to pay a premium rate over and above the contractual classified wage rate to reward any particular employee for some special fitness, skill, aptitude or the like. The payment of such a premium rate shall not be considered a permanent increase in the rate of that position and may, at sole option of the Employer, be reduced to the contractual rate . . .
The agreement also stipulated that wages should be “closed” during the period it was effective and that neither party should be obligated to bargain collectively with respect to any matter not specifically referred to in the contract. Grievance machinery was established, but no ultimate arbitration of grievances or other disputes was provided.
Less than three weeks after this agreement was signed, the respondent posted a notice that all members of the “glue spreader” crews would be paid $2.50 per hour if their crews met specified biweekly (and later weekly) production standards, although under the “classified wage scale” referred to in the above quoted Art. XVII of the agreement, the members of these crews were to be paid hourly wages ranging from $2.15 to $2.29, depending upon their function within the crew. When the union learned of this premium pay plan through one of its members, it immediately asked for a conference with the respondent. During the meetings between the parties which followed this request, the employer indicated a willingness to discuss the terms of the plan, but refused to rescind it pending those discussions.
It was this refusal which prompted the union to charge the respondent with an unfair labor practice in violation of §§ 8 (a)(5) and (1). The trial examiner found that the respondent had instituted the premium pay program in good-faith reliance upon the right reserved to it in the collective agreement. He, therefore, dismissed the complaint. The Board reversed. Giving consideration to the history of negotiations between the parties, as well as the express provisions of the collective agreement, the Board ruled the union had not ceded power to the employer unilaterally to change the wage system as it had. For while the agreement specified different hourly pay for different members of the glue spreader crews and allowed for merit increases for “particular employee[s],” the employer had placed all the members of these crews on the same wage scale and had made it a function of the production output of the crew as a whole.
In refusing to enforce the Board’s order, the Court of Appeals did not decide that the premium pay provision of the labor agreement had been misinterpreted by the Board. Instead, it held the Board did not have jurisdiction to find the respondent had violated § 8 (a) of the Labor Act, because the “existence ... of an unfair labor practice [did] not turn entirely upon the provisions of the Act, but arguably upon a good-faith dispute as to the correct meaning of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement . . . .” 351 F. 2d, at 228.
The respondent does hot question the proposition that an employer may not unilaterally institute merit increases during the term of a collective agreement unless some provision of the contract authorizes him to do so. See Labor Board v. J. H. Allison & Co., 165 F. 2d 766 (C. A. 6th Cir.), cert. denied, 335 U. S. 814. Cf. Beacon Piece Dyeing Co., 121 N. L. R. B. 953 (1958). The-argument is, rather, that since the contract contained a provision which might have allowed the respondent to institute the wage plan in question, the Board was powerless to determine whether that provision did authorize the respondent’s action, because the question was one for a state or federal court under § 301 of the Act.
In evaluating this contention, it is important first to point out that the collective bargaining agreement contained no arbitration clause. The contract did provide grievance procedures, but the end result of those procedures, if differences between the parties remained unresolved, was economic warfare, not “the therapy of arbitration.” Carey v. Westinghouse Corp., 375 U. S. 261, 272. Thus, the Board’s action in this case was in no way inconsistent with its previous recognition of arbitration as “an instrument of national labor policy for. composing contractual differences.” International Harvester Co., 138 N. L. R. B. 923, 926 (1962), aff’d sub nom. Ramsey v. Labor Board, 327 F. 2d 784 (C. A. 7th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U. S. 1003.
The respondent’s argument rests primarily upon the legislative history of the 1947 amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. It is said that the rejection by Congress of a bill which would have given the Board unfair labor practice jurisdiction over all breaches of collective bargaining agreements shows that the Board is without power to decide any case involving the interpretation of a labor contract. We do not draw that inference from this legislative history.
When Congress determined that the Board should not have general jurisdiction over all alleged violations of collective bargaining agreements and that such matters should be placed within the jurisdiction of the courts, it was acting upon a principle which this Court had already recognized:
“The Railway Labor Act, like the National Labor Relations Act, does not undertake governmental regulation of wages, hours, or working conditions. Instead it seeks to provide a means by which agreement may be reached with respect to them.”
Terminal Railroad Assn. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 318 U. S. 1, 6. To have conferred upon the National Labor Relations Board generalized power to determine the rights of parties under all collective agreements would have been a step toward governmental regulation of the terms of those agreements. We view Congress’ decision not to give the Board that broad power as a refusal to take this step.
But in this case the Board has not construed a labor agreement to determine the extent of • the contractual rights which were given the union by the employer. It has not imposed its own view of what the terms and conditions of the labor agreement should be. It has done no more than merely enforce a statutory right which Congress considered necessary to allow labor and management to get on with the process of reaching fair terms and conditions of employment — “to provide a means by which agreement may be reached.” The Board’s interpretation went only so far as was necessary to determine that the union did not agree to give up these statutory safeguards. Thus, the Board, in necessarily construing a labor agreement to decide this unfair labor practice case, has not exceeded the jurisdiction laid out for it by Congress.
This conclusion is reinforced by previous. judicial recognition that a contractual defense does not divest the Labor Board of jurisdiction. For example, in Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board, 350 U. S. 270, the legality of an employer’s refusal to reinstate strikers was based upon the Board’s construction of a “no strike” clause in the labor agreement, which the employer contended allowed it to refuse to take back workers who had walked out in protest over its unfair labor practice. The strikers applied to the Board for reinstatement and back pay. In giving the requested relief, the Board was forced to construe the scope of the “no strike” clause. This Court, in affirming, stressed that the whole case turned “upon the proper interpretation of the particular contract . . . .” 350 U. S., at 279. Thus, Mastm Plastics stands squarely against the respondent’s theory as to the Board’s lack of power in the present case.
If the Board in a, case like this had no jurisdiction to consider a collective agreement prior to an authoritative construction by the courts, labor organizations would face inordinate delays in obtaining vindication of their statutory rights. Where, as here, the parties have not provided for arbitration, the union would have to institute a court action to determine the applicability of the premium pay provision of the collective bargaining agreement. If it succeeded in court, the union would then have to go back to the Labor Board to begin an unfair labor practice proceeding. It is not unlikely that this would add years to the already lengthy period required to gain relief from the Board. Congress cannot have intended to place such obstacles in the way of the Board’s effective enforcement of statutory duties. For in the labor field, as in few others, time is crucially important in obtaining relief. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. Co., 348 U. S. 511, 526 (dissenting opinion).
The legislative history of the Labor Act, the precedents interpreting it, and the interest of its efficient administration thus all lead to the conclusion that the Board had jurisdiction to deal with the unfair labor practice charge in this case. We hold that the Court of Appeals was in error in deciding to the contrary.
The remaining question, not reached by the Court of Appeals, is whether the Board was wrong in concluding that the contested provision in the collective agreement gave the respondent no unilateral right to institute its premium pay plan. In reaching this conclusion, the Board relied upon its experience with labor relations and the Act’s clear emphasis upon the protection of free collective bargaining. We cannot disapprove of the Board’s approach. For the law of labor agreements cannot be based upon abstract definitions unrelated to the context in which the parties bargained and the basic regulatory scheme underlying that context. See Cox, The Legal Nature of Collective Bargaining Agreements, 57 Mich. L. Rev. 1 (1958): Nor can we say that the Board was wrong in holding that the union had not forgone its statutory right to bargain about the pay plan inaugurated by the respondent. For the disputed contract provision referred to increases for “particular employee[s],” not groups of workers. And there was nothing in it to suggest that the carefully worked out wage differentials for various members of the glue spreader crew could be invalidated by the respondent’s decision to pay all members of the crew the same wage.
The judgment is accordingly reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to enforce the Board’s order.
Reversed and remanded.
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, §§ 8 (a)(5) and (1), 61 Stat. 140-141, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158 (a)(5) and (1).
The NLRB’s order directed respondent to bargain with the union upon the latter’s request and similarly to rescind any payment plan which it had unilaterally instituted.
“Article XVII
“B. It is mutually agreed that the attached classified wage scale shall be effective upon the signing of this Working Agreement with wages closed for the term of that agreement. . . .”
“Article XIX
“WAIVER OF DUTY TO BARGAIN
“The parties acknowledge that during negotiations which resulted in this Agreement, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any subject or matter of collective bargaining, and that the understanding and agreements arrived at by the parties after the exercise of that right and opportunity are set forth in this Agreement. Therefore, the Employer and Union, for the life of this Agreement, each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right and each agree that the other shall not be obligated to bargain collectively with respect to any subject matter not specifically referred to or covered in this Agreement, even though such subjects or matters may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time they negotiated or signed this Agreement.”
Workers in the three job classifications composing the glue spreader crews were to receive the following wages:
Core Layer.:. $2.29/hour
Core Feeder. $2.24/hour
Sheet Turner. $2.15/hour
The trial examiner found that “quite some time prior” to the execution of the contract, the respondent’s general manager had proposed an “incentive bonus system” within the department where the glue spreader crews worked. The union’s representative, however, declared that the union would not agree to such a plan. Sometime later in the negotiations, the respondent again made reference to the fact that it was “giving thought” to incentive pay, but the trial examiner was unable to conclude that this reference was related to the premium pay provision that eventually appeared in the contract.
For illustrations of the limited discretion which the Labor Act allows employers concerning the wages of employees represented by certified unions, see Labor Board v. Katz, 369 U. S. 736; Labor Board v. Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc., 337 U. S. 217.
§ 301, Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185.
The Court of Appeals in this case relied upon its previous decision in Square D Co. v. Labor Board, 332 F. 2d 360. But Square D involved a collective agreement that provided for arbitration. See Note, Use of an Arbitration Clause, 41 Ind. L. J. 455, 469 (1966).
See also Cloverleaf Div. of Adams Dairy Co., 147 N. L. R. B. 1410, 1416 (1964), where the Board made the following observation to justify, in part, its decision to construe a labor contract in the course of an unfair labor practice proceeding:
“. . .it affirmatively appears that neither party has even so much as sought to invoke arbitration. Nor is this a case involving an alleged unfair labor practice, the existence of which turns primarily on an interpretation of specific contractual provisions, unquestionably encompassed by the contract’s arbitration provisions, and coming to us in a context that makes it reasonably probable that arbitration settlement of the contract dispute would also put at rest the unfair labor practice controversy in a manner sufficient to effectuate the policies of the Act.” (Footnotes omitted.)
Cf. Spielberg Mfg. Co., 112 N. L. R. B. 1080 (1955).
An earlier version of the Senate bill contained the following provision:
“Sec. 8. (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer- — •
“(6) to violate the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement or the terms of an agreement to submit a labor dispute to arbitration . . . .” Section 8 (b) (5) of the same bill imposed a similar limitation upon labor organizations. S. 1126, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 Legis. History of LMRA 109-111, 114. Neither of these provisions was in the bill enacted into law.
§ 301, Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185.
Congress was also concerned with the possibility of conflicting decisions that would result from placing all questions of contract interpretation before both the Board and the courts. See 93 Cong. Rec. 4033, 2 Legis. History of LMRA 1043 (remarks of Senator Murray); 93 Cong. Rec. 6443, 2 Legis. History of LMRA 1539. But such a possibility does not arise in a case like the present one, since courts have no jurisdiction to enforce the union’s statutory rights under §§ 8 (a) (5) and (1).
In Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board, 350 U. S. 270, the employer was charged with a violation of §§ 8 (a)(1), (2) and (3), and not with a failure to bargain. But nothing is suggested that would justify distinguishing the case on that ground.
The precise nature of the union’s case in court is not readily apparent. If damages for breach of contract were sought, the union would have difficulty in establishing the amount of injury caused by respondent’s action. For the real injury in this case is to the union’s status as bargaining representative, and it would be difficult to translate such damage into dollars and cents. If an injunction were sought to vindicate the union’s contractual rights, the problem of the applicability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act would .have to be faced. A federal injunction issuing from a court with § 301 jurisdiction might be barred by § 7 of that Act. See International Union of Electrical Workers v. General Electric Co., 341 F. 2d 571 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Local No. 861 v. Stone & Webster Corp., 163 F. Supp. 894 (D. C. W. D. La.). Cf. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195; Publishers’ Assn. v. New York Mailers’ Union, 317 F. 2d 624 (C. A. 2d Cir.), cert. granted, 375 U. S. 901, judgment vacated in part for dismissal as moot, 376 U. S. 775. Whether a state injunction might be similarly barred in suits governed by federal labor law, Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, is an open question. See Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502, 514, n. 8. Thus, it may be that the only remedy in court which would be available to the union would be a suit for a declaratory judgment, assuming such a suit in these circumstances would be maintainable under state or federal law.
The instant charge, for example, was filed July 31, 1963.
The respondent points to two other labor contracts in its area to support its version of the provision here in question, but those agreements, even if relevant, fall short of substantiating its position. In one, a premium was paid to members of two-man crews who accomplished prescribed production goals. But the respondent does not show that this premium leveled a wage differential set up by the collective bargaining agreement. In the other, a lumber company’s head sawyer received an hourly bonus if the plant exceeded a certain monthly output.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion.
This case involves a 42 U. S. C. § 1983 suit arising out of petitioner Ben Chavez’s allegedly coercive interrogation of respondent Oliverio Martinez. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Chavez was not entitled to a defense of qualified immunity because he violated Martinez’s clearly established constitutional rights. We conclude that Chavez did not deprive Martinez of a constitutional right.
I
On November 28,1997, police officers Maria Peña and Andrew Salinas were near a vacant lot in a residential area of Oxnard, California, investigating suspected narcotics activity. While Peña and Salinas were questioning an individual, they heard a bicycle approaching on a darkened path that crossed the lot. They ordered the rider, respondent Martinez, to dismount, spread his legs, and place his hands behind his head. Martinez complied. Salinas then conducted a patdown frisk and discovered a knife in Martinez’s waistband. An altercation ensued.
There is some dispute about what occurred during the altercation. The officers claim that Martinez drew Salinas’ gun from its holster and pointed it at them; Martinez denies this. Both sides agree, however, that Salinas yelled, “ ‘He’s got my gun!’ ” App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a. Peña then drew her gun and shot Martinez several times, causing severe injuries that left Martinez permanently blinded and paralyzed from the waist down. The officers then placed Martinez under arrest.
Petitioner Chavez, a patrol supervisor, arrived on the scene minutes later with paramedics. Chavez accompanied Martinez to the hospital and then questioned Martinez there while he was receiving treatment from medical personnel. The interview lasted a total of about 10 minutes, over a 45-minute period, with Chavez leaving the emergency room for periods of time to permit medical personnel to attend to Martinez.
At first, most of Martinez’s answers consisted of “I don’t know,” “I am dying,” and “I am choking.” App. 14, 17, 18. Later in the interview, Martinez admitted that he took the gun from the officer’s holster and pointed it at the police. Id., at 16. He also admitted that he used heroin regularly. Id., at 18. At one point, Martinez said “I am not telling you anything until they treat me,” yet Chavez continued the interview. Id., at 14. At no point during the interview was Martinez given warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a.
Martinez was never charged with a crime, and his answers were never used against him in any criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, Martinez filed suit under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, maintaining that Chavez’s actions violated his Fifth Amendment right not to be “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” as well as his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to be free from coercive questioning. The District Court granted summary judgment to Martinez as to Chavez’s qualified immunity defense on both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. Chavez took an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity. Martinez v. Oxnard, 270 F. 3d 852 (2001). Applying Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194 (2001), the Ninth Circuit first concluded that Chavez’s actions, as alleged by Martinez, deprived Martinez of his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Ninth Circuit did not attempt to explain how Martinez had been “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Instead, the Ninth Circuit reiterated the holding of an earlier Ninth Circuit case, Cooper v. Dupnik, 963 F. 2d 1220, 1229 (1992) (en banc), that “the Fifth Amendment’s purpose is to prevent coercive interrogation practices that are destructive of human dignity,” 270 F. 3d, at 857 (internal quotation marks omitted), and found that Chavez’s “coercive questioning” of Martinez violated his Fifth Amendment rights, “[e]ven though Martinez’s statements were not used against him in a criminal proceeding,” ibid. As to Martinez’s due process claim, the Ninth Circuit held that “a police officer violates the Fourteenth Amendment when he obtains a confession by coercive conduct, regardless of whether the confession is subsequently used at trial.” Ibid.
The Ninth Circuit then concluded that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights asserted by Martinez were clearly established by federal law, explaining that a reasonable officer “would have known that persistent interrogation of the suspect despite repeated requests to stop violated the suspect’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from coercive interrogation.” Id., at 858.
We granted certiorari. 535 U. S. 1111 (2002).
!={
In deciding whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we must first determine whether the officer’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional right. See Katz, 533 U. S., at 201. If not, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity, and we need not consider whether the asserted right was “clearly established.” Ibid. We conclude that Martinez’s allegations fail to state a violation of his constitutional rights.
A
1
The Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964), requires that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 5 (emphases added). We fail to see how, based on the text of the Fifth Amendment, Martinez can allege a violation of this right, since Martinez was never prosecuted for a crime, let alone compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case.
Although Martinez contends that the meaning of “criminal case” should encompass the entire criminal investigatory process, including police interrogations, Brief for Respondent 23, we disagree. In our view, a “criminal case” at the very least requires the initiation of legal proceedings. See Blyew v. United States, 13 Wall. 581, 595 (1872) (“The words ‘case’ and ‘cause’ are constantly used as synonyms in statutes and judicial decisions, each meaning a proceeding in court, a suit, or action” (emphasis added)); Black’s Law Dictionary 215 (6th ed. 1990) (defining “[c]ase” as “[a] general term for an action, cause, suit, or controversy at law . . .; a question contested before a court of justice” (emphasis added)). We need not decide today the precise moment when a “criminal case” commences; it is enough to say that police questioning does not constitute a “case” any more than a private investigator’s precomplaint activities constitute a “civil case.” Statements compelled by police interrogations of course may not be used against a defendant at trial, see Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 286 (1986), but it is not until their use in a criminal case that a violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause occurs, see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 264 (1990) (“The privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment is a fundamental trial right of criminal defendants. Although conduct by law enforcement officials prior to trial may ultimately impair that right, a constitutional violation occurs only at trial” (emphases added; citations omitted)); Withrow v. Williams, 507 U. S. 680, 692 (1993) (describing the Fifth Amendment as a “ ‘trial right’ ”); id., at 705 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (describing “true Fifth Amendment claims” as “the extraction and use of compelled testimony” (emphasis altered)).
Here, Martinez was never made to be a “witness” against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause because his statements were never admitted as testimony against him in a criminal case. Nor was he ever placed under oath and exposed to “‘the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt.’ ” Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 445 (1974) (quoting Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of N. Y. Harbor, 378 U. S. 52, 55 (1964)). The text of the Self-Incrimination Clause simply cannot support the Ninth Circuit’s view that the mere use of compulsive questioning, without more, violates the Constitution.
2
Nor can the Ninth Circuit’s approach be reconciled with our case law. It is well established that the government may compel witnesses to testify at trial or before a grand jury, on pain of contempt, so long as the witness is not the target of the criminal case in which he testifies. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420, 427 (1984); Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 443 (1972). Even for persons who have a legitimate fear that their statements may subject them to criminal prosecution, we have long permitted the compulsion of incriminating testimony so long as those statements (or evidence derived from those statements) cannot be used against the speaker in any criminal case. See Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 602-604 (1896); Kastigar, supra, at 458; United States v. Balsys, 524 U. S. 666, 671-672 (1998). We have also recognized that governments may penalize public employees and government contractors (with the loss of their jobs or government contracts) to induce them to respond to inquiries, so long as the answers elicited (and their fruits) are immunized from use in any criminal case against the speaker. See Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U. S. 70, 84-85 (1973) (“[T]he State may insist that [contractors] . . . either respond to relevant inquiries about the performance of their contracts or suffer cancellation”); Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U. S. 801, 806 (1977) (“Public employees may constitutionally be discharged for refusing to answer potentially incriminating questions concerning their official duties if they have not been required to surrender their constitutional immunity” against later use of statements in criminal proceedings). By contrast, no “penalty” may ever be imposed on someone who exercises his core Fifth Amendment right not to be a “witness” against himself in a “criminal ease.” See Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 614 (1965) (the trial court’s and the prosecutor’s comments on the defendant’s failure to testify violates the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment). Our holdings in these cases demonstrate that, contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s view, mere coercion does not violate the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause absent use of the compelled statements in a criminal case against the witness.
We fail to see how Martinez was any more “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” than an immunized witness forced to testify on pain of contempt. One difference, perhaps, is that the immunized witness knows that his statements will not, and may not, be used against him, whereas Martinez likely did not. But this does not make the statements of the immunized witness any less “compelled” and lends no support to the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that coercive police interrogations, absent the use of the involuntary statements in a criminal case, violate the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause. Moreover, our cases provide that those subjected to coercive police interrogations have an automatic protection from the use of their involuntary statements (or evidence derived from their statements) in any subsequent criminal trial. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, 307-308 (1985); United States v. Blue, 384 U. S. 251, 255 (1966); Leyra v. Denno, 347 U. S. 556, 558 (1954); Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143, 155 (1944). See also Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U. S. 248, 278 (1983) (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment); Williams v. United States, 401 U. S. 646, 662 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring in result). This protection is, in fact, coextensive with the use ánd derivative use immunity mandated by Kastigar when the government compels testimony from a reluctant witness. See 406 U. S., at 453. Accordingly, the fact that Martinez did not know his statements could not be used against him does not change our view that no violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause occurred here.
3
Although our cases have permitted the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination privilege to be asserted in noncriminal cases, see id., at 444-445 (recognizing that the “Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination . . . can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory . . .”); Lefkowitz v. Turley, supra, at 77 (stating that the Fifth Amendment privilege allows one “not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings”), that does not alter our conclusion that a violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination occurs only if one has been compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case.
In the Fifth Amendment context, we have created prophylactic rules designed to safeguard the core constitutional right protected by the Self-Incrimination Clause. See, e. g., Tucker, 417 U. S., at 444 (describing the “procedural safeguards” required by Miranda as “not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but . . . measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination was protected” to “provide practical reinforcement for the right”); Elstad, supra, at 306 (stating that “[t]he Miranda exclusionary rule . . . serves the Fifth Amendment and sweeps more broadly than the Fifth Amendment itself”). Among these rules is an evidentiary privilege that protects witnesses from being forced to give incriminating testimony, even in noncriminal cases, unless that testimony has been immunized from use and derivative use in a future criminal proceeding before it is compelled. See Kastigar, supra, at 453; Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S. 449, 461-462 (1975) (noting that the Fifth Amendment privilege may be asserted if one is “compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action” (emphasis added)).
By allowing a witness to insist on an immunity agreement before being compelled to give incriminating testimony in a noncriminal case, the privilege preserves the core Fifth Amendment right from invasion by the use of that compelled testimony in a subsequent criminal case. See Tucker, supra, at 440-441 (“Testimony obtained in civil suits, or before administrative or legislative committees, could [absent a grant of immunity] prove so incriminating that a person compelled to give such testimony might readily be convicted on the basis of those disclosures in a subsequent criminal proceeding”). Because the failure to assert the privilege will often forfeit the right to exclude the evidence in a subsequent “criminal case,” see Murphy, 465 U. S., at 440; Garner v. United States, 424 U. S. 648, 650 (1976) (failure to claim privilege against self-incrimination before disclosing incriminating information on tax returns forfeited the right to exclude that information in a criminal prosecution); United States v. Kordel, 397 U. S. 1, 7 (1970) (criminal defendant forfeited his right to assert Fifth Amendment privilege with regard to answers he gave to interrogatories in a prior civil proceeding), it is necessary to allow assertion of the privilege prior to the commencement of a “criminal case” to safeguard the core Fifth Amendment trial right. If the privilege could not be asserted in such situations, testimony given in those judicial proceedings would be deemed “voluntary,” see Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367, 371 (1951); United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424, 427 (1943); hence, insistence on a prior grant of immunity is essential to memorialize the fact that the testimony had indeed been compelled and therefore protected from use against the speaker in any “criminal case.”
Rules designed to safeguard a constitutional right, however, do not extend the scope of the constitutional right itself, just as violations of judicially crafted prophylactic rules do not violate the constitutional rights of any person. As we explained, we have allowed the Fifth Amendment privilege to be asserted by witnesses in noncriminal cases in order to safeguard the core constitutional right defined by the Self-Incrimination Clause — the right not to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself. We have likewise established the Miranda exclusionary rule as a prophylactic measure to prevent violations of the right protected by the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause — the admission into evidence in a criminal case of confessions obtained through coercive custodial questioning. See Warren v. Lincoln, 864 F. 2d 1436, 1442 (CA8 1989) (alleged Miranda violation not actionable under § 1983); Giuffre v. Bissell, 31 F. 3d 1241, 1256 (CA3 1994) (same); Bennett v. Passic, 545 F. 2d 1260, 1263 (CA10 1976) (same); see also New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 686 (1984) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“All the Fifth Amendment forbids is the introduction of coerced statements at trial”). Accordingly, Chavez’s failure to read Miranda warnings to Martinez did not violate Martinez’s constitutional rights and cannot be grounds for a § 1983 action. See Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U. S. 523, 528 (1987) (Miranda’s warning requirement is “not itself required by the Fifth Amendment] . . . but is instead justified only by reference to its prophylactic purpose”); Tucker, supra, at 444 (Miranda’s safeguards “were not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but were instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination was protected”). And the absence of a “criminal case” in which Martinez was compelled to be a “witness” against himself defeats his core Fifth Amendment claim. The Ninth Circuit’s view that mere compulsion violates the Self-Incrimination Clause, see 270 F. 3d, at 857; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts, 195 F. 3d 1039, 1045-1046 (1999); Cooper, 963 F. 2d, at 1243-1244, finds no support in the text of the Fifth Amendment and is irreconcilable with our case law. Because we find that Chavez’s alleged conduct did not violate the Self-Incrimination Clause, we reverse the Ninth Circuit’s denial of qualified immunity as to Martinez’s Fifth Amendment claim.
Our views on the proper scope of the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause do not mean that police torture or other abuse that results in a confession is constitutionally permissible so long as the statements are not used at trial; it simply means that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, rather than the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause, would govern the inquiry in those cases and provide relief in appropriate circumstances.
B
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Convictions based on evidence obtained by methods that are “so brutal and so offensive to human dignity” that they “shoe[k] the conscience” violate the Due Process Clause. Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 172, 174 (1952) (overturning conviction based on evidence obtained by involuntary stomach pumping). See also Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U. S. 432, 435 (1957) (reiterating that evidence obtained through conduct that “ ‘shock[s] the conscience’ ” may not be used to support a criminal conviction). Although Rochin did not establish a civil remedy for abusive police behavior, we recognized in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 846 (1998), that deprivations of liberty caused by “the most egregious official conduct,” id., at 846, 847-848, n. 8, may violate the Due Process Clause. While we rejected, in Lewis, a §1983 plaintiff’s contention that a police officer’s deliberate indifference during a high-speed chase that caused the death of a motorcyclist violated due process, id., at 854, we left open the possibility that unauthorized police behavior in other contexts might “shock the conscience” and give rise to § 1983 liability. Id., at 850.
We are satisfied that Chavez’s questioning did not violate Martinez’s due process rights. Even assuming, arguendo, that the persistent questioning of Martinez somehow deprived him of a liberty interest, we cannot agree with Martinez’s characterization of Chavez’s behavior as “egregious” or “conscience shocking.” As we noted in Lewis, the official conduct “most likely to rise to the conscience-shocking level” is the “conduct intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest.” Id., at 849. Here, there is no evidence that Chavez acted with a purpose to harm Martinez by intentionally interfering with his medical treatment. Medical personnel were able to treat Martinez throughout the interview, App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a, 18a, and Chavez ceased his questioning to allow tests and other procedures to be performed. Id., at 4a. Nor is there evidence that Chavez’s conduct exacerbated Martinez’s injuries or prolonged his stay in the hospital. Moreover, the need to investigate whether there had been police misconduct constituted a justifiable government interest given the risk that key evidence would have been lost if Martinez had died without the authorities ever hearing his side of the story.
The Court has held that the Due Process Clause also protects certain “fundamental liberty interest^]” from deprivation by the government, regardless of the procedures provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997). Only fundamental rights and liberties which are “ ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ ” and “ ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ ” qualify for such protection. Ibid. Many times, however, we have expressed our reluctance to expand the doctrine of substantive due process, see Lewis, supra, at 842; Glucksberg, supra, at 720; Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 271 (1994); Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 302 (1993); in large part “because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended,” Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992). See also Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U. S. 214, 225-226 (1985).
Glucksberg requires a “‘careful description’” of the asserted fundamental liberty interest for the purposes of substantive due process analysis; vague generalities, such as “the right not to be talked to,” will not suffice. 521 U. S., at 721. We therefore must take into account the fact that Martinez was hospitalized and in severe pain during the interview, but also that Martinez was a critical nonpolice witness to an altercation resulting in a shooting by a police officer, and that the situation was urgent given the perceived risk, that Martinez might die and crucial evidence might be lost. In these circumstances, we can find no basis in our prior jurisprudence, see, e. g., Miranda, 384 U. S., at 477-478 (“It is an act of responsible citizenship for individuals to give whatever information they may have to aid in law enforcement”), or in our Nation's history and traditions to suppose that freedom from unwanted police questioning is a right so fundamental that it cannot be abridged absent a “compelling state interest.” Flores, supra, at 302. We have never required such a justification for a police interrogation, and we decline to do so here. The lack of any “guideposts for responsible decisionmaking” in this area, and our oft-stated reluctance to expand the doctrine of substantive due process, further counsel against recognizing a new “fundamental liberty interest” in this case.
We conclude that Martinez has failed to allege a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it is therefore unnecessary to inquire whether the right asserted by Martinez was clearly established.
Ill
Because Chavez did not violate Martinez’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, he was entitled to qualified immunity. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice joins this opinion in its entirety. Justice O’Con-nor joins Parts I and II-A of this opinion. Justice Scaua joins Parts I and II of this opinion.
The parties disagree over what triggered the altercation. The officers maintain that Martinez ran away from them and that they tackled him while in pursuit; Martinez asserts that he never attempted to flee and Salinas tackled him without warning.
The government may not, however, penalize public employees and government contractors to induce them to waive their immunity from the use of their compelled statements in subsequent criminal proceedings. See Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of City of New York, 392 U. S. 280 (1968); Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U. S. 70 (1973), and this is true even though immunity is not itself a right secured by the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause, but rather a prophylactic rule we have constructed to protect the Fifth Amendment’s right from invasion. See Part II-A-3, infra. Once an immunity waiver is signed, the signatory is unable to assert a Fifth Amendment objection to the subsequent use of his statements in a criminal case, even if his statements were in fact compelled. A waiver of immunity is therefore a prospective waiver of the core self-incrimination right in any subsequent criminal proceeding, and States cannot condition public employment on the waiver of constitutional rights, Lefkowitz, supra, at 85.
That the privilege is a prophylactic one does not alter our penalty cases jurisprudence, which allows such privilege to be asserted prior to, and outside of, criminal proceedings.
It is Justice Kennedy’s indifference to the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause, as well as a conspicuous absence of a single citation to the actual text of the Fifth Amendment, that permits him to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation.
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385 (1978), on which Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsburg rely in support of their reading of the Fifth Amendment, was a case addressing the admissibility of a coerced confession under the Due Process Clause. Mincey did not even mention the Fifth Amendment or the Self-Incrimination Clause, and refutes Justice Kennedy’s and Justice Ginsburg’s assertions that their interpretation of that Clause would have been known to any reasonable officer at the time Chavez conducted his interrogation.
We also do not see how, in light of Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989), Justice Kennedy can insist that “the Self-Incrimination Clause is applicable at the time and place police use compulsion to extract a statement from a suspect” while at the same time maintaining that the use of “torture or its equivalent in an attempt to induce a statement” violates the Due Process Clause. Post, at 795, 796 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). Graham foreclosed the use of substantive due process analysis in claims involving the use of excessive force in effecting an arrest and held that' such claims are governed solely by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions against “unreasonable” seizures, because the Fourth Amendment provided the explicit source of constitutional protection against such conduct. 490 U. S., at 394-395. If, as Justice Kennedy believes, the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause governs coercive police interrogation even absent use of compelled statements in a criminal case, then Graham suggests that the Due Process Clause would not.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
This case turns on the Fourth Amendment rule that a confession “obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest” may not be used against a criminal defendant. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 603 (1975). After a 14-year-old girl disappeared in January 1999, the Harris County Sheriff’s Department learned she had had a sexual relationship with her 19-year-old half brother, who had been in the company of petitioner Robert Kaupp, then 17 years old, on the day of the girl’s disappearance. On January 26th, deputy sheriffs questioned the brother and Kaupp at headquarters; Kaupp was cooperative and was permitted to leave, but the brother failed a polygraph examination (his third such failure). Eventually he confessed that he had fatally stabbed his half sister and placed her body in a drainage ditch. He implicated Kaupp in the crime.
Detectives immediately tried but failed to obtain a warrant to question Kaupp. Detective Gregory Pinkins nevertheless decided (in his words) to “get [Kaupp] in and confront him with what [the brother] had said.” App. A to Pet. for Cert. 2. In the company of two other plainclothes detectives and three uniformed officers, Pinkins went to Kaupp’s house at approximately 3 a.m. on January 27th. After Kaupp’s father let them in, Pinkins, with at least two other officers, went to Kaupp’s bedroom, awakened him with a flashlight, identified himself, and said, “‘we need to go and talk.’” Ibid. Kaupp said “‘Okay.’” Ibid. The two officers then handcuffed Kaupp and led him, shoeless and dressed only in boxer shorts and a T-shirt, out of his house and into a patrol car. The State points to nothing in the record indicating Kaupp was told that he was free to decline to go with the officers.
They stopped for 5 or 10 minutes where the victim’s body had just been found, in anticipation of confronting Kaupp with the brother’s confession, and then went on to the sheriff’s headquarters. There, they took Kaupp to an interview room, removed his handcuffs, and advised him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Kaupp first denied any involvement in the victim’s disappearance, but 10 or 15 minutes into the interrogation, told of the brother’s confession, he admitted having some part in the crime. He did not, however, acknowledge causing the fatal wound or confess to murder, for which he was later indicted.
After moving unsuccessfully to suppress his confession as the fruit of an illegal arrest, Kaupp was convicted and sentenced to 55 years’ imprisonment. The State Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction by unpublished opinion, concluding that no arrest had occurred until after the confession. The state court said that Kaupp consented to go with the officers when he answered “'Okay’” to Pinkins’s statement that “‘we need to go and talk.’” App. A to Pet. for Cert. 2, 6. The court saw no contrary significance in the subsequent handcuffing and removal to the patrol car, given the practice of the sheriff’s department in “routinely” using handcuffs for safety purposes when transporting individuals, as officers had done with Kaupp only the day before. Id., at 6. The court observed that “a reasonable person in [Kaupp’s] position would not believe that being put in handcuffs was a significant restriction on his freedom of movement.” Ibid. Finally, the state court noted that Kaupp “did not resist the use of handcuffs or act in a manner consistent with anything other than full cooperation.” Id., at 6-7. Kaupp appealed, but the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied discretionary review. App. B to Pet. for Cert. We grant the motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis, grant the petition for certiorari, and vacate the judgment below.
A seizure of the person within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments occurs when, “taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would ‘have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.’” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, 437 (1991) (quoting Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U. S. 567, 569 (1988)). This test is derived from Justice Stewart’s opinion in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544 (1980), see California v. Hodari D., 499 U. S. 621, 627-628 (1991), which gave several “[e]xamples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave,” including “the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.” Mendenhall, supra, at 554.
Although certain seizures may be justified on something less than probable cause, see, e. g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), we have never “sustained against Fourth Amendment challenge the involuntary removal of a suspect from his home to a police station and his detention there for investigative purposes ... absent probable cause or judicial authorization.” Hayes v. Florida, 470 U. S. 811, 815 (1985); cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 589-590 (1980); compare Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 499 (1983) (plurality opinion) (“[The police] may [not] seek to verify [mere] suspicions by means that approach the conditions of arrest”), with United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, 7 (1989) (“[T]he police can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be afoot,’ even if the officer lacks probable cause” (quoting Terry, supra, at 30)). Such involuntary transport to a police station for questioning is “sufficiently like arres[t] to invoke the traditional rule that arrests may constitutionally be made only on probable cause.” Hayes, supra, at 816.
The State does not claim to have had probable cause here, and a straightforward application of the test just mentioned shows beyond cavil that Kaupp was arrested within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, there being evidence of every one of the probative circumstances mentioned by Justice Stewart in Mendenhall. A 17-year-old boy was awakened in his bedroom at three in the morning by at least three police officers, one of whom stated “‘we need to go and talk.’” He was taken out in handcuffs, without shoes, dressed only in his underwear in January, placed in a patrol car, driven to the scene of a crime and then to the sheriff’s offices, where he was taken into an interrogation room and questioned. This evidence points to arrest even more starkly than the facts in Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 212 (1979), where the petitioner “was taken from a neighbor’s home to a police car, transported to a police station, and placed in an interrogation room.” There we held it clear that the detention was “in important respects indistinguishable from a traditional arrest” and therefore required probable cause or judicial authorization to be legal. Ibid. The same is, if anything, even clearer here.
Contrary reasons mentioned by the state courts are no answer to the facts. Kaupp’s “ ‘Okay’ ” in response to Pin-kins’s statement is no showing of consent under the circumstances. Pinkins offered Kaupp no choice, and a group of police officers rousing an adolescent out of bed in the middle of the night with the words “ ‘we need to go and talk’ ” presents no option but “to go.” There is no reason to think Kaupp’s answer was anything more than “a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority.” Royer, supra, at 497 (plurality opinion); see also Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U. S. 218, 226, 233-234 (1973). If reasonable doubt were possible on this point, the ensuing events would resolve it: removal from one’s house in handcuffs on a January night with nothing on but underwear for a trip to a crime scene on the way to an interview room at law enforcement headquarters. Even “an initially consensual encounter . . . can be transformed into a seizure or detention within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210, 215 (1984); see Hayes, supra, at 815-816 (“[A]t some point in the investigative process, police procedures can qualitatively and quantitatively be so intrusive with respect to a suspect’s freedom of movement and privacy interests as to trigger the full protection of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments”). It cannot seriously be suggested that when the detectives began to question Kaupp, a reasonable person in his situation would have thought he was sitting in the interview room as a matter of choice, free to change his mind and go home to bed.
Nor is it significant, as the state court thought, that the sheriff’s department “routinely” transported individuals, including Kaupp on one prior occasion, while handcuffed for safety of the officers, or that Kaupp “did not resist the use of handcuffs or act in a manner consistent with anything other than full cooperation.” App. A to Pet. for Cert. 6. The test is an objective one, see, e. g., Chesternut, 486 U. S., at 574, and stressing the officers’ motivation of self-protection does not speak to how their actions would reasonably be understood. As for the lack of resistance, failure to struggle with a cohort of deputy sheriffs is not a waiver of Fourth Amendment protection, which does not require the perversity of resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer.
Since Kaupp was arrested before he was questioned, and because the State does not even claim that the sheriff’s department had probable cause to detain him at that point, well-established precedent requires suppression of the confession unless that confession was “an act of free will [sufficient] to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 486 (1963). Demonstrating such purgation is, of course, a function of circumstantial evidence, with the burden of persuasion on the State. See Brown, 422 U. S., at 604. Relevant considerations include observance of Miranda, “[t]he temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” 422 U. S., at 603-604 (footnotes and citation omitted).
The record before us shows that only one of these considerations, the giving of Miranda warnings, supports the State, and we held in Brown that “Miranda warnings, alone and -per se, cannot always ... break, for Fourth Amendment purposes, the causal connection between the illegality and the confession.” 422 U. S., at 603 (emphasis in original); see also Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U. S. 687, 699 (1982) (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (noting that, although Miranda warnings are an important factor, “they are, standing alone, insufficient”). All other factors point the opposite way. There is no indication from the record that any substantial time passed between Kaupp’s removal from his home in handcuffs and his confession after only 10 or 15 minutes of interrogation. In the interim, he remained in his partially clothed state in the physical custody of a number of officers, some of whom, at least, were conscious that they lacked probable cause to arrest. See Brown, supra, at 604-605. In fact, the State has not even alleged “any meaningful intervening event” between the illegal arrest and Kaupp’s confession. Taylor, supra, at 691. Unless, on remand, the State can point to testimony undisclosed on the record before us, and weighty enough to carry the State’s burden despite the clear force of the evidence shown here, the confession must be suppressed.
The judgment of the State Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The detectives applied to the district attorney’s office for a “pocket warrant,” which they described as authority to take Kaupp into custody for questioning. App. 3 to App. D to Pet. for Cert. 6 (trial transcript). The detectives did not seek a conventional arrest warrant, as they did not believe they had probable cause for Kaupp’s arrest. See ibid. As the trial court later explained, the detectives had no evidence or motive to corroborate the brother’s allegations of Kaupp’s involvement, see App. C to Pet. for Cert. 2; the brother had previously failed three polygraph examinations, while, only two days earlier, Kaupp had voluntarily taken and passed one, in which he denied his involvement, see id., at 1-2.
We have, however, left open the possibility that, “under circumscribed procedures,” a court might validly authorize a seizure on less than probable cause when the object is fingerprinting. Hayes, 470 U. S., at 817.
On the record before us, it is possible to debate whether the law enforcement officers were armed. The State Court of Appeals not only described them as armed but said specifically that PinWns’s weapon was visible, though not drawn, when he confronted Kaupp in the bedroom. See App. A to Pet. for Cert. 6. But at least one officer testified before the trial court that they went to Kaupp’s house unarmed. See App. 3 to App. D to Pet. for Cert. 8 (trial transcript).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Franchise agreements between manufacturers and retailers frequently include provisions barring the retailers from selling franchised products from locations other than those specified in the agreements. This case presents important questions concerning the appropriate antitrust analysis of these restrictions under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1, and the Court’s decision in United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U. S. 365 (1967).
I
Respondent GTE Sylvania Inc. (Sylvania) manufactures and sells television sets through its Home Entertainment Products Division. Prior to 1962, like most other television manufacturers, Sylvania sold its televisions to independent or company-owned distributors who in turn resold to a large and diverse group of retailers. Prompted by a decline in its market share to a relatively insignificant 1% to 2% of national television sales, Sylvania conducted an intensive reassessment of its marketing strategy, and in 1962 adopted the franchise plan challenged here. Sylvania phased out its wholesale distributors and began to sell its televisions directly to a smaller and more select group of franchised retailers. An acknowledged purpose of the change was to decrease the number of competing Sylvania retailers in the hope of attracting the more aggressive and competent retailers thought necessary to the improvement of the company's market position. To this end, Sylvania limited the number of franchises granted for any given area and required each franchisee to sell his Syl-vania products only from the location or locations at which he was franchised. A franchise did not constitute an exclusive territory, and Sylvania retained sole discretion to increase the number of retailers in an area in light of the success or failure of existing retailers in developing their market. The revised marketing strategy appears to have been successful during the period at issue here, for by 1965 Sylvania’s share of national television sales had increased to approximately 5%, and the company ranked as the Nation’s eighth largest manufacturer of color television sets.
This suit is the result of the rupture of a franchiser-franchisee relationship that had previously prospered under the revised Sylvania plan. Dissatisfied with its sales in the city of San Francisco, Sylvania decided in the spring of 1965 to franchise Young Brothers, an established San Francisco retailer of televisions, as an additional San Francisco retailer. The proposed location of the new franchise was approximately a mile from a retail outlet operated by petitioner Continental T. V., Inc. (Continental), one of the most successful Sylvania franchisees. Continental protested that the location of the new franchise violated Sylvania’s marketing policy, but Syl-vania persisted in its plans. Continental then canceled a large Sylvania order and placed a large order with Phillips, one of Sylvania’s competitors.
During this same period, Continental expressed a desire to open a store in Sacramento, Cal., a desire Sylvania attributed at least in part to Continental’s displeasure over the Young Brothers decision. Sylvania believed that the Sacramento market was adequately served by the existing Sylvania retailers and denied the request. In the face of this denial, Continental advised Sylvania in early September 1965, that it was in the process of moving Sylvania merchandise from its San Jose, Cal., warehouse to a new retail location that it had leased in Sacramento. Two weeks later, allegedly for unrelated reasons, Sylvania’s credit department reduced Continental’s credit line from $300,000 to $50,000. In response to the reduction in credit and the generally deteriorating relations with Sylvania, Continental withheld all payments owed to John P. Maguire & Co., Inc. (Maguire), the finance company that handled the credit arrangements between Sylvania and its retailers. Shortly thereafter, Sylvania terminated Continental’s franchises, and Maguire filed this diversity action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking recovery of money owed and of secured merchandise held by Continental.
The antitrust issues before us originated in cross-claims brought by Continental against Sylvania and Maguire. Most important for our purposes was the claim that Sylvania had violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by entering into and enforcing franchise agreements that prohibited the sale of Sylvania products other than from specified locations. At the close of evidence in the jury trial of Continental’s claims, Sylvania requested the District Court to instruct the jury that its location restriction was illegal only if it unreasonably restrained or suppressed competition. App. 5-6, 9-15. Relying on this Court’s decision in United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., supra, the District Court rejected the proffered instruction in favor of the following one:
“Therefore, if you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Sylvania entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy with one or more of its dealers pursuant to which Sylvania exercised dominion or control over the
products sold to the dealer, after having parted with title and risk to the products, you must find any effort thereafter to restrict outlets or store locations from which its dealers resold the merchandise which they had purchased from Sylvania to be a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, regardless of the reasonableness of the location restrictions.” App. 492.
In answers to special interrogatories, the jury found that Sylvania had engaged “in a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the antitrust laws with respect to location restrictions alone,” and assessed Continental’s damages at $591,505, which was trebled pursuant to 15 U. S. C. § 15 to produce an award of $1,774,515. App. 498, 501.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed by a divided vote. 537 F. 2d 980 (1976). The court acknowledged that there is language in Schwinn that could be read to support the District Court’s instruction but concluded that Schwinn was distinguishable on several grounds. Contrasting the nature of the restrictions, their competitive impact, and the market shares of the franchisers in the two cases, the court concluded that Sylvania’s location restriction had less potential for competitive harm than the restrictions invalidated in Schwinn and thus should be judged under the “rule of reason” rather than the per se rule stated in Schwinn. The court found support for its position in the policies of the Sherman Act and in the decisions of other federal courts involving nonprice vertical restrictions.
We granted Continental's petition for certiorari to resolve this important question of antitrust law. 429 U. S. 893 (1976).
II
A
We turn first to Continental’s contention that Sylvania’s restriction on retail locations is a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act as interpreted in Schwinn. The restrictions at issue in Schwinn were part of a three-tier distribution system comprising, in addition to Arnold, Schwinn & Co. (Schwinn), 22 intermediate distributors and a network of franchised retailers. Each distributor had a defined geographic area in which it had the exclusive right to supply franchised retailers. Sales to the public were made only through franchised retailers, who were authorized to sell Schwinn bicycles only from specified locations. In support of this limitation, Schwinn prohibited both distributors and retailers from selling Schwinn bicycles to nonfranchised retailers. At the retail level, therefore, Schwinn was able to control the number of retailers of its bicycles in any given area according to its view of the needs of that market.
As of 1967 approximately 75% of Schwinn’s total sales were made under the “Schwinn Plan.” Acting essentially as a manufacturer’s representative or sales agent, a distributor participating in this plan forwarded orders from retailers to the factory. Schwinn then shipped the ordered bicycles directly to the retailer, billed the retailer, bore the credit risk, and paid the distributor a commission on the sale. Under the Schwinn Plan, the distributor never had title to or possession of the bicycles. The remainder of the bicycles moved to the retailers through the hands of the distributors. For the most part, the distributors functioned as traditional wholesalers with respect to these sales, stocking an inventory of bicycles owned by them to supply retailers with emergency and “fill-in” requirements. A smaller part of the bicycles that were physically distributed by the distributors were covered by consignment and agency arrangements that had been developed to deal with particular problems of certain distributors. Distributors acquired title only to those bicycles that they purchased as wholesalers; retailers, of course, acquired title to all of the bicycles ordered by them.
In the District Court, the United States charged a continuing conspiracy by Schwinn and other alleged co-conspirators to fix prices, allocate exclusive territories to distributors, and confine Schwinn bicycles to franchised retailers. Relying on United States v. Bausch & Lomb Co., 321 U. S. 707 (1944), the Government argued that the nonprice restrictions were per se illegal as part of a scheme for fixing the retail prices of Schwinn bicycles. The District Court rejected the price-fixing allegation because of -a failure of proof and held that Schwinn’s limitation of retail bicycle sales to franchised retailers was permissible under § 1. The court found a § 1 violation, however, in “a conspiracy to divide certain borderline or overlapping counties in the territories served by four Midwestern cycle distributors.” 237 F. Supp. 323, 342 (ND Ill. 1965). The court described the violation as a “division of territory-by agreement between the distributors... horizontal in nature,” and held that Schwinn’s participation did not change that basic characteristic. Ibid. The District Court limited its injunction to apply only to the territorial restrictions on the resale of bicycles purchased by the distributors in their roles as wholesalers. Ibid.
Schwinn came to this Court on appeal by the United States from the District Court’s decision. Abandoning its per se theories, the Government argued that Schwinn’s prohibition against distributors’ and retailers’ selling Schwinn bicycles to nonfranchised retailers was unreasonable under § 1 and that the District Court’s injunction against exclusive distributor territories should extend to all such restrictions regardless of the form of the transaction. The Government did not challenge the District Court’s decision on price fixing, and Schwinn did not challenge the decision on exclusive distributor territories.
The Court acknowledged the Government’s abandonment of its per se theories and stated that the resolution of the case would require an examination of “the specifics of the challenged practices and their impact upon the marketplace in order to make a judgment as to whether the restraint is or is not'reasonable’ in the special sense in which § 1 of the Sherman Act must be read for purposes of this type of inquiry.” 388 U. S., at 374. Despite this description of its task, the Court proceeded to articulate the following “bright line” per se rule of illegality for vertical restrictions: “Under the Sherman Act, it is unreasonable without more for a manufacturer to seek to restrict and confine areas or persons with whom an article may be traded after the manufacturer has parted with dominion over it.” Id., at 379. But the Court expressly stated that the rule of reason governs when “the manufacturer retains title, dominion, and risk with respect to the product and the position and function of the dealer in question are, in fact, indistinguishable from those of an agent or salesman of the manufacturer.” Id., at 380.
Application of these principles to the facts of Schwinn produced sharply contrasting results depending upon the role played by the distributor in the distribution system. With respect to that portion of Schwinn’s sales for which the distributors acted as ordinary wholesalers, buying and reselling Schwinn bicycles, the Court held that the territorial and customer restrictions challenged by the Government were per se illegal. But, with respect to that larger portion of Schwinn’s sales in which the distributors functioned under the Schwinn Plan and under the less common consignment and agency arrangements, the Court held that the same restrictions should be judged under the rule of reason. The only retail restriction challenged by the Government prevented franchised retailers from supplying nonfranchised retailers. Id., at 377. The Court apparently perceived no material distinction between the restrictions on distributors and retailers, for it held:
“The principle is, of course, equally applicable to sales to retailers, and the decree should similarly enjoin the making of any sales to retailers upon any condition, agreement or understanding limiting the retailer’s freedom as to where and to whom it will resell the products.” Id., at 378.
Applying the rule of reason to the restrictions that were not imposed in conjunction with the sale of bicycles, the Court had little difficulty finding them all reasonable in light of the competitive situation in “the product market as a whole.” Id., at 382.
B
In the present case, it is undisputed that title to the television sets passed from Sylvania to Continental. Thus, the Schwinn per se rule applies unless Sylvania’s restriction on locations falls outside Schwinn’s prohibition against a manufacturer’s attempting to restrict a “retailer’s freedom as to where and to whom it will resell the products.” Id., at 378. As the Court of Appeals conceded, the language of Schwinn is clearly broad enough to apply to the present case. Unlike the Court of Appeals, however, we are unable to find a principled basis for distinguishing Schwinn from the case now before us.
Both Schwinn and Sylvania sought to reduce but not to eliminate competition among their respective retailers through the adoption of a franchise system. Although it was not one of the issues addressed by the District Court or presented on appeal by the Government, the Schwinn franchise plan included a location restriction similar to the one challenged here. These restrictions allowed Schwinn and Sylvania to regulate' the amount of competition among their retailers by preventing a franchisee from selling franchised products from outlets other than the one covered by the franchise agreement. To exactly the same end, the Schwinn franchise plan included a companion restriction, apparently not found in the Sylvania plan, that prohibited franchised retailers from selling Schwinn products to nonfranchised retailers. In Schwinn the Court expressly held that this restriction was impermissible under the broad principle stated there. In intent and competitive impact, the retail-customer restriction in Schwinn is indistinguishable from the location restriction in the present case. In both cases the restrictions limited the freedom of the retailer to dispose of the purchased products as he desired. The fact that one restriction was addressed to territory and the other to customers is irrelevant to functional antitrust analysis and, indeed, to the language and broad thrust of the opinion in Schwinn.''As Mr. Chief Justice Hughes stated in Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, 288 U. S. 344, 360, 377 (1933): “Realities must dominate the judgment.... The Anti-Trust Act aims at substance.”
Ill
Sylvania argues that if Schwinn cannot be distinguished, it should be reconsidered. Although Schwinn is supported by the principle of stare decisis, Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720, 736 (1977), we are convinced that the need for clarification of the law in this area justifies reconsideration. Schwinn itself was an abrupt and largely unexplained departure from White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U. S. 253 (1963), where only four years earlier the Court had refused to endorse a per se rule for vertical restrictions. Since its announcement, Schwinn has been the subject of continuing controversy and confusion, both in the scholarly journals and in the federal courts. The great weight of scholarly opinion has been critical of the decision, and a number of the federal courts confronted with analogous vertical restrictions have sought to limit its reach. In our view, the experience of the past 10 years should be brought to bear on this subject of considerable commercial importance.
The traditional framework of analysis under § 1 of the Sherman Act is familiar and does not require extended discussion. Section 1 prohibits “[e]very contract, combination..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.” Since the early years of this century a judicial gloss on this statutory language has established the “rule of reason” as the prevailing standard of analysis. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1 (1911). Under this rule, the factfinder weighs all of the circumstances of a case in deciding whether a restrictive practice should be prohibited as imposing an unreasonable restraint on competition. Per se rules of illegality are appropriate only when they relate to conduct that is manifestly anticompetitive. As the Court explained in Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 5 (1958), “there are certain agreements or practices which because of their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any redeeming virtue are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused or the business excuse for their use.”
In essence, the issue before us is whether Schwinn’s per se rule can be justified under the demanding standards of Northern Pac. R. Co. The Court’s refusal to endorse a per se rule in White Motor Co. was based on its uncertainty as to whether vertical restrictions satisfied those standards. Addressing this question for the first time, the Court stated)
“We need to know more than we do about the actual impact of these arrangements on competition to decide whether they have such a 'pernicious effect on competition and lack... any redeeming virtue’ (Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States, supra, p. 5) and therefore should be classified as per se violations of the Sherman Act.” 372 U. S., at 263.
Only four years later the Court in Schwinn announced its sweeping per se rule without even a reference to Northern Pac. R. Co. and with no explanation of its sudden change in position. We turn now to consider Schwinn in light of Northern Pac. R. Co.
The market impact of vertical restrictions is complex because of their potential for a simultaneous reduction of intrabrand competition and stimulation of interbrand competition. Significantly, the Court in Schwinn did not distinguish among the challenged restrictions on the basis of their individual potential for intrabrand harm or interbrand benefit. Restrictions that completely eliminated intrabrand competition among Schwinn distributors were analyzed no differently from those that merely moderated intrabrand competition among retailers. The pivotal factor was the passage of title: All restrictions were held to be per se illegal where title had passed, and all were evaluated and sustained under the rule of reason where it had not. The location restriction at issue here would be subject to the same pattern of analysis under Schwinn.
It appears that this distinction between sale and nonsale transactions resulted from the Court’s effort to accommodate the perceived intrabrand harm and interbrand benefit of vertical restrictions. The per se rule for sale transactions reflected the view that vertical restrictions are “so obviously destructive” of intrabrand competition that their use would “open the door to exclusivity of outlets and limitation of territory further than prudence permits.” 388 U. S., at 379-380. Conversely, the continued adherence to the traditional rule of reason for nonsale transactions reflected the view that the restrictions have too great a potential for the promotion of interbrand competition to justify complete prohibition. The Court’s opinion provides no analytical support for these contrasting positions. Nor is there even an assertion in the opinion that the competitive impact of vertical restrictions is significantly affected by the form of the transaction. Non-sale transactions appear to be excluded from the per se rule, not because of a greater danger of intrabrand harm or a greater promise of interbrand benefit, but rather because of the Court’s unexplained belief that a complete per se prohibition would be too “inflexibl[e].” Id., at 379.
Vertical restrictions reduce intrabrand competition by limiting the number of sellers of a particular product competing for the business of a given group of buyers. Location restrictions have this effect because of practical constraints on the effective marketing area of retail outlets. Although intrabrand competition may be reduced, the ability of retailers to exploit the resulting market may be limited both by the ability of consumers to travel to other franchised locations and, perhaps more importantly, to purchase the competing products of other manufacturers. None of these key variables, however, is affected by the form of the transaction by which a manufacturer conveys his products to the retailers.
Vertical restrictions promote interbrand competition by allowing the manufacturer to achieve certain efficiencies in the distribution of his products. These “redeeming virtues” are implicit in every decision sustaining vertical restrictions under the rule of reason. Economists have identified a number of ways in which manufacturers can use such restrictions to compete more effectively against other manufacturers. See, e. g., Preston, Restrictive Distribution Arrangements: Economic Analysis and Public Policy Standards, 30 Law & Contemp. Prob. 506, 511 (1965). For example, new manufacturers and manufacturers entering new markets can use the restrictions in order to induce competent and aggressive retailers to make the kind of investment of capital and labor that is often required in the distribution of products unknown to the consumer. Established manufacturers can use them to induce retailers to engage in promotional activities or to provide service and repair facilities necessary to the efficient marketing of their products. Service and repair are vital for many products, such as automobiles and major household appliances. The availability and quality of such services affect a manufacturer’s goodwill and the competitiveness of his product. Because of market imperfections such as the so-called “free rider” effect, these services might not be provided by retailers in a purely competitive situation, despite the fact that each retailer’s benefit would be greater if all provided the services than if none did. Posner, supra, n. 13, at 285; cf. P. Samuelson, Economics 506-507 (10th ed. 1976).
Economists also have argued that manufacturers have an economic interest in maintaining as much intrabrand competition as is consistent with the efficient distribution of their products. Bork, The Rule of Reason and the Per Se Concept: Price Fixing and Market Division [II], 75 Yale L. J. 373, 403 (1966); Posner, supra, n. 13, at 283, 287-288. Although the view that the manufacturer's interest necessarily corresponds with that of the public is not universally shared, even the leading critic of vertical restrictions concedes that Schwinn’s distinction between sale and nonsale transactions is essentially unrelated to any relevant economic impact. Comanor, Vertical Territorial and Customer Restrictions: White Motor and Its Aftermath, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 1419, 1422 (1968). Indeed, to the extent that the form of the transaction is related to interbrand benefits, the Court’s distinction is inconsistent with its articulated concern for the ability of smaller firms to compete effectively with larger ones. Capital requirements and administrative expenses may prevent smaller firms from using the exception for nonsale transactions. See, e. g., Baker, supra, n. 13, at 538; Phillips, Schwinn Rules and the “New Economics” of Vertical Relation, 44 Antitrust L. J. 573, 576 (1975); Pollock, supra, n. 13, at 610.
We conclude that the distinction drawn in Schwinn between sale and nonsale transactions is not sufficient to justify the application of a per se rule in one situation and a rule of reason in the other. The question remains whether the per se rule stated in Schwinn should be expanded to include non-sale transactions or abandoned in favor of a return to the rule of reason. We have found no persuasive support for expanding the per se rule. As noted above, the Schwinn Court recognized the undesirability of “prohibit [ing] all vertical restrictions of territory and all franchising... 388 U. S., at 379-380. And even Continental does not urge us to hold that all such restrictions are per se illegal.
We revert to the standard articulated in Northern Pac. R. Co., and reiterated in White Motor, for determining whether vertical restrictions must be “conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused or the business excuse for their use.” 356 U. S., at 5. Such restrictions, in varying forms, are widely used in our free market economy. As indicated above, there is substantial scholarly and judicial authority supporting their economic utility. There is relatively little authority to the contrary. Certainly, there has been no showing in this case, either generally or with respect to Sylvania’s agreements, that vertical restrictions have or are likely to have a “pernicious effect on competition” or that they “lack... any redeeming virtue.” Ibid. Accordingly, we conclude that the per se rule stated in Schwinn mtrstnbs' overruled. In so holding we do not foreclose the possibility that particular applications of vertical restrictions might justify per se prohibition under Northern Pac. R. Co. But we do make clear that departure from the rule-of-reason standard must be based upon demonstrable economic effect rather than — as in Schwinn — upon formalistic line drawing.
In sum, we' conclude that the appropriate decision is to return to the rule of reason that governed vertical restrictions prior to Schwinn. When anticompetitive effects are shown to result from particular vertical restrictions they can be adequately policed under the rule of reason, the standard traditionally applied for the majority of anticompetitive practices challenged under § 1 of the Act. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
RCA at that time was the dominant firm with as much as 60% to 70% of national television sales in an industry with more than 100 manufacturers.
The number of retailers selling. Sylvania products declined significantly as a result of the change, but in 1965 there were at least two franchised Sylvania retailers in each metropolitan center of more than 100,000 population.
Sylvania imposed no restrictions on the right of the franchisee to sell the products of competing manufacturers.
Sylvania’s market share in San Francisco was approximately 2.5%— half its national and northern California average.
There are in fact four corporate petitioners: Continental T. V., Inc., A & G Sales, Sylpac, Inc., and S. A. M. Industries, Inc. All are owned in large part by the same individual, and all conducted business under the trade style of “Continental T. V.” We adopt the convention used by the court below of referring to petitioners collectively as “Continental.”
Sylvania had achieved exceptional results in Sacramento, where its market share exceeded 15% in 1965.
In its findings of fact made in conjunction with Continental's plea for injunctive relief, the District Court rejected Sylvania’s claim that its actions were prompted by independent concerns over Continental’s credit. The jury’s verdict is ambiguous on this point. In any event, we do not consider it relevant to the issue before us.
Although Sylvania contended in the District Court that its policy was unilaterally enforced, it now concedes that its location restriction involved understandings or agreements with the retailers.
The jury also found that Maguire had not conspired with Sylvania with respect to this violation. Other claims made by Continental were either rejected by the jury or withdrawn by Continental. Most important was the jury’s rejection of the allegation that the location restriction was part of a larger scheme to fix prices. A pendent claim that Sylvania and Maguire had willfully and maliciously caused injury to Continental’s business in violation of California law also was rejected by the jury, and a pendent breach-of-contract claim was withdrawn by Continental during the course of the proceedings. The parties eventually stipulated to a judgment for Maguire on its claim against Continental.
There were two major dissenting opinions. Judge Kilkenny argued that the present ease is indistinguishable from Schwinn and that the jury had been correctly instructed. Agreeing with Judge Kilkenny’s interpretation of Schwinn, Judge Browning stated that he found the interpretation responsive to and justified by the need to protect “ ‘individual traders from unnecessary restrictions upon their freedom of action.’ ” 537 F. 2d, at 1021. See n. 21, infra.
This Court has never given plenary consideration to the question of the proper antitrust analysis of location restrictions. Before Schwinn such restrictions had been sustained in Boro Hall Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 124 F. 2d 822 (CA2 1942). Since the decision in Schwinn, location restrictions have been sustained by three Courts of Appeals, including the decision below. Salco Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 517 F. 2d 567 (CA10 1975); Kaiser v. General Motors Corp., 396 F. Supp. 33 (ED Pa. 1975), affirmance order, 530 F. 2d 964 (CA3 1976).
The distinctions drawn by the Court of Appeals and endorsed in Mr. Justice White's separate opinion have no basis in Schwinn. The intrabrand competitive impact of the restrictions at issue in Schwinn ranged from complete elimination to mere reduction; yet, the Court did not even hint at any distinction on this ground. Similarly, there is no suggestion that the per se rule was applied because of Schwinn’s prominent position in its industry. That position was the same whether the bicycles were sold or consigned, but the Court’s analysis was quite different. In light of Mr. Justice White’s emphasis on the “superior consumer acceptance” enjoyed by the Schwinn brand name, post, at 63, we note that the Court rejected precisely that premise in Schwinn. Applying the rule of reason to the restrictions imposed in nonsale transactions, the Court stressed that there was “no showing that [competitive bicycles were] not in all respects reasonably interchangeable as articles of competitive commerce with the Schwinn product” and that it did “not regard Schwinn’s claim of product excellence as establishing the contrary.” 388 U. S., at 381, and n. 7. Although Schwinn did hint at preferential treatment for new entrants and failing firms, the District Court below did not even submit Sylvania’s claim that it was failing to the jury. Accordingly, Mr. Justice White’s position appears to reflect an extension of Schwinn in this regard. Having crossed the “failing firm” line, Mr. Justice White attempts neither to draw a new one nor to explain why one should be drawn at all.
A former Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division has described Schwinn as “an exercise in barren formalism” that is “artificial and unresponsive to the competitive needs of the real world.” Baker, Vertical Restraints in Times of Change: From White to Schwinn to Where?, 44 Antitrust L. J. 537 (1975). See, e. g., Handler, The Twentieth Annual Antitrust Review — 1967, 53 Va. L. Rev. 1667 (1967); McLaren, Territorial and Customer Restrictions, Consignments, Suggested Retail Prices and Refusals to Deal, 37 Antitrust L. J. 137 (1968); Pollock, Alternative Distribution Methods After Schwinn, 63 Nw. U. L. Rev. 595 (1968); Posner, Antitrust Policy and the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Restricted Distribution, Horizontal Merger and Potential Competition Decisions, 75 Colum. L. Rev. 282 (1975); Robinson, Recent Antitrust Developments: 1974, 75 Colum. L. Rev. 243 (1975); Note, Vertical Territorial and Customer Restrictions in the Franchising Industry, 10 Colum. J. L. & Soc. Prob. 497 (1974); Note, Territorial and Customer Restrictions: A Trend Toward a Broader Rule of Reason?, 40 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 123 (1971); Note, Territorial Restrictions and Per Se Rules — -A Re-evaluation of the Schwinn and Sealy Doctrines, 70 Mich. L. Rev. 616 (1972). But see Louis, Vertical Distributional Restraints Under Schwinn and Sylvania: An Argument for the Continuing Use of a Partial Per Se Approach, 75 Mich. L. Rev. 275 (1976); Zimmerman, Distribution Restrictions After Sealy and Schwinn, 12 Antitrust Bull. 1181 (1967). For a more inclusive list of articles and comments, see 537 F. 2d, at 988 n. 13.
Indeed, as one commentator has observed, many courts “have struggled to distinguish or limit Schwinn in ways that are a tribute to judicial ingenuity.” Robinson, supra, n. 13, at 272. Thus, the statement in Schwinn that post-sale vertical restrictions as to customers or territories are “unreasonable without more,” 388 U. S., at 379, has been interpreted to allow an exception to the per se rule where the manufacturer proves “more” by showing that the restraints will protect consumers against injury and the manufacturer against product liability claims. See, e. g., Tripoli Co. v. Wella Corp., 425 F. 2d 932, 936-938 (CA3 1970) (en banc). Similarly, the statement that Schwinn’s enforcement of its restrictions had been “ ‘firm and resolute,’ ” 388 U. S., at 372, has been relied upon to distinguish cases lacking that element. See, e. g., Janel Sales Corp. v. Lanvin Parfums, Inc., 396 F. 2d 398, 406 (CA2 1968). Other factual distinctions have been drawn to justify upholding territorial restrictions that would seem to fall within the scope of the Schwinn per se rule. See, e. g., Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 35, 44-46, 449 F. 2d 1374, 1379-1380 (1971) (per se rule inapplicable when purchaser can avoid restraints by electing to buy product at higher price); Colorado Pump & Supply Co. v. Febco, Inc., 472 F. 2d 637 (CA10 1973) (apparent territorial restriction characterized as primary responsibility clause). One Court of Appeals has expressly urged us to consider the need in this area for greater flexibility. Adolph Coors Co. v. FTC, 497 F. 2d 1178, 1187 (CA10 1974). The decision in Schwinn and the developments in the lower courts have been exhaustively surveyed in ABA Antitrust Section, Monograph No. 2, Vertical Restrictions Limiting Intrabrand Competition (1977) (ABA Monograph No. 2).
One of the most frequently cited statements of the rule of reason is that of Mr. Justice Brandéis in Chicago Bd. of Trade v. United States, 246 U. S. 231, 238 (1918):
“The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition. To determine that question the court must ordinarily consider the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied; its condition before and after the restraint was imposed; the nature of the restraint and its effect, actual or probable. The history of the restraint, the evil believed to exist, the reason for adopting the particular remedy, the purpose or end sought to be attained, are all relevant facts. This is not because a good intention will save an otherwise objectionable regulation or the reverse; but because knowledge of intent may help the court to interpret facts and to predict consequences.”
Per se rules thus require the Court to make broad generalizations about the social utility of particular commercial practices. The probability that anticompetitive consequences will result from a practice and the severity of those consequences must be balanced against its pro-competitive consequences. Cases that do not fit the generalization may arise, but a per se rule reflects the judgment that such cases are not sufficiently common or important to justify the time and expense necessary to identify them. Once established, per se rules tend to provide guidance to the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing is denied upon the representation of the Attorney General of New York that the movant may file a new application “to withdraw the funds deposited with the New York City Treasurer” in the light of changed circumstances. See Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429; Goldstein v. Cox, 389 U. S. 581.
Mr. Justice Douglas.
Since the only changed circumstances concern the intervening decision of this Court in Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429, and since the rationale of that decision applies to custodial statutes such as New York has as well as to escheat statutes like Oregon’s, I would dispose of the case here and now (either after or without oral argument) and not require petitioner to retravel once more the long, arduous, and expensive path from New York’s surrogate court.
Mr. Justice Harlan would deny unconditionally the motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing, substantially for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U. S. 98, 99.
Mr. Justice Fortas and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, an independent contractor in the business of unloading gasoline, was instructed by the consignee to unload a tank car of gasoline which had been hauled by respondent Atlantic Coast Line and which was located at the time on a siding in respondent’s freight yards. In order to release the gasoline through a hose attached to the bottom of the car, it was necessary to go to the dome on top of the car, remove the dome cap, and open a valve inside the dome. While petitioner and his helper were engaged in opening the valve, the board on which they were standing broke and petitioner fell, sustaining injuries. There is no dispute that the board was defective. It was a wooden board over seven feet long attached to the side of the tank near the top just below the dome by means of two triangular steel braces extending from the side of the tank at either end of the board.
The question presented here is whether this device, which for convenience we shall call a dome running board, is a safety appliance within the meaning of § § 2 and 3 of the Safety Appliance Act of 1910. Act of April 14, 1910, c. 160, §§ 2 and 3, 36 Stat. 298, 45 U. S. C. §§ H and 12.
Petitioner brought suit in the District Court, alleging in one count of his amended complaint absolute liability for a violation of the Act and in a second count common-law negligence. The jury returned a general verdict in his favor. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on the negligence count alone, holding that the trial court erred in instructing that the dome running board was a safety appliance. 220 F. 2d 242. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the questions raised as to the proper interpretation of the Safety Appliance Act. 350 U. S. 819.
Section 2 of the Safety Appliance Act of 1910 provides in part:
. . all cars requiring secure ladders and secure running boards shall be equipped with such ladders and running boards . . . .”
Section 3 provides:
“That within six months from the passage of this Act the Interstate Commerce Commission, after hearing, shall designate the number, dimensions, location, and manner of application of the appliances provided for by section two . . . and thereafter said number, location, dimensions, and manner of application as designated by said commission shall remain as the standards of equipment to be used on all cars subject to the provisions of this Act, unless changed by an order of said Interstate Commerce Commission . . . and failure to comply with any such requirement of the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be subject to a like penalty as failure to comply with any requirement of this Act .
Under the authority of § 3, the Commission in 1911 promulgated regulations still in force providing in detail for one running board running around the perimeter, or at least the full length of the sides, of tank cars. Such a board enables a trainman to walk the length of a tank car between cars adjoining it on either end. The regulations make no mention whatever by any name of dome running boards. Petitioner nevertheless contends that the dome running board is a required running board affording him protection under § 2.
The obvious purpose of a dome running board is to provide a secure flooring for those who must perform operations in connection with the tank car dome. Clearly, the dome running board has major importance in loading and unloading operations. But a railroad man of over twenty-five years’ experience testified that it also may be used to stand on in order to pass hand signals or repair minor troubles occurring while the train is en route. The dome running board is an integrated part of the exterior equipment of a tank car; it functions as a permanently attached outside “floor” near the dome of the car. The testimony showed that railroad men, including respondent’s employees, often refer to the dome running board as a running board. We hold that it comes within the meaning of the term “running boards” as used in § 2.
The fact that the Commission in its 1911 regulations under § 3 has not specified uniform standards for dome running boards is not a binding administrative determination that they are not running boards for the purposes of § 2. The reason for the omission is apparently the Commission’s view that only appliances affording safety while the train is moving need be standardized. But there is no showing that the regulations purport to exhaust by implication each category of statutory appliances listed in § 2. Omission of dome running boards of itself shows no more than that the Commission has not standardized all possible running boards within § 2. Davis v. Manry, 266 U. S. 401, is consistent with our view. There the Court itself interpreted the language in § 2 requiring grab irons “on their roofs” of “cars having ladders” to apply only to cars having roofs. It then pointed to the Commission’s failure to standardize a grab iron over a standardized ladder on a tender without a roof only as a supporting “practical construction” of the section. Moreover, the Commission in that case, having standardized the ladder, had no alternative but to interpret the statutory word “roofs” by either standardizing a grab iron or not standardizing it. Here no such practical construction is implied by the failure to standardize.
Even if the dome running board be properly characterized as a running board, respondent contends that, since § 2 refers to “cars requiring . . . secure running boards,” the Commission’s failure to standardize dome running-boards under § 3 constitutes an administrative determination that they are not required within the meaning of § 2. The purpose of § 3 was to provide uniformity in the location and characteristics of those appliances upon which railroad men, working “always in haste, and often in darkness and storm,” must “instinctively” rely in the hazards of their employment. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Williams, 242 U. S. 462, 466. Effectuation of such a purpose would require standardization of running boards which extend the length of train cars. But considerations of administrative expertise relevant to § 3 are not equally applicable to the effectuation of the purpose of § 2. The purpose of the latter section was “to convert the general legal duty of exercising ordinary care to provide” safety appliances on cars “requiring [them] for their proper use” into a “statutory, an absolute and imperative duty, of making them ‘secure.’ ” Illinois Central R. Co. v. Williams, supra. The purpose of § 3 is to standardize the appliances required by § 2. But it does not follow that appliances necessary and furnished for the safe use of the car, although not standardized under § 3, are not within the sweep of § 2. Clearly, those who work on train cars may necessarily have to rely on the security of a dome running board, although the purposes of that appliance may not require any unhesitating reliance on its uniform characteristics.
In the Williams case, supra, this Court held that the Commission’s statutory power to postpone the effective date of its standardization regulations under § 3 did not suspend the railroad’s duty under § 2 to make appliances secure. There was no question that the appliance in Williams was required, but the teaching of the case is that Commission action under § 3 does not exhaust the commands of § 2. See also Southern Pac. Co. v. Carson, 169 F. 2d 734, holding a railroad liable under § 2 for defects in an independent wooden club used to help turn a brake wheel where the wheel itself complied with the Commission’s regulations, which made no mention of the club. We conclude that failure of the Commission to standardize the dome running board need not mean that it was not a required running board under § 2. To hold otherwise would relieve railroads from the absolute duty under § 2 to make safety appliances secure whenever new appliances are adopted which have not yet been standardized by the Commission.
Both the respondent and the manufacturer of the tank car considered that the dome running board was required for the proper use of the car. The railroad industry itself has recognized that tank cars require secure dome running boards. The Association of American Railroads safety appliance standards, largely identical to the Interstate Commerce Commission regulations, contain detailed uniform specifications for dome running boards, and compliance with those safety standards is required for interchange of cars between lines. Petitioner used the dome running board, not simply because it happened to be there, but also because it had to be there for him to perform his duties- safely, and performance of his duties was essential to the operation of the tank car. At best, appliances standardized in Commission regulations represent the minimum of safety equipment, and there is no prohibition of additional safety appliances. If a dome running board is provided by the railroad or the makers of the car and used by the railroad as an appliance necessary for the use of the car, it must be a safe board as required by § 2. Cf. Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33, 37.
The Commission, in a brief filed here, contends that only appliances designed to insure safety while the train is in movement are within § 2, and, therefore, a dome running board cannot be a statutory running board. No case is cited to support this construction. Nothing in the language of § 2 itself or in its legislative history indicates that it should be read so narrowly. Whether or not an appliance is designed to afford protection while the train is moving may provide the Commission with an appropriate guide for deciding which appliances should be standardized under § 3. But there is no reason to import such a distinction into § 2 in order to deny the humane benefits of the Act to those who perform dangerous work on train cars that are not moving. Section 2 is not limited to such running boards as are required only-in the movement of the train. The dome running board here was required for the use of the car. Section 2 required it to be safe, although regulations pursuant to § 3 had not standardized it.
There is no merit in respondent’s contention that, since petitioner is not one of its employees, no duty is owed him under § 2 of the Act. Having been upon the dome running board for the purpose of unloading the car, he was a member of one class for whose benefit that device is a safety appliance under the statute. As to him, the violation of the statute must therefore result in absolute liability. Coray v. Southern Pacific Co., 335 U. S. 520; Brady v. Terminal Railroad Assn., 303 U. S. 10; Fairport, P. & E. R. Co, v. Meredith, 292 U. S. 589; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Layton, 243 U. S. 617. The judgment below must be reversed and the judgment of the District Court reinstated.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The action against Southern Railway Co., a co-defendant, as delivering carrier of the car was dismissed.
Section 3 as it appears in the United States Code omits, presumably as executed, the language containing the statutory command to the Commission to make its original standardization regulations. 45 U. S. C. § 12.
49 CFR §§ 131.8 (b), 131.9 (c). 49 CFR § 131.7 covers “Tank cars with side platforms” and contains no provision for “running boards.” The car in question here does not come within § 131.7.
See Car Builders’ Cyclopedia (18th ed. 1949-1951), 249-254, especially the diagrams, at 252-253, of a tank ear with a dome running board, there called a “dome platform,” similar to the present car.
See also H. R. Rep. No. 37, 61st Cong., 2d Sess.; S. Rep. No. 250, 61st Cong., 2d Sess. 3.
A. A. R. Safety Appliances for Tank Cars Built after May 1/ 1917, Car Builders’ Cyclopedia (19th ed. 1953), 938, 939-942.
A. A. R. Code of Rules for the Interchange of Traffic (1952 ed.), Rules 3 (s) (1), 3 (r) (7).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The term “concerted action” encompasses unlawful conspiracies and constitutionally protected assemblies. The “looseness and pliability” of legal doctrine applicable to concerted action led Justice Jackson to note that certain joint activities have a “chameleon-like” character. The boycott of white merchants in Claiborne County, Miss., that gave rise to this litigation had such a character; it included elements of criminality and elements of majesty. Evidence that fear of reprisals caused some black citizens to withhold their patronage from respondents’ businesses convinced the Supreme Court of Mississippi that the entire boycott was unlawful and that each of the 92 petitioners was liable for all of its economic consequences. Evidence that persuasive rhetoric, determination to remedy past injustices, and a host of voluntary decisions by free citizens were the critical factors in the boycott’s success presents us with the question whether the state court’s judgment is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
I — I
In March 1966, black citizens of Port Gibson, Miss., and other areas of Claiborne County presented white elected officials with a list of particularized demands for racial equality and integration. The complainants did not receive a satisfactory response and, at a local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) meeting at the First Baptist Church, several hundred black persons voted to place a boycott on white merchants in the area. On October 31, 1969, several of the merchants filed suit in state court to recover losses caused by the boycott and to enjoin future boycott activity. We recount first the course of that litigation and then consider in more detail the events that gave rise to the merchants’ claim for damages.
A
The complaint was filed in the Chancery Court of Hinds County by 17 white merchants. The merchants named two corporations and 146 individuals as defendants: the NAACP, a New York membership corporation; Mississippi Action for Progress (MAP), a Mississippi corporation that implemented the federal “Head Start” program; Aaron Henry, the President of the Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP; Charles Evers, the Field Secretary of the NAACP in Mississippi; and 144 other individuals who had participated in the boycott. The complaint sought injunctive relief and an attachment of property, as well as damages. Although it alleged that the plaintiffs were suffering irreparable injury from an ongoing conspiracy, no preliminary relief was sought.
Trial began before a chancellor in equity on June 11, 1973. The court heard the testimony of 144 witnesses during an 8-month trial. In August 1976, the chancellor issued an opinion and decree finding that “an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence” established the joint and several liability of 130 of the defendants on three separate conspiracy theories. First, the court held that the defendants were liable for the tort of malicious interference with the plaintiffs’ businesses, which did not necessarily require the presence of a conspiracy. Second, the chancellor found a violation of a state statutory prohibition against secondary boycotts, on the theory that the defendants’ primary dispute was with the governing authorities of Port Gibson and Claiborne County and not with the white merchants at whom the boycott was directed. Third, the court found a violation of Mississippi’s antitrust statute, on the ground that the boycott had diverted black patronage from the white merchants to black merchants and to other merchants located out of Claiborne County and thus had unreasonably limited competition between black and white merchants that had traditionally existed. The chancellor specifically rejected the defendants’ claim that their conduct was protected by the First Amendment.
Five of the merchants offered no evidence of business losses. The chancellor found that the remaining 12 had suffered lost business earnings and lost goodwill during a 7-year period from 1966 to 1972 amounting to $944,699. That amount, plus statutory antitrust penalties of $6,000 and a $300,000 award of attorney’s fees, produced a final judgment of $1,250,699, plus interest from the date of judgment and costs. As noted, the chancellor found all but 18 of the original 148 defendants jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment. The court justified imposing full liability on the national organization of the NAACP on the ground that it had failed to “repudiate” the actions of Charles Evers, its Field Secretary in Mississippi.
In addition to imposing damages liability, the chancellor entered a broad permanent injunction. He permanently enjoined petitioners from stationing “store watchers” at the respondents’ business premises; from “persuading” any person to withhold his patronage from respondents; from “using demeaning and obscene language to or about any person” because that person continued to patronize the respondents; from “picketing or patroling” the premises of any of the respondents; and from using violence against any person or inflicting damage to any real or personal property.
In December 1980, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed significant portions of the trial court’s judgment. 393 So. 2d 1290. It held that the secondary boycott statute was inapplicable because it had not been enacted until “the boycott had been in operation for upward of two years.” The court declined to rely on the restraint of trade statute, noting that the “United States Supreme Court has seen fit to hold boycotts to achieve political ends are not a violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1 (1970), after which our statute is patterned.” Thus, the court rejected two theories of liability that were consistent with a totally voluntary and nonviolent withholding of patronage from the white merchants.
The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the imposition of liability, however, on the basis of the chancellor’s common-law tort theory. After reviewing the chancellor’s recitation of the facts, the court quoted the following finding made by the trial court:
“In carrying out the agreement and design, certain of the defendants, acting for all others, engaged in acts of physical force and violence against the persons and property of certain customers and prospective customers. Intimidation, threats, social ostracism, vilification, and traduction were some of the devices used by the defendants to achieve the desired results. Most effective, also, was the stationing of guards (‘enforcers,’ ‘deacons,’ or ‘black hats’) in the vicinity of white-owned businesses. Unquestionably, the evidence shows that the volition of many black persons was overcome out of sheer fear, and they were forced and compelled against their personal wills to withhold their trade and business intercourse from the complainants.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 39b (quoted 393 So. 2d, at 1300).
On the basis of this finding, the court concluded that the entire boycott was unlawful. “If any of these factors — force, violence, or threats — is present, then the boycott is illegal regardless of whether it is primary, secondary, economical, political, social or other.” In a brief passage, the court rejected petitioners’ reliance on the First Amendment:
“The agreed use of illegal force, violence, and threats against the peace to achieve a goal makes the present state of facts a conspiracy. We know of no instance, and our attention has been drawn to no decision, wherein it has been adjudicated that free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment includes in its protection the right to commit crime.” Id,., at 1301.
The theory of the Mississippi Supreme Court, then, was that petitioners had agreed to use force, violence, and “threats” to effectuate the boycott. To the trial court, such a finding had not been necessary.
Although the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor’s basic finding of liability, the court held that respondents “did not establish their case” with respect to 38 of the defendants. The court found that MAP was a victim, rather than a willing participant, in the conspiracy and dismissed — without further explanation — 37 individual defendants for lack of proof. Finally, the court ruled that certain damages had been improperly awarded and that other damages had been inadequately proved. The court remanded for further proceedings on the computation of damages.
We granted a petition for certiorari. 454 U. S. 1030. At oral argument, a question arose concerning the factual basis for the judgment of the Mississippi Supreme Court. As noted, that court affirmed petitioners’ liability for damages on the ground that each of the petitioners had agreed to effectuate the boycott through force, violence, and threats. Such a finding was not necessary to the trial court’s imposition of liability and neither state court had identified the evidence actually linking the petitioners to such an agreement. In response to a request from this Court, respondents filed a supplemental brief “specifying the acts committed by each of the petitioners giving rise to liability for damages.” Supplemental Brief for Respondents 1. That brief helpfully places the petitioners in different categories; we accept respondents’ framework for analysis and identify these classes as a preface to our review of the relevant incidents that occurred during the 7-year period for which damages were assessed.
First, respondents contend that liability is justified by evidence of participation in the “management” of the boycott. Respondents identify two groups of persons who may be found liable as “managers”: 79 individuals who regularly attended Tuesday night meetings of the NAACP at the First Baptist Church; and 11 persons who took “leadership roles” at those meetings.
Second, respondents contend that liability is justified by evidence that an individual acted as a boycott “enforcer.” In this category, respondents identify 22 persons as members of the “Black Hats” — a special group organized during the boycott — and 19 individuals who were simply “store watchers.”
Third, respondents argue that those petitioners “who themselves engaged in violent acts or who threatened violence have provided the best possible evidence that they wanted the boycott to succeed by coercion whenever it could not succeed by persuasion.” Id., at 10. They identify 16 individuals for whom there is direct evidence of participation in what respondents characterize as violent acts or threats of violence.
Fourth, respondents contend that Charles Evers may be held liable because he “threatened violence on a number of occasions against boycott breakers.” Id., at 13. Like the chancellor, respondents would impose liability on the national NAACP because Evers “was acting in his capacity as Field Secretary of the NAACP when he committed these tortious and constitutionally unprotected acts.” Ibid.
Finally, respondents state that they are “unable to determine on what record evidence the state courts relied in finding liability on the part of seven of the petitioners.” Id., at 16. With these allegations of wrongdoing in mind, we turn to consider the factual events that gave rise to this controversy.
B
The chancellor held petitioners liable for all of respondents’ lost earnings during a 7-year period from 1966 to December 31, 1972. We first review chronologically the principal events that occurred during that period, describe some features of the boycott that are not in dispute, and then identify the most significant evidence of violent activity.
In late 1965 or early 1966, Charles Evers, the Field Secretary of the NAACP, helped organize the Claiborne County Branch of the NAACP. The pastor of the First Baptist Church, James Dorsey, was elected president of the Branch; regular meetings were conducted each Tuesday evening at the church. At about the same time, a group of black citizens formed a Human Relations Committee and presented a petition for redress of grievances to civic and business leaders of the white community. In response, a biracial committee — including five of the petitioners and several of the respondents — was organized and held a series of unproductive meetings.
The black members of the committee then prepared a further petition entitled “Demands for Racial Justice. ” This petition was presented for approval at the local NAACP meeting conducted on the first Tuesday evening in March. As described by the chancellor, “the approximately 500 people present voted their approval unanimously.” On March 14, 1966, the petition was presented to public officials of Port Gibson and Claiborne County.
The petition included 19 specific demands. It called for the desegregation of all public schools and public facilities, the hiring of black policemen, public improvements in black residential areas, selection of blacks for jury duty, integration of bus stations so that blacks could use all facilities, and an end to verbal abuse by law enforcement officers. It stated that “Negroes are not to be addressed by terms as ‘boy/ ‘girl/ ‘shine/ ‘uncle/ or any other offensive term, but as ‘Mr./ ‘Mrs./ or ‘Miss,’ as is the case with other citizens.” As described by the chancellor, the purpose of the demands “was to gain equal rights and opportunities for Negro citizens.” The petition further provided that black leaders hoped it would not be necessary to resort to the “selective buying campaigns” that had been used in other communities. On March 23, two demands that had been omitted from the original petition were added, one of which provided: “All stores must employ Negro clerks and cashiers.” This supplemental petition stated that a response was expected by April 1.
A favorable response was not received. On April 1, 1966, the Claiborne County NAACP conducted another meeting at the First Baptist Church. As described by the chancellor:
“Several hundred black people attended the meeting, and the purpose was to decide what action should be taken relative to the twenty-one demands. Speeches were made by Evers and others, and a vote was taken. It was the unanimous vote of those present, without dissent, to place a boycott on the white merchants of Port Gibson and Claiborne County.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 15b.
The boycott was underway.
In September 1966, Mississippi Action for Progress, Inc. (MAP), was organized to develop community action programs in 20 counties of Mississippi. One of MAP’s programs— known as Head Start — involved the use of federal funds to provide food for young children. Originally, food purchases in Claiborne County were made alternately from white-owned and black-owned stores, but in February 1967 the directors of MAP authorized their Claiborne County representatives to purchase food only from black-owned stores. Since MAP bought substantial quantities of food, the consequences of this decision were significant. A large portion of the trial was devoted to the question whether MAP participated in the boycott voluntarily and — under the chancellor’s theories of liability — could be held liable for the resulting damages. The chancellor found MAP a willing participant, noting that “during the course of the trial, the only Head Start cooks called to the witness stand testified that they refused to go into white-owned stores to purchase groceries for the children in the program for the reason that they were in favor of the boycott and wanted to honor it.,,
Several events occurred during the boycott that had a strong effect on boycott activity. On February 1, 1967, Port Gibson employed its first black policeman. During that month, the boycott was lifted on a number of merchants. On April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in Memphis. The chancellor found that this tragic event had a depressing effect on the black community and, as a result, the boycott “tightened.”
One event that occurred during the boycott is of particular significance. On April 18, 1969, a young black man named Roosevelt Jackson was shot and killed during an encounter with two Port Gibson police officers. Large crowds immediately gathered, first at the hospital and later at the church. Tension in the community neared a breaking point. The local police requested reinforcements from the State Highway Patrol and sporadic acts of violence ensued. The Mayor and Board of Aldermen placed a dawn-to-dusk curfew into effect.
On April 19, Charles Evers spoke to a group assembled at the First Baptist Church and led a march to the courthouse where he demanded the discharge of the entire Port Gibson Police Force. When this demand was refused, the boycott was reimposed on all white merchants. One of Evers’ speeches on this date was recorded by the police. In that speech — significant portions of which are reproduced in an Appendix to this opinion — Evers stated that boycott violators would be “disciplined” by their own people and warned that the Sheriff could not sleep with boycott violators at night.
On April 20, Aaron Henry came to Port Gibson, spoke to a large gathering, urged moderation, and joined local leaders in a protest march and a telegram sent to the Attorney General of the United States. On April 21, Evers gave another speech to several hundred people, in which he again called for a discharge of the police force and for a total boycott of all white-owned businesses in Claiborne County. Although this speech was not recorded, the chancellor found that Evers stated: “If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck.”
As noted, this lawsuit was filed in October 1969. No significant events concerning the boycott occurred after that time. The chancellor identified no incident of violence that occurred after the suit was brought. He did identify, however, several significant incidents of boycott-related violence that occurred some years earlier.
Before describing that evidence, it is appropriate to note that certain practices generally used to encourage support for the boycott were uniformly peaceful and orderly. The few marches associated with the boycott were carefully controlled by black leaders. Pickets used to advertise the boycott were often small children. The police made no arrests — and no complaints are recorded — in connection with the picketing and occasional demonstrations supporting the boycott. Such activity was fairly irregular, occurred primarily on weekends, and apparently was largely discontinued around the time the lawsuit was filed.
One form of “discipline” of black persons who violated the boycott appears to have been employed with some regularity. Individuals stood outside of boycotted stores and identified those who traded with the merchants. Some of these “store watchers” were members of a group known as the “Black Hats” or the “Deacons.” The names of persons who violated the boycott were read at meetings of the Claiborne County NAACP and published in a mimeographed paper entitled the “Black Times.” As stated by the chancellor, those persons “were branded as traitors to the black cause, called demeaning names, and socially ostracized for merely trading with whites.”
The chancellor also concluded that a quite different form of discipline had been used against certain violators of the boycott. He specifically identified 10 incidents that “strikingly” revealed the “atmosphere of fear that prevailed among blacks from 1966 until 1970.” The testimony concerning four incidents convincingly demonstrates that they occurred because the victims were ignoring the boycott. In two cases, shots were fired at a house; in a third, a brick was thrown through a windshield; in the fourth, a flower garden was damaged. None of these four victims, however, ceased trading with white merchants.
The evidence concerning four other incidents is less clear, but again it indicates that an unlawful form of discipline was applied to certain boycott violators. In April 1966, a black couple named Cox asked for a police escort to go into a white-owned dry cleaner and, a week later, shots were fired into their home. In another incident, an NAACP member took a bottle of whiskey from a black man who had purchased it in a white-owned store. The third incident involved a fight between a commercial fisherman who did'not observe the boycott and four men who “grabbed me and beat me up and took a gun off me.” In a fourth incident, described only in hearsay testimony, a group- of young blacks apparently pulled down the overalls of an elderly brick mason known as “Preacher White” and spanked him for not observing the boycott.
Two other incidents discussed by the chancellor are of less certain significance. Jasper Coleman testified that he participated in an all-night poker game at a friend’s house on Christmas Eve 1966. The following morning he discovered that all four tires of his pickup truck had been slashed with a knife. Coleman testified that he did not participate in the boycott but was never threatened for refusing to do so. Record 13791. Finally, Willie Myles testified that he and his wife received a threatening phone call and that a boy on a barge told him that he would be whipped for buying his gas at the wrong place.
Five of these incidents occurred in 1966. The other five are not dated. The chancellor thus did not find that any act of violence occurred after 1966. In particular, he made no reference to any act of violence or threat of violence — with the exception, of course, of Charles Evers’ speeches — after the shootings of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968 or Roosevelt Jackson in 1969. The chancellor did not find that any of the incidents of violence was discussed at the Tuesday evening meetings of the NAACP.
II
This Court’s jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Mississippi Supreme Court is, of course, limited to the federal questions necessarily decided by that court. We consider first whether petitioners’ activities are protected in any respect by the Federal Constitution and, if they are, what effect such protection has on a lawsuit of this nature.
A
The boycott of white merchants at issue in this case took many forms. The boycott was launched at a meeting of a local branch of the NAACP attended by several hundred persons. Its acknowledged purpose was to secure compliance by both civic and business leaders with a lengthy list of demands for equality and racial justice. The boycott was supported by speeches and nonviolent picketing. Participants repeatedly encouraged others to join in its cause.
Each of these elements of the boycott is a form of speech or conduct that is ordinarily entitled to protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The black citizens named as defendants in this action banded together and collectively expressed their dissatisfaction with a social structure that had denied them rights to equal treatment and respect. As we so recently acknowledged in Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. Berkeley, 454 U. S. 290, 294, “the practice of persons sharing common views banding together to achieve a common end is deeply embedded in the American political process.” We recognized that “by collective effort individuals can make their views known, when, individually, their voices would be faint or lost.” Ibid. In emphasizing “the importance of freedom of association in guaranteeing the right of people to make their voices heard on public issues,” id., at 295, we noted the words of Justice Harlan, writing for the Court in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 460:
“Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.”
The Chief Justice stated for the Court in Citizens Against Rent Control: “There are, of course, some activities, legal if engaged in by one, yet illegal if performed in concert with others, but political expression is not one of them.” 454 U. S., at 296.
The right to associate does not lose all constitutional protection merely because some members of the group may have participated in conduct or advocated doctrine that itself is not protected. In De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, the Court unanimously held that an individual could not be penalized simply for assisting in the conduct of an otherwise lawful meeting held under the auspices of the Communist Party, an organization that advocated “criminal syndicalism.” After reviewing the rights of citizens “to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances,” id., at 364, Chief Justice Hughes, writing for the Court, stated:
“It follows from these considerations that, consistently with the Federal Constitution, peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime. The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed. Those who assist in the conduct of such meetings cannot be branded as criminals on that score. The question, if the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly are to be preserved, is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is held but as to its purpose; not as to the relations of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects. If the persons assembling have committed crimes elsewhere, if they have formed or are engaged in a conspiracy against the public peace and order, they may be prosecuted for their conspiracy or other violation of valid laws. But it is a different matter when the State, instead of prosecuting them for such offenses, seizes upon mere participation in a peaceable assembly and a lawful public discussion as the basis for a criminal charge.” Id., at 365.
Of course, the petitioners in this case did more than assemble peaceably and discuss among themselves their grievances against governmental and business policy. Other elements of the boycott, however, also involved activities ordinarily safeguarded by the First Amendment. In Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, the Court held that peaceful picketing was entitled to constitutional protection, even though, in that case, the purpose of the picketing “was concededly to advise customers and prospective customers of the relationship existing between the employer and its employees and thereby to induce such customers not to patronize the employer.” Id., at 99. Cf. Chauffeurs v. Newell, 356 U. S. 341. In Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, we held that a peaceful march and demonstration was protected by the rights of free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition for a redress of grievances.
Speech itself also was used to further the aims of the boycott. Nonparticipants repeatedly were urged to join the common cause, both through public address and through personal solicitation. These elements of the boycott involve speech in its most direct form. In addition, names of boycott violators were read aloud at meetings at the First Baptist Church and published in a local black newspaper. Petitioners admittedly sought to persuade others to join the boycott through social pressure and the “threat” of social ostracism. Speech does not lose its protected character, however, simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action. As Justice Rutledge, in describing the protection afforded by the First Amendment, explained:
“It extends to more than abstract discussion, unrelated to action. The First Amendment is a charter for government, not for an institution of learning. ‘Free trade in ideas’ means free trade in the opportunity.to persuade to action, not merely to describe facts.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 537.
In Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, the Court considered the validity of a prior restraint on speech that invaded the “privacy” of the respondent. Petitioner, a racially integrated community organization, charged that respondent, a real estate broker, had engaged in tactics known as “blockbusting” or “panic peddling.” Petitioner asked respondent to sign an agreement that he would not solicit property in their community. When he refused, petitioner distributed leaflets near respondent’s home that were critical of his business practices. A state court enjoined petitioner from distributing the leaflets; an appellate court affirmed on the ground that the alleged activities were coercive and intimidating, rather than informative, and therefore not entitled to First Amendment protection. Id., at 418. This Court reversed. The Chief Justice explained:
“This Court has often recognized that the activity of peaceful pamphleteering is a form of communication protected by the First Amendment. E. g., Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 (1943); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938). In sustaining the injunction, however, the Appellate Court was apparently of the view that petitioners’ purpose in distributing their literature was not to inform the public, but to ‘force’ respondent to sign a no-solicitation agreement. The claim that the expressions were intended to exercise a coercive impact on respondent does not remove them from the reach of the First Amendment. Petitioners plainly intended to influence respondent’s conduct by their activities; this is not fundamentally different from the function of a newspaper. See Schneider v. State, supra; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940). Petitioners were engaged openly and vigorously in making the public aware of respondent’s real estate practices. Those practices were offensive to them, as the views and practices of petitioners are no doubt offensive to others. But so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability.” Id., at 419.
In dissolving the prior restraint, the Court recognized that “offensive” and “coercive” speech was nevertheless protected by the First Amendment.
In sum, the boycott clearly involved constitutionally protected activity. The established elements of speech, assembly, association, and petition, “though not identical, are inseparable.” Thomas v. Collins, supra, at 530. Through exercise of these First Amendment rights, petitioners sought to bring about political, social, and economic change. Through speech, assembly, and petition — rather than through riot or revolution — petitioners sought to change a social order that had consistently treated them as second-class citizens.
The presence of protected activity, however, does not end the relevant constitutional inquiry. Governmental regulation that has an incidental effect on First Amendment freedoms may be justified in certain narrowly defined instances. See United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367. A nonviolent and totally voluntary boycott may have a disruptive effect on local economic conditions. This Court has recognized the strong governmental interest in certain forms of economic regulation, even though such regulation may have an incidental effect on rights of speech and association. See Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490; NLRB v. Retail Store Employees, 447 U. S. 607. The right of.business entities to “associate” to suppress competition may be curtailed. National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U. S. 679. Unfair trade practices may be restricted. Secondary boycotts and picketing by labor unions may be prohibited, as part of “Congress’ striking of the delicate balance between union freedom of expression and the ability of neutral employers, employees, and consumers to remain free from coerced participation in industrial strife.” NLRB v. Retail Store Employees, supra, at 617-618 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part). See Longshoremen v. Allied International, Inc., 456 U. S. 212, 222-223, and n. 20.
While States have broad power to regulate economic activity, we do not find a comparable right to prohibit peaceful political activity such as that found in the boycott in this case. This Court has recognized that expression on public issues “has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.” Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 467. “[S]peech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 74-75. There is a “profound national commitment” to the principle that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270.
In Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U. S. 127, the Court considered whether the Sherman Act prohibited a publicity campaign waged by railroads against the trucking industry that was designed to foster the adoption of laws destructive of the trucking business, to create an atmosphere of distaste for truckers among the general public, and to impair the relationships existing between truckers and their customers. Noting that the “right of petition is one of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, and we cannot, of course, lightly impute to Congress an intent to invade these freedoms,” the Court held that the Sherman Act did not proscribe the publicity campaign. Id., at 137-138. The Court stated that it could not see how an intent to influence legislation to destroy the truckers as competitors “could transform conduct otherwise lawful into a violation of the Sherman Act.” Id., at 138-139. Noting that the right of the people to petition their representatives in government “cannot properly be made to depend on their intent in doing so,” the Court held that “at least insofar as the railroads’ campaign was directed toward obtaining governmental action, its legality was not at all affected by any anticompetitive purpose it may have had.” Id., at 139-140. This conclusion was not changed by the fact that the railroads’ anticompetitive purpose produced an anti-competitive effect; the Court rejected the truckers’ Sherman Act claim despite the fact that “the truckers sustained some direct injury as an incidental effect of the railroads’ campaign to influence governmental action.” Id., at 143.
It is not disputed that a major purpose of the boycott in this case was to influence governmental action. Like the railroads in Noerr, the petitioners certainly foresaw — and directly intended — that the merchants would sustain economic injury as a result of their campaign. Unlike the railroads in that case, however, the purpose of petitioners’ campaign was not to destroy legitimate competition. Petitioners sought to vindicate rights of equality and of freedom that lie at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment itself. The right of the States to regulate economic activity could not justify a complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott designed to force governmental and economic change and to effectuate rights guaranteed by the Constitution itself.
In upholding an injunction against the state supersedeas bonding requirement in this case, Judge Ainsworth of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cogently stated:
“At the heart of the Chancery Court’s opinion lies the belief that the mere organization of the boycott and every activity undertaken in support thereof could be subject to judicial prohibition under state law. This view accords insufficient weight to the First Amendment’s protection of political speech and association. There is no suggestion that the NAACP, MAP or the individual defendants were in competition with the white businesses or that the boycott arose from parochial economic interests. On the contrary, the boycott grew out of a racial dispute with the white merchants and city government of Port Gibson and all of the picketing, speeches, and other communication associated with the boycott were directed to the elimination of racial discrimination in the town. This differentiates this case from a boycott organized for economic ends, for speech to protest racial discrimination is essential political speech lying at the core of the First Amendment.” Henry v. First National Bank of Clarksdale, 595 F. 2d 291, 303 (1979) (footnote omitted).
We hold that the nonviolent elements of petitioners’ activities are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.
B
The Mississippi Supreme Court did not sustain the chancellor’s imposition of liability on a theory that state law prohibited a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott. The fact that such activity is constitutionally protected, however, imposes a special obligation on this Court to examine critically the basis on which liability was imposed. In particular, we consider here the effect of our holding that much of petitioners’ conduct was constitutionally protected on the ability of the State to impose liability for elements of the boycott that were not so protected.
The First Amendment does not protect violence. “Certainly violence has no sanctuary in the First Amendment, and the use of weapons, gunpowder, and gasoline may not constitutionally masquerade under the guise of ‘advocacy.’” Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66, 75 (Douglas, J., concurring). Although the extent and significance of the violence in this case are vigorously disputed by the parties, there is no question that acts of violence occurred. No federal rule of law restricts a State from imposing tort liability for business losses that are caused by violence and by threats of violence. When such conduct occurs in the context of constitutionally protected activity, however, “precision of regulation” is demanded. NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438. Specifically, the presence of activity protected by the First Amendment imposes restraints on the grounds
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Murphy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises two questions: the appealability of an order denying a demand for trial by jury in a federal court, and whether the constitutional right to a jury applies to the trial of an issue of mutual mistake.
The facts are these. Petitioner in August of 1947 was carrying insurance with respondent on a hangar at its Municipal Airport. The policy by its terms insured petitioner against loss by fire or lightning in the amount of $22,000. On August 20, the hangar was completely destroyed by fire. Petitioner filed proof of loss. Shortly thereafter respondent instituted an action in the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia for reformation and correction of the policy. It alleged in substance that during the preceding year petitioner had carried only windstorm insurance on the hangar, in the same amount; that the' policy currently in force was intended by the parties to be a renewal of the prior policy; that the premium paid was the same as had been paid for windstorm insurance, an amount much less than the premium for fire insurance; and the policy had been written as a fire policy through the inadvertence of both parties and did not express the intent of either. It prayed for reformation to correct the mutual mistake and for a declaration of no liability for the loss by fire. Petitioner answered, denying mistake, and filed a counterclaim to recover oh the policy as written. Respondent' answered the counterclaim, alleging the same facts as in its complaint. Petitioner' filed a demand for jury trial under Rule 38 (b); respondent moved to strike the demand; the court granted the motion and set the case for trial to the court without a jury. Petitioner appealed from this ruling. On motion of respondent, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, 169 F. 2d 713, and the case is here on a writ of certiorari. 335 U. S.' 890.
In this posture of the case, we are first confronted with the question of the appealability of the trial court’s, order denying jury trial. Not being a final decision, it is appealable, if at all, only as an interlocutory decree granting or refusing an injunction' under § 129 of the Judicial Code (28 U. S. C. § 227). Petitioner urges Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 293 U. S. 379, and Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 317 U. S. 188, upon us as conclusive in favor of appealability. In each of those cases, the plaintiff had commenced an action to recover according to the terms of an insurance policy; in each of them the insurance company denied liability, alleging fraud in the' procurement of the policy, and moved that the issue of fraud be tried to the court without a jury. The trial court in each case granted the motion, and this Court held on review that the rulings thus made' were appealable under § 129.
The substance of § 129 has been a part of federal law since 1891, 26 Stat. 828, and its relation to other aspects of procedure has not been rigid. Since 1912 the history of the law govérning procedure in the federal courts has manifested a slow but consistent process of coalescing of the practice in the law and equity sides of the courts. In that year this Court adopted new equity rules, of. which Rule 22 and Rule 23 made a significant start in procedural unification. A major step occurred in 1915, with the enactment of the Law and Equity Act, 38 Stat. 956, which added §§ 274 (a) and 274 (b) to the Judicial Code. The net effect, of these additions was to allow transfer of action .begun on. either side of the court to the other side, without the necessity of commencing a new action, to permit determination of law questions arising in equity actions in those actions, and to allow equitable defenses to be offered and equitable relief to be granted in an action at law.
In this state of a partly blended law and equity procedure arose the Enelow case, supra. The Court there held, with regard to an order denying trial by jury, that by analogy to practice at common law the order was one granting"an injunction within the meaning of § 129.
The coalescing of law and equity procedure was completed, in 1938, with the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Their purpose, among others, was “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,” and to that end they prescribed identical procedure for all actions, whether cognizable formerly at law or in equity. After their adoption, the identical problem presented by the Enelow case arose in Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., supra. It was argued that the adoption of the rules had so unified the federal procedure that the type of order in question could no longer be considered an injunction and appealable. We held the order appealable, since the rules had not changed its substantial effect, noting that the position of the parties was the same as it would have been if a state equity court had enjoined an action at law.
Whatever the present validity of the analogy to common-law practice which supported those cases, it is of no help here. This is not a situation where a “chancellor” in denying a demand for jury trial can be said to be enjoining a “judge” who has cognizance of a pending action at law. This is rather a case of a judge making a ruling as to the manner in which he will try one isshe -in a civil action pending before himself. The fiction of a court with two sides, one of. which can stay proceedings in the other, is not applicable where there is no other proceeding in existence to be stayed. The ruling from which the appeal in this case was prosecuted is an order interlocutory in form and substance. Nothing in the language of the rules or the Judicial Code brings it within the .class of appealable decisions, -and distinctions from common-law practice which supported our conclusions in the Enelow and Ettelson cases supply no analogy competent to make an injunction of what in any ordinary understanding of.the word is not one.
Trial by jury is a vital and cherished right, integral in our judicial system. It is argued that the importance of an interlocutory order denying or granting jury trial is such that it should be appealable. Many interlocutory orders are equally important, and may determine the outcome of the litigation, but they are not for that reason converted into injunctions. The Constitution guarantees to litigants in the federal courts the right to have their cases tried by juries, and Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly implements that guarantee. Denial of the right in a case where the demanding party is entitled to it is of course error. The rulings of the district courts gran ting, or denying jury trials are subject to the most exacting scrutiny on appeal.
But piecemeal appeals have never been encouraged. The growth of the law of procedure in the United States during the last half-century has been steadily in the direction of simplicity and directness in the administration of justice. To that end, and with carefuU regard for thé constitutional rights of the parties, this Court, pursuant to specific authorization by Congress, adopted the Rules of Civil Procedure, abolishing procedural distinctions' between law and equity and establishing a, single unified practice. We would ill serve the stated purposes of the Rules of Civil Procedure were we to perpetuate by analogy distinctions which the rules expressly disavow. The Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing the appeal and its judgment is affirmed.
With the case disposed of in this manner, we do not reach the second question presented: whether petitioner is entitled to a jury on the issue of mutual mistake.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Burton concurs in the judgment of the Court.
“Where ... an injunction is granted, continued, modified, refused, or dissolved by an interlocutory order or decree, or an application to dissolve or modify'an injunction is refused, ... an appeal may be taken from 'such interlocutory order or decree' . . . .” The substance of this provision has been retained in -Revised Title 28, U. S.' C. § 1292, 62 Stat. 869.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1962 the appellee, Ben Blue, was informed by the Internal Revenue Service that he might be criminally prosecuted for violation of the federal income tax laws. The following year the Service made jeopardy assessments against Blue, his wife, and his wholly owned corporation for tax liability for the years 1958 to 1960 inclusive; the known assets of all three were seized and tax liens recorded. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, §§ 6321-6323, 6331, 6861. Statutory notices were then issued giving Blue 90 days within which to file petitions if he wished to contest the proposed deficiencies in the Tax Court, I. R. C. §6213, and Blue filed petitions setting forth his position and alleging errors in the Commissioner’s determination of deficiencies. More than a year later the Government initiated the present criminal case by a six-count indictment charging Blue with wilfully attempting to evade personal income taxes for the years 1958 through 1960 and with filing false returns for his corporation during the same years. I. R. C. §§ 7201, 7206 (1).
Blue filed a pretrial motion seeking dismissal of the indictment on several grounds. After a hearing the District Court granted the motion. The court stated orally that because of the jeopardy assessment and Tax Court proceeding Blue “has been compelled and will be compelled to come forward on the same matters as are concerned in this criminal case, to testify against himself . ...” The Government filed a notice of appeal and the case was docketed in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Determining that the District Court had sustained a “motion in bar, when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy” so that a direct appeal lay to this Court, the Court of Appeals certified the case to us, 350 F. 2d 267, and we postponed jurisdiction, 382 U. S. 971. We agree that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal and, on the merits, reverse the decision of the District Court.
Since Blue had not yet been brought to trial and put in jeopardy when dismissal occurred, see United States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278, 283, our jurisdiction under the statute is secure if the motion sustained by the District Court was a motion in bar. See, supra, n. 2. This in turn depends on “the effect of the ruling sought to be reviewed,” United States v. Hark, 320 U. S. 531, 536, and not on how the pleading is styled or on whether it is ultimately sustained on appeal. Like the Court of Appeals, we take the dismissal in this case as a ruling that absent reversal on review future prosecution of Blue on the pending counts is forever barred. While there are slight ambiguities in language, the District Court’s dismissal was grounded in what it found to be past compulsory self-incrimination and in its apparent belief that this mischief could not be undone save by turning back the clock through ending the prosecution.
Because the dismissal by its own force would “end the cause and exculpate the defendant,” United States v. Hark, 320 U. S., at 536, rather than merely abate the prosecution on account of some normally curable defect, one requisite of a motion in bar is met. Whether it is a further requisite that the motion introduce “new matter” in the fashion of a plea by way of confession and avoidance need not here be decided. See United States v. Mersky, 361 U. S. 431, 441, 453 (separate opinions disagreeing on this point). For in this instance Blue unquestionably relied on new matter in alleging self-incrimination, so the motion qualifies even under the more stringent definition. Thus under either view of a motion in bar taken in Mersky, this case qualifies for direct review. Our conclusion on the jurisdictional issue is further supported by two analogous decisions of this Court treating claims of statutory immunity as pleas in bar which permitted direct appeal. United States v. Hoffman, 335 U. S. 77; United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424.
On the merits of the case, we do not believe that the District Court should have dismissed the indictment. The Government has argued that the statements made by Blue in his Tax Court petitions were no more than successive denials of the alleged underpayments and do not constitute incriminating evidence. The Government has also intimated that by merely providing the occasion for the filing of Blue’s petitions in fulfilling its statutory duty to make jeopardy assessments and send deficiency notices, it ought not be regarded as compelling the taxpayer to incriminate himself within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. There is no need, however, to consider these or other contentions that may point in the same direction.
Even if we assume that the Government did acquire incriminating evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment, Blue would at most be entitled to suppress the evidence and its fruits if they were sought to be used against him at trial. While the general common-law practice is to admit evidence despite its illegal origins, this Court in a number of areas has recognized or developed exclusionary rules where evidence has been gained in violation of the accused’s rights under the Constitution, federal statutes, or federal rules of procedure. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383; Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U. S. 534; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643; Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338; Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449. Our numerous precedents ordering the exclusion of such illegally obtained evidence assume implicitly that the remedy does not extend to barring the prosecution altogether. So drastic a step might advance marginally some of the ends served by exclusionary rules, but it would also increase to an intolerable degree interference with the public interest in having the guilty brought to book.
We remand this case to the District Court to proceed on the merits, leaving Blue free to pursue his Fifth Amendment claim through motions to suppress and objections to evidence. It is not entirely clear from Blue’s brief and argument whether he seeks to sustain the dismissal below on other grounds that the District Court did not accept. See, supra, n. 1. Putting to one side jurisdictional difficulties this course might encounter under the direct-review statute, we believe it is fairer to all to regard no other grounds as presented, thus reserving to Blue the opportunity to articulate them plainly and support them by the record.
Reversed and remanded.
The court stated that it based the dismissal “on that ground alone.” It rejected a claim that the seizure of property and recording of tax liens had prevented Blue from preparing an adequate defense by depleting his resources. It did not expressly consider Blue’s claim that there is an administrative practice of making no assessments in advance of criminal proceedings and that failure to extend the policy to him was a denial of due process.
18 U. S. C. §3731 (1964 ed.) provides in part:
“An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the United States from the district courts direct to the Supreme Court of the United States in all criminal cases in the following instances:
“From the decision or judgment sustaining a motion in bar, when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy.
“If an appeal shall be taken pursuant to this section to any court of appeals which, in the opinion of such court, should have been taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, such court shall certify the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, which shall thereupon have jurisdiction to hear and determine the case to the same extent as if an appeal had been taken directly to that Court.”
It does not seem to be contended that tainted evidence was presented to the grand jury; but in any event our precedents indicate this would not be a basis for abating the prosecution pending a new indictment, let alone barring it altogether. See Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359; Lawn v. United States, 355 U. S. 339; 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2184a, at 40 (McNaughton rev. 1961).
See Stern & Gressman, Supreme Court Practice §2-11, at 31-33 (1962); Friedenthal, Government Appeals in Federal Criminal Cases, 12 Stan. L. Rev. 71, 97-100 (1959).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The basic issue in these cases is whether the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission in disallowing a rate reduction proposed by the appellee railroads, 326 I. C. C. 77 (1965), was consistent with the provisions of § 15a (3) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 15a (3), added by 72 Stat. 572 (1958), which governs ratemaking in situations involving intermodal competition. A subsidiary but related issue is whether the Commission adequately articulated its reasons for disallowing the proposed rate. A statutory three-judge court, upon appeal of the Commission’s decision by the appellee railroads, held that the Commission’s decision was erroneous on both of the foregoing grounds. 268 F. Supp. 71 (D. C. W. D. Ky. 1967). Because of the importance of § 15a (3) as the primary guide to ICC resolution of rate controversies involving intermodal competition, we noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal taken by the Commission and the competing carriers from the decision of the District Court. 389 U. S. 1032 (1968). For the reasons detailed below, we conclude that the District Court erred in its rejection of the Commission’s decision, and the grounds on which it was based, and we reverse.
I.
Since 1953 the movement of ingot molds from Neville Island and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Steelton, Kentucky, has been almost exclusively by combination barge-truck service, and since 1960 the overall charge for this service has been $5.11 per ton. In 1963 the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Louisville & Nashville Railroad lowered their joint rate for this same traffic from $11.86 to $5.11 per ton. The competing barge lines, joined by intervening trucking interests, protested to the ICC that the new railroad rate violated § 15a (3) of the Interstate Commerce Act because it impaired or destroyed the “inherent advantage” then enjoyed by the barge-truck service. The Commission thereupon undertook an investigation of the rate reduction.
In the course of the administrative proceedings that followed, the ICC made the following factual findings about which there is no real dispute among the parties. The fully distributed cost to the railroads of this service was $7.59 per ton, and the “long term out-of-pocket costs” were $4.69 per ton. The fully distributed cost to the barge-truck service was $5.19 per ton. The out-of-pocket cost of the barge-truck service was not separately computed, but was estimated, without contradiction, to be approximately the same as the fully distributed cost and higher, in any event, than the out-of-pocket cost of the railroads. The uncontroverted shipper testimony was to the effect that price was virtually the sole determinant of which service would be utilized, but that, were the rates charged by the railroads and the barge-truck combination the same, all the traffic would go to the railroads.
The railroads contended that they should be permitted to maintain the $5.11 rate, once it was shown to exceed the out-of-pocket cost attributable to the service, on the ground that any rate so set would enable them to make a profit on the traffic. The railroads further contended that the fact that the rate was substantially below their fully distributed cost for the service was irrelevant, since that cost in no way reflected the profitability of the traffic to them. The barge-truck interests, on the other hand, took the position that § 15a (3) required the Commission to look to the railroads' fully distributed costs in order to ascertain which of the competing modes had the inherent cost advantage on the traffic at issue. They argued that the fact that the railroads’ rate would be profitable was merely the minimum requirement under the statute. The railroads in response contended that inherent advantage should be determined by a comparison of out-of-pocket rather than fully distributed costs, and they produced several economists to testify that, from the standpoint of economic theory, the comparison of out-of-pocket, or incremental, costs was the only rational way of regulating competitive rates.
The ICC rejected the railroads’ contention that out-of-pocket costs should be the basis on which inherent advantage should be determined. The Commission observed that it had in the past regularly viewed fully distributed costs as the appropriate basis for determining which of two competing modes was the lower cost mode as regards particular traffic. It further indicated that the legislative history of § 15a (3) revealed that Congress had in mind a comparison of fully distributed costs when it inserted the reference to the National Transportation Policy into that section in place of language sought by the railroads. The Commission also emphasized that there was a rulemaking proceeding pending before it in which the whole question of the proper standard of costing in situations involving intermodal competition was being examined in depth, and stated that “a radical departure from the fully distributed cost norm” would not be justified on the basis of the record before it in this case.
Having decided to utilize a comparison between fully distributed costs to determine inherent advantage, the Commission then concluded that the rate set by the railroads would undercut the barge-truck combination’s ability to exploit its inherent advantage because the rate would force the competing carriers to go well below their own fully distributed costs to recapture the traffic from the railroads. Moreover, since the result sought by the railroads was general permission to set rates on an out-of-pocket basis, the Commission concluded that eventually the railroads could take all the traffic away from the barge-truck combination because the out-of-pocket costs of the former were lower than those of the latter and, therefore, in any rate war the railroads would be able to outlast their competitors. Accordingly, the Commission ordered that the railroads’ rate be canceled.
The District Court read the statute and its accompanying legislative history to reflect a congressional judgment that inherent advantage should be determined in most cases by a comparison of out-of-pocket costs and that, therefore, railroads should generally be permitted to set any individual rate they choose as long as that rate is compensatory. The court also held that the Commission had failed adequately to articulate its reasons for deciding that the proper way of determining which mode of transportation was the more efficient was by comparison of fully distributed costs rather than out-of-pocket costs. Although this latter holding appears first in its opinion, it is evident that it must logically follow its ruling on the meaning of § 15a (3), since if Congress in enacting that section had already decided that inherent advantage should be determined by reference to fully distributed costs, there would be no special burden on the Commission to justify its use of them.
h-l
This Court has previously had occasion to consider the meaning and legislative history of § 15a (3) of the Interstate Commerce Act in ICC v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 372 U. S. 744 (1963) (“New Haven”), and both the ICC and the District Court have relied heavily on that decision as support for the conflicting results reached by them in these cases. Because the statute and its relevant legislative history were so thoroughly canvassed there, we shall not undertake any extended discussion of the same material here. Instead, we shall refer to that opinion for most of the relevant history.
So far as relevant here, § 15a (3) provides that:
“[r]ates of a carrier shall not be held up to a particular level to protect the traffic of any other mode of transportation, giving due consideration to the objectives of the national transportation policy declared in this Act.”
The National Transportation Policy, 49 U. S. C. preceding § 1, states that it is the intention of the Congress:
“to provide for fair and impartial regulation of all modes of transportation subject to the provisions of this act, so administered as to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of each....”
The enactment of § 15a (3) in 1958 was due primarily to complaints by the railroads that the ICC had maintained rates at artificially high levels in order to protect competing modes from being driven out of business by railroad competition. The bill that eventuated in the language that is presently § 15a (3) originally provided that the ICC, in considering rate reductions, should, in a proceeding involving competition with another mode of transportation, “consider the facts and circumstances attending the movement of the traffic by railroad and not by such other mode.” (Emphasis added.) 372 U. S., at 754. This language was objected to strongly by both the ICC and representatives of those carriers with which the railroads were in competition. See Hearings on S. 3778 before the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958). The basic ground of objection was that by looking only to the effect of a rate reduction on the carrier proposing it, the ICC would be unable to protect the “inherent advantages” enjoyed by competing carriers on the traffic to which a rate reduction was to be applied.
Unfortunately, the meaning of the term “inherent advantage,” which is what the Commission is supposed to protect, is nowhere spelled out in the statute. The railroads argue, and the District Court held, that Congress intended by the term to refer to situations in which one carrier could transport goods at a lower incremental cost than another. The fallacy of this argument is that it renders the term “inherent advantage” essentially meaningless in the context of the language and history of § 15a (3).
Since the pricing of railroad services below out-of-pocket or incremental cost would result in a net revenue loss to the railroad on the carriage, the ICC could prohibit such practices without reference to the costs of any other competing carrier. And this is precisely what the language of the bill as originally endorsed by the railroads would have provided by its use of the phrase “and not by such other mode.” See supra, at 580. This language was, however, rejected by the Congress and the alternative formulation proposed by the ICC, see Hearings, supra, at 169, was substituted for it.
As this Court said in the New Haven case:
“The principal reason for this reference [to the National Transportation Policy]... was to emphasize the power of the Commission to prevent the railroads from destroying or impairing the inherent advantages of other modes. And the precise example given to the Senate Committee, which led to the language adopted, was a case in which the railroads, by establishing on a part of their operations a compensatory rate below their fully distributed cost, forced a smaller competing lower cost mode to go below its own fully distributed cost and thus perhaps to go out of business.” 372 U. S., at 758.
Since these cases are identical to the example just described, it would seem that, at the very least, the result reached by the Commission here is presumptively in accord with the language of the statute and with the intent of Congress in utilizing that language.
The District Court, however, ignored the above portion of the New Haven opinion and seized on certain other language therein to the effect that:
“It may be, for example, that neither a comparison of ‘out-of-pocket’ nor a comparison of ‘fully distributed’ costs, as those terms are defined by the Commission, is the appropriate method of deciding which of two competing modes has the cost advantage on a given movement.” 372 U. S., at 760.
It coupled this language with its interpretation of § 15a (3) as having the purpose to promote “hard competition,” and concluded that the Commission had the burden of justifying any departure from using out-of-pocket cost as the means of determining inherent cost advantage.
We think that the District Court erred in its reading both of the prior New Haven decision and of the extent to which Congress intended to foster intermodal competition. We note first that nothing in the language of the New Haven opinion indicates a preference for either out-of-pocket or fully distributed costs as a measure of inherent advantage; rather, all that is said is that the appropriate measure “may be” neither. Given the fact that the insertion of the reference to inherent advantage into § 15a (3) came about at the insistence of carriers that were demanding that fully distributed costs be the sole measure of that advantage, we think that the clear import of the foregoing statement in the New Haven opinion was that the Commission could, after due consideration, decide that some other measure of comparative costs might be more satisfactory in situations involving intermodal competition than the one it had traditionally utilized. That is a far cry from saying that it must.
The District Court apparently believed that the Commission was required to exercise its judgment in the direction of using out-of-pocket costs as the rate floor because that would encourage “hard” competition. We do not deny that the competition that would result from such a decision would probably be “hard.” Indeed, from the admittedly scanty evidence in this record, one might well conclude that the competition resulting from out-of-pocket ratemaking by the railroads would be so hard as to run a considerable number of presently existing barge and truck lines out of business.
We disagree, however, with the District Court’s reading of congressional intent. The language contained in § 15a (3) was the product of a bitter struggle between the railroads and their competitors. One of the specific fears of those competitors that prompted the change from the original language used in the bill was that the bill as it then read would permit essentially unregulated competition between all the various transportation modes. It was argued with considerable force that permitting the railroads to price on an out-of-pocket basis to meet competition would result in the eventual complete triumph of the railroads in inter-modal competition because of their ability to impose all their constant costs on traffic for which there was no competition.
The economists who testified for the railroads in this case all stated that such an unequal allocation of constant costs among shippers on the basis of demand for railroad service, i. e., on the existence of competition for particular traffic, was economically sound and desirable. Apart from the merits of this contention as a matter of economic theory, it is quite clear that it was a contention that was not by any means wholly accepted by the Congress that enacted § 15a (3). One of the specific examples given of an undesirable practice, and accepted by the members of the Commerce Committee that drafted the statute as such, was a case in which certain railroads had engaged in day-to-day differential pricing on the carriage of citrus fruit from Florida depending on whether competitive carriage was available by ship that day. See Hearings, supra, at 153-155. Similar complaints were made about seasonal variations in rates by railroads depending on whether winter conditions interfered with the carriage of freight by water. Id., at 162-163. Yet, from an economic standpoint, such rate variations make perfect competitive sense insofar as maximization of railroad revenues is concerned.
The simple fact is that § 15a (3) was not enacted, as the railroads claim, to enable them to price their services in such a way as to obtain the maximum revenue therefrom. The very words of the statute speak of “preserving]” the inherent advantages of each mode of transportation. If all that was meant by the statute was to prevent wholly noncompensatory pricing by regulated carriers, language that was a good deal clearer could easily have been used. And, as we have shown above, at least one version of such clear language was proposed by the railroads and rejected by the Congress. If the theories advanced by the economists who testified in this case are as compelling as they seem to feel they are, Congress is the body to whom they should be addressed. The courts are ill-qualified indeed to make the kind of basic judgments about economic policy sought by the railroads here. And it would be particularly inappropriate for a court to award a carrier, on economic grounds, relief denied it by the legislature. Yet this is precisely what the District Court has done in this case.
We do not mean to suggest by the foregoing discussion that the Commission is similarly barred from making legislative judgments about matters of economic policy. It is precisely to permit such judgments that the task of regulating transportation rates has been entrusted to a specialized administrative agency rather than to courts of general jurisdiction. Of course, the Commission must operate within the limits set out by Congress in enacting the legislation it administers. But nothing we say here should be taken as expressing any view as to the extent that § 15a (3) constitutes a categorical command to the ICC to use fully distributed costs as the only measure of inherent advantage in intermodal rate controversies. As was stated in the New Haven case, it “may be” that after due consideration another method of costing will prove to be preferable in such situations as the present one. All we hold here is that the initial determination of that question is for the Commission.
It is in this connection that the timing of this case takes on particular significance. We have already observed that the ICC has presently pending before it a broad-scale examination of the whole question of the cost standards to be used where comparisons of inter-modal cost advantages are required. Rather than await the result of that rulemaking proceeding, the railroad appellees here determined to attempt to raise precisely the same issues in a much more circumscribed proceeding by unilaterally reducing their rates on one item of traffic. The District Court totally ignored the temporary nature of the ICC’s action in this case and the pendency of the rulemaking proceeding. Instead, it went ahead and, in the guise of resolving this particular controversy over a single rate reduction, rendered a decision which, for all practical purposes, made the rulemaking proceeding moot. While there might be some justification for such a course when the applicable statute clearly requires the agency to arrive at a given result, this case is emphatically not such a situation. As this Court stated in New Haven, “ [t] hese and other similar questions should be left for initial resolution to the Commission’s informed judgment.” 372 U. S., at 761.
The Commission stated here that it intended to exercise its informed judgment by considering the issues presented here in the context of a rulemaking proceeding where it could evaluate the alternatives on the basis of a consideration of the effects of a departure from a fully distributed cost standard on the transportation industry as a whole. Until that evaluation was completed, the Commission took the position that it would continue to follow the practice it had observed in the past of dealing with individual rate reductions on a fully distributed cost basis. The District Court, in effect, refused to permit the Commission to deal with the complex problems of developing a general standard of costing to use in determining inherent advantage in situations involving intermodal competition in the broad context of a rule-making proceeding. Instead, it ordered the Commission to resolve those problems in the narrow context of this individual rate reduction proceeding.
We have already observed that the District Court erred in interpreting the New Haven decision to require the Commission to permit out-of-pocket pricing in most instances. Given the fact that New Haven indicated that the Commission was to exercise its informed judgment in ultimately determining what method of costing was preferable, it is clear that the District Court also erred in refusing to permit the Commission to exercise that judgment in a proceeding it reasonably believed would provide the most adequate record for the resolution of the problems involved. We can see no justification for denying the Commission reasonable latitude to decide where it will resolve these complex issues, in addition to how it will resolve them. The action by the District Court here not only deprives the Commission of the opportunity to make the initial resolution of the issues but also prevents it from doing so in a more suitable context.
This Court has just recently held that the Federal Power Commission had the authority to fix rates on an area-wide basis rather than on an individual producer basis and that, in order to make such a procedure feasible, it had statutory authority to impose a moratorium upon rate increases by producers for a period of 2% years after the setting of the area rate. Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U. S. 747 (1968). The basis for this holding was the principle that the “legislative discretion implied in the rate making power necessarily extends to the entire legislative process, embracing the method used in reaching the legislative determination as well as that determination itself.” Id., at 776. That principle is equally applicable to rate regulation carried out by the ICC, especially where, as here, the determination made on an interim basis is in general accord with both the legislative history of the statute involved and the results in prior cases decided by the agency. Accordingly, we hold that the Commission had ample authority to decline to deal with the broad contentions advanced by the railroads in this individual rate case and that the District Court erred in failing to recognize that authority.
The District Court also objected to the failure of the Commission to explain why it permitted out-of-pocket ratemaking where the competing carrier was unregulated and not where the competitor was regulated. The short answer to this is that § 15a (3) by its own terms applies only to “modes of transportation subject to this Act,” which by definition means regulated carriers. As a result any arbitrariness that may flow from the distinction recognized by the Commission between regulated and unregulated carriers in situations of intermodal competition is the creation of Congress, not of the Commission.
The District Court also appears to have held that the Commission did not adequately explain how the rate set by the railroads would impair or destroy the barge-truck inherent advantage. Yet the Commission pointed out that the principle proposed by the railroads would, if recognized, permit the railroads to capture all the traffic here that is presently carried by the barge-truck combination because the railroads’ out-of-pocket costs were lower than those of the combined barge-truck service. The District Court seems to have been impressed by the fact that the railroads were merely meeting the barge-truck rate, despite the uncontroverted evidence that given equal rates all traffic would move by train. Given a service advantage, it seems somewhat unrealistic to suggest that rate parity does not result in undercutting the competitor that does not possess the service advantage. In any event, regardless of the label used, it seems self-evident that a carrier’s “inherent advantage” of being the low cost mode on a fully distributed cost basis is impaired when a competitor sets a rate that forces the carrier to lower its own rate below its fully distributed costs in order to retain the traffic. In addition, when a rate war would be likely to eventually result in pushing rates to a level at which the rates set would no longer provide a fair profit, the Commission has traditionally, and properly, taken the position that such a rate struggle should be prevented from commencing in the first place. Certainly there is no suggestion here that the rate charged by the barge-truck combination was excessive and in need of being driven down by competitive pressure. We conclude, therefore, that the Commission adequately articulated its reasons for determining that the railroads' rate would impair the inherent advantage enjoyed by the barge-truck service.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cases are remanded to that court with directions to enter a judgment affirming the Commission’s order.
It is so ordered.
The United States, a statutory defendant in the District Court, supported the railroads’ position there and has participated in support of them in the proceedings before this Court.
The -term “inherent advantage” comes from the National Transportation Policy, 49 U. S. C. preceding § 1, and is incorporated by reference into § 15a (3) of the Interstate Commerce Act. The meaning of the term is the central issue in these cases and will be discussed in considerable detail, infra, at 579-594.
Fully distributed costs are defined broadly by the ICC as the “out-of-pocket costs plus a revenue-ton and revenue ton-mile distribution of the constant costs, including deficits, [that] indicate the revenue necessary to a fair return on the traffic, disregarding ability to pay.” New Automobiles in Interstate Commerce, 259 I. C. C. 475, 513 (1945).
The long-term out-of-pocket costs were computed under an ICC-sponsored formula which generally holds that 80% of rail operating expenses, rents and taxes are out-of-pocket in that they will vary with traffic. To this is added a return element of 4% on a portion of the investment (all the equipment and 50% of the road property), which is apportioned to all traffic on a proportional basis. Compare n. 3, supra.
This figure is not precisely a cost figure. Rather it is the barge fully distributed cost, plus the charge made for the truck portion of the service and the charge for barge-truck transfer. Since all parties seem willing to treat the figure as one of fully distributed cost for the barge-truck combination, no further mention will be made of its disparate elements.
Because the barge-truck rate of $5.11 was below the fully distributed cost of the service, Division 2 of the ICC initially concluded that the barge-truck combination had forfeited its right to claim that its inherent advantage of lower fully distributed cost was being impaired by the railroads’ setting of a matching rate. On reconsideration, the full Commission reversed this ruling by Division 2, observing that there was no evidence that the failure of the barge-truck rate to equal fully distributed cost was due to anything but the barge lines’ ignorance of the precise amount of their fully distributed cost for this service. This determination is not challenged here by any party and we express no opinion on it.
Out-of-pocket costs have been regarded generally in these cases as equivalent to what economists refer to as “incremental” or “marginal” costs. Accordingly we shall equate the terms likewise, although we have no intention of vouching for the accuracy of that equation as a matter of pure economics. Cf. n. 4, supra. Such costs are defined generally as the costs specifically incurred by the addition of each new unit of output and do not include any allocation to that unit of pre-existing overhead expenses.
A rate is compensatory in the sense used by the District Court any time it is greater than the out-of-pocket cost of the service for which the rate is set. The term fully compensatory is sometimes used to describe a rate in excess of fully distributed costs.
An illustration of such a case is the decision of the ICC that was reversed in the New Haven case. There the ICC had refused to permit the railroads to set a rate which was not only above their out-of-pocket cost for the service but was also above their fully distributed cost for approximately half of the movements involved. The Commission did not rely on a determination of which of the competing carriers had the inherent advantage as to costs, but instead decided broadly that the rate would eventually destroy the coastwise shipping industry and therefore should be prohibited. This Court held that, in general, the ICC was required to determine which of the competing carriers possessed the inherent advantage before a rate could be ordered cancelled in order to protect a carrier’s present rate. While the Court indicated that the Nation’s defense needs might permit protection of even a higher cost carrier in some cases, it held that the ICC had not adequately shown New Haven to be such a case.
The appellees also contend, and the District Court held, that the statements in the legislative history of § 15a (3) that Congress intended to compel the Commission to return to the approach to competitive rate regulation it had utilized in the case of New Automobiles in Interstate Commerce, 259 I. C. C. 475 (1945), indicate that out-of-pocket ratemaking was intended to be the rule in such cases. However, the passage quoted from New Automobiles simply states that the rates of one mode of transportation should not be held up merely to protect competing modes. It says nothing at all about inherent advantages.
The railroads argue that the basic thrust of the New Automobiles case was to compare costs on an out-of-pocket basis. And it is true that many of the comparisons there made were on that basis. However, an examination of what the Commission actually said and did in New Automobiles compels the conclusion that no flat rule of comparison of out-of-pocket costs was there laid down. For example, the Commission concluded that on the basis of a comparison with the railroads' out-of-pocket costs for shipping automobiles, the truckers were the lower cost mode only up to 120 miles. On a fully distributed cost comparison the truckers were the lower cost mode up to 230 miles. 259 I. C. C., at 528. After discussing at some length the concept of reasonable minimum rates, the Commission ultimately concluded that generally the truckers had the cost advantage at distances up to 200 miles and that the railroads should be permitted to set rates that would permit them to compete for the longer-haul trafflc. 259 I. C. C., at 539.
Given the fact that the Commission was dealing with an attempt by the truckers to get it to hold up railroad rates for distances even greater than 600 miles, it is not surprising that the issue of measuring inherent advantage as between fully distributed and out-of-pocket costs did not receive detailed consideration, since by either method the truckers were the low cost mode only up to a little more than 200 miles. Thus it cannot fairly be said that New Automobiles represents a considered choice between the two methods of cost comparison. Rather what it stands for is the principle emphasized in the New Haven case that the rates of one mode should not be held up to protect the revenues of a competitor without regard to which is the low cost carrier.
In any event, what matters so far as § 15a (3) is concerned is not what the Commission meant in New Automobiles but what Congress thought it meant in 1958 when the section was enacted. As we have shown in the text of the opinion above, Congress considered New Automobiles to stand for the principle that the rate structure of a competing mode should not be protected by the Commission simply to prevent it from losing business through competition.
The District Court also relied on the rejection of a similar proposal by truck and barge interests that fully distributed costs be the floor for reasonable minimum rates in the course of the enactment of the National Transportation Policy in 1940. It seems clear, however, that one of the major reasons for the rejection of the so-called Miller-Wadsworth amendment by Congress was the possibility that its enactment would prevent low-value industrial and agricultural commodities from being carried at a rate low enough to make it economically feasible to ship them in interstate commerce. See generally Nelson, Rate-Making In Transportation — Congressional Intent, 1960 Duke L. J. 221, 228-238.
While it is true that, for varying and sometimes unexplained reasons, the Commission has not invariably used fully distributed costs as the basis for cost comparisons in situations involving inter-modal competition, see 268 F. Supp., at 78, it is also true that it has generally declared fully distributed cost comparisons to be preferable. Thus in the hearings on the bill that was to become §15a(3), Commissioner Freas stated:
“Whenever conditions permit, given transportation should return the full cost of performing carrier service.... In many instances, however, the full cost of the low-cost form of transportation exceeds the out-of-pocket cost of another. If, then, we are required to accept the rates of the high cost carrier merely because they exceed its out-of-pocket costs, we see no way of preserving the inherent advantages of the low cost carrier.” Quoted at 372 U. S., at 755.
The District Court ascertained the legislative purpose to promote “hard competition” from the following passage from the New Haven opinion:
“Section 15a (3), in other words, made it clear that something more than even hard competition must be shown before a particular rate can be deemed unfair or destructive. The principal purpose of the reference to the National Transportation Policy, as we have seen, was to prevent a carrier from setting a rate which would impair or destroy the inherent advantages of a competing carrier, for example, by setting a rate, below its own fully distributed costs, which would force a competitor with a cost advantage on particular transportation to establish an unprofitable rate in order to attract traffic.” 372 U. S., at 759.
Since the sentence following the term “hard competition” described an example of the competition prohibited by the National Transportation Policy that is identical to the facts of the present case, the District Court’s use of the term to reverse the ICC’s decision here seems somewhat peculiar.
Constant costs are, broadly speaking, those items of expense which are incurred by a business regardless of the scale of its operations. They are essentially the equivalent to what is commonly called overhead expenses. For railroads constant costs include such items as real estate taxes, certain rents, much right-of-way maintenance expense and similar expenses.
Unequal allocation of constant costs as an element of the rate charged also occurs commonly where a bulky commodity is so low valued on a per ton basis that setting a rate by reference to the fully distributed cost of carrying the commodity would make it uneconomic to ship it. See n. 11, supra.
This Court is not particularly suited to pass on the merits of the economic arguments made by the railroads’ expert witnesses in these cases. Moreover, their soundness is not especially relevant to the result we reach in the present posture of this controversy. However, because the economic testimony is emphasized so heavily by both the railroads and the United States in their arguments to us, we shall venture a few observations on it.
Most of the economic testimony is directed towards proving that the utilization of out-of-pocket costs in setting rates permits the railroads to maximize their profits. To the extent that out-of-pocket costs are accurately computed, that proposition appears uncontro-vertible. The economists then go on to argue, in effect, that what is good for the railroads is good for the country. This argument is developed as follows. Whenever a railroad lowers its rate, the shipper to whom that rate is available benefits. As long as the rate is above the out-of-pocket cost of the service, the railroad benefits by obtaining the profits from traffic it formerly did not carry. The fact that a competing carrier may lose the revenue it previously earned by carrying the traffic is immaterial because the railroad’s ability to make a profit by charging the lower rate shows that it is, in some sense, more efficient than its competitor.
In order to evaluate the foregoing argument certain other aspects of a railroad’s operation must be kept in mind. The reason why a railroad’s fully distributed costs are substantially greater than its out-of-pocket costs on any given traffic is, inter alia, because certain constant costs, see n. 14, supra, are allocated to that traffic on a proportional basis despite the fact that those costs will be incurred by the railroad whether it carries the particular traffic or not. These constant costs must be earned if the railroad is to stay in business. They are allocated proportionally on the theory that, all other factors being equal, such an allocation will be the best way of assuring that each shipper contributes his fair share towards covering the constant costs. Obviously to the extent that any shipper pays more of the constant costs than another without any good reason for so doing that shipper is, in some sense, discriminated against.
The railroad economists point out that, because constant costs by definition are not attributable to the carriage of any particular traffic, it is to some extent arbitrary to allocate them to particular traffic. They further contend that all shippers presently utilizing a railroad’s services are benefited when the railroad obtains additional traffic at a profit to it, because that profit can be used to pay a portion of the constant costs currently being charged wholly to them. The fact that charging a rate less than its fully distributed cost of carrying the traffic results in the shipper of that freight paying a disproportionally low share of the railroad’s constant costs is considered to be outweighed by the overall benefit to the other shippers of having the absolute amount borne by them of the constant costs decreased by the profit earned on the traffic.
It seems apparent, however, that in a case where the sole reason that a rate below fully distributed cost is necessary to attract such additional traffic is the competition of another mode of transportation, the continued existence of that competition is also the sole economic justification for maintaining the rate at a relative level that favors one shipper over others. If the competing carrier is driven out of business because of its inability to match the railroad’s lower rates set on an out-of-pocket basis, the economic justification for permitting the continuation of those low rates would seem to disappear. Yet the railroad economists assert that in such a situation the railroad should be required by the ICC to maintain the rate
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment precludes the State of Washington from extending assistance under a state vocational rehabilitation assistance program to a blind person studying at a Christian college and seeking to become a pastor, missionary, or youth director. Finding no such federal constitutional barrier on the record presented to us, we reverse and remand.
f — {
Petitioner Larry Witters applied in 1979 to the Washington Commission for the Blind for vocational rehabilitation services pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code §74.16.181 (1981). That statute authorized the Commission, inter alia, to “[pjrovide for special education and/or training in the professions, business or trades” so as to “assist visually handicapped persons to overcome vocational handicaps and to obtain the maximum degree of self-support and self-care.” Ibid. Petitioner, suffering from a progressive eye condition, was eligible for vocational rehabilitation assistance under the terms of the statute. He was at the time attending Inland Empire School of the Bible, a private Christian college in Spokane, Washington, and studying the Bible, ethics, speech, and church administration in order to equip himself for a career as a pastor, missionary, or youth director. App. 7-8.
The Commission denied petitioner aid. It relied on an earlier determination embodied in a Commission policy statement that “[t]he Washington State constitution forbids the use of public funds to assist an individual in the pursuit of a career or degree in theology or related areas,” id., at 4, and on its conclusion that petitioner’s training was “religious instruction” subject to that ban. Id., at 1. That ruling was affirmed by a state hearings examiner, who held that the Commission was precluded from funding petitioner’s training “in light of the State Constitution’s prohibition against the state directly or indirectly supporting a religion.” App. to Pet. for Cert. F-6. The hearings examiner cited Wash. Const., Art. I, § 11, providing in part that “no public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment,” and Wash. Const., Art. IX, §4, providing that “[a]ll schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence.” App. to Pet. for Cert. F-4. That ruling, in turn, was upheld on internal administrative appeal.
Petitioner then instituted an action in State Superior Court for review of the administrative decision; the court affirmed on the same state-law grounds cited by the agency. The State Supreme Court affirmed as well. Witters v. Commission for the Blind, 102 Wash. 2d 624, 689 P. 2d 53 (1984). The Supreme Court, however, declined to ground its ruling on the Washington Constitution. Instead, it explicitly reserved judgment on the state constitutional issue and chose to base its ruling on the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution. The court stated:
“The Supreme Court has developed a 3-part test for determining the constitutionality of state aid under the establishment clause of the First Amendment. ‘First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion . . . ; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”’ Lemon v. Kurtzman, [403 U. S. 602, 612-613 (1971)]. To withstand attack under the establishment clause, the challenged state action must satisfy each of the three criteria. ” Id., at 627-628, 689 P. 2d, at 55.
The Washington court had no difficulty finding the “secular purpose” prong of that test satisfied. Applying the second prong, however, that of “principal or primary effect,” the court held that “[t]he provision of financial assistance by the State to enable someone to become a pastor, missionary, or church youth director clearly has the primary effect of advancing religion.” Id., at 629, 689 P. 2d, at 56. The court, therefore, held that provision of aid to petitioner would contravene the Federal Constitution. In light of that ruling, the court saw no need to reach the “entanglement” prong; it stated that the record was in any case inadequate for such an inquiry.
We granted certiorari, 471 U. S. 1002 (1985), and we now reverse.
II
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has consistently presented this Court with difficult questions of interpretation and application. We acknowledged in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), that “we can only dimly perceive the lines of demarcation in this extraordinarily sensitive area of constitutional law.” Id., at 612, quoted in Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388, 393 (1983). Nonetheless, the Court’s opinions in this area have at least clarified “the broad contours of our inquiry,” Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756, 761 (1973), and are sufficient to dispose of this case.
We are guided, as was the court below, by the three-part test set out by this Court in Lemon and quoted supra, at 484-485. See Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U. S. 373, 382-383 (1985). Our analysis relating to the first prong of that test is simple: all parties concede the unmistakably secular purpose of the Washington program. That program was designed to promote the well-being of the visually handicapped through the provision of vocational rehabilitation services, and no more than a minuscule amount of the aid awarded under the program is likely to flow to religious education. No party suggests that the State’s “actual purpose” in creating the program was to endorse religion, Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 74 (1985), quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 690 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring), or that the secular purpose articulated by the legislature is merely “sham.” Wallace, supra, at 64 (Powell, J., concurring).
The answer to the question posed by the second prong of the Lemon test is more difficult. We conclude, however, that extension of aid to petitioner is not barred on that ground either. It is well settled that the Establishment Clause is not violated every time money previously in the possession of a State is conveyed to a religious institution. For example, a State may issue a paycheck to one of its employees, who may then donate all or part of that paycheck to a religious institution, all without constitutional barrier; and the State may do so even knowing that the employee so intends to dispose of his salary. It is equally well settled, on the other hand, that the State may not grant aid to a religious school, whether cash or in kind, where the effect of the aid is “that of a direct subsidy to the religious school” from the State. Grand, Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U. S., at 394. Aid may have that effect even though it takes the form of aid to students or parents. Ibid.; see, e. g., Wolman v. Walter, 433 U. S. 229, 248-251 (1977); Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U. S. 825 (1973). The question presented is whether, on the facts as they appear in the record before us, extension of aid to petitioner and the use of that aid by petitioner to support his religious education is a permissible transfer similar to the hypothetical salary donation described above, or is an impermissible “direct subsidy.”
Certain aspects of Washington’s program are central to our inquiry. As far as the record shows, vocational assistance provided under the Washington program is paid directly to the student, who transmits it to the educational institution of his or her choice. Any aid provided under Washington’s program that ultimately flows to religious institutions does so only as a result of the genuinely independent and private choices of aid recipients. Washington’s program is “made available generally without regard to the sectarian-nonsectarian, or public-nonpublic nature of the institution benefited,” Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S., at 782-783, n. 38, and is in no way skewed towards religion. It is not one of “the ingenious plans for channeling state aid to sectarian schools that periodically reach this Court,” id., at 785. It creates no financial incentive for students to undertake sectarian education, see id., at 785-786. It does not tend to provide greater or broader benefits for recipients who apply their aid to religious education, nor are the full benefits of the program limited, in large part or in whole, to students at sectarian institutions. On the contrary, aid recipients have full opportunity to expend vocational rehabilitation aid on wholly secular education, and as a practical matter have rather greater prospects to do so. Aid recipients’ choices are made among a huge variety of possible careers, of which only a small handful are sectarian. In this case, the fact that aid goes to individuals means that the decision to support religious education is made by the individual, not by the State.
Further, and importantly, nothing in the record indicates that, if petitioner succeeds, any significant portion of the aid expended under the Washington program as a whole will end up flowing to religious education. The function of the Washington program is hardly “to provide desired financial support for nonpublic, sectarian institutions.” Id., at 783; see Sloan v. Lemon, supra; cf. Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U. S. 349, 363-364 (1975). The program, providing vocational assistance to the visually handicapped, does not seem well suited to serve as the vehicle for such a subsidy. No evidence has been presented indicating that any other person has ever sought to finance religious education or activity pursuant to the State’s program. The combination of these factors, we think, makes the link between the State and the school petitioner wishes to attend a highly attenuated one.
On the facts we have set out, it does not seem appropriate to view any aid ultimately flowing to the Inland Empire School of the Bible as resulting from a state action sponsoring or subsidizing religion. Nor does the mere circumstance that petitioner has chosen to use neutrally available state aid to help pay for his religious education confer any message of state endorsement of religion. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S., at 688 (O’Connor, J., concurring). Thus, while amici supporting respondent are correct in pointing out that aid to a religious institution unrestricted in its potential uses, if properly attributable to the State, is “clearly prohibited under the Establishment Clause,” Grand, Rapids, supra, at 395, because it may subsidize the religious functions of that institution, that observation is not apposite to this case. On the facts present here, we think the Washington program works no state support of religion prohibited by the Establishment Clause.
f — H I — I 1 — I
We therefore reject the claim that, on the record presented, extension of aid under Washington’s vocational rehabilitation program to finance petitioner’s training at a Christian college to become a pastor, missionary, or youth director would advance religion in a manner inconsistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. On remand, the state court is of course free to consider the applicability of the “far stricter” dictates of the Washington State Constitution, see Witters v. Commission for the Blind, 102 Wash. 2d, at 626, 689 P. 2d, at 55. It may also choose to reopen the factual record in order to consider the arguments made by respondent and discussed in nn. 3 and 5, supra. We decline petitioner’s invitation to leapfrog consideration of those issues by holding that the Free Exercise Clause"! requires Washington to extend vocational rehabilitation aid to petitioner regardless of what the State Constitution com- ffi1" mands or further factual development reveals, and we express no opinion on that matter. See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 568 (1947).
The judgment of the Washington Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
In 1983 the Washington Legislature repealed chapters 74.16 and 74.17 of the Code, enacting in their place a new chapter 74.18. The statutory-revision abolished the Commission for the Blind and created respondent Department of Services for the Blind. See 1983 Wash. Laws, ch. 194, § 3. We shall refer to respondent for purposes of this opinion as “the Commission.”
Washington Rev. Code, ch. 74.18, see n. 1, supra, establishes a requirement that aid recipients be persons who “(1) have no vision or limited vision which constitutes or results in a substantial handicap to employment and (2) can reasonably be expected to benefit from vocational rehabilitation services in terms of employability.” Wash. Rev. Code §74.18.130 (1983) (effective June 30,1983). It has not been established whether petitioner is eligible for aid under the new standard. That determination, however, will have no effect on any claim asserted by petitioner for reimbursement of aid withheld beginning in 1979.
Respondent offers extensive argument before this Court relating to the practical workings of the state vocational assistance program. Focusing on the asserted practical “nature and operation of that program,” Brief for Respondent 6, respondent asserts that the nature of the program in fact leads to an impermissible “symbolic union” of governmental and religious functions, “requiring] government choices at every step of the rehabilitation process” and “intertwining . . . governmental decisionmaking . . . with decisionmaking by church and school authorities.” Id., at 20. Respondent contends that the program therefore violates the second and third prongs of the Lemon test in a way that “hands off” aid, such as that provided pursuant to the GI Bill, does not. Id., at 11.
This argument, however, was not presented to the state courts, and appears to rest in large part on facts not part of the record before us. Because this Court must affirm or reverse upon the case as it appears in the record, Russell v. Southard, 12 How. 139, 159 (1851); see also New Haven Inclusion Cases, 399 U. S. 392, 450, n. 66 (1970), we have no occasion to consider the argument here. Nor is it appropriate, as a matter of good judicial administration, for us to consider claims that have not been the subject of factual development in earlier proceedings. On remand, it will be up to the Washington Supreme Court as a matter of state procedural law whether and to what extent it should reopen the record for the introduction of evidence on the issues raised for the first time in this Court.
This is not the ease described in Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U. S. 373, 396 (1985) (‘Where ... no meaningful distinction can be made between aid to the student and aid to the school, ‘the concept of a loan to individuals is a transparent fiction’ ”), quoting Wolman v. Walter, 433 U. S. 229, 264 (1977) (opinion of Powell, J.); see also Wolman, supra, at 250.
We decline to address the “entanglement” issue at this time. As a prudential matter, it would be inappropriate for us to address that question without the benefit of a decision on the issue below. Further, we have no reason to doubt the conclusion of the Washington Supreme Court that that analysis could be more fruitfully conducted on a more complete record.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
OPINION OF THE COURT
[559 U.S. 395]
Justice Scalia
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II-A, an opinion with respect to Parts II-B and II-D, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, and Justice Sotomayor join, and an opinion with respect to Part II-C, in which The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join.
[559 U.S. 396]
New York law prohibits class actions in suits seeking penalties or statutory minimum damages. We consider whether this precludes a federal district court sitting in diversity from entertaining a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
[559 U.S. 397]
I
The petitioner’s complaint alleged the following: Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P. A., provided medical care to Sonia E. Galvez for injuries she suffered in an automobile accident. As partial payment for that care, Galvez assigned to Shady Grove her rights to insurance benefits under a policy issued in New York by Allstate Insurance Co. Shady Grove tendered a claim for the assigned benefits to Allstate, which under New York law had 30 days to pay the claim or deny it. See N. Y. Ins. Law Ann. § 5106(a) (West 2009). Allstate apparently paid, but not on time, and it refused to pay the statutory interest that accrued on the overdue benefits (at two percent per month), see ibid.
Shady Grove filed this diversity suit in the Eastern District of New York to recover the unpaid statutory interest. Alleging that Allstate routinely refuses to pay interest on overdue benefits, Shady Grove sought relief on behalf of itself and a class of all others to whom Allstate owes interest. The District Court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. 466 F. Supp. 2d 467 (2006). It reasoned that N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. § 901(b), which precludes a suit to recover a “penalty” from proceeding as a class action, applies in diversity suits in federal court, despite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Concluding that statutory interest is a “penalty” under New York law, it held that § 901(b) prohibited the proposed class action. And, since Shady Grove conceded that its individual claim (worth roughly $500) fell far short of the amount-in-controversy requirement for individual suits under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the suit did not belong in federal court.
[559 U.S. 398]
The Second Circuit affirmed. 549 F.3d 137 (2008). The court did not dispute that a Federal Rule adopted in compliance with the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072, would control if it conflicted with § 901(b). But there was no conflict because (as we will describe in more detail below) the Second Circuit concluded that Rule 23 and § 901(b) address different issues. Finding no Federal Rule on point, the Court of Appeals held that § 901(b) is “substantive” within the meaning of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938), and thus must be applied by federal courts sitting in diversity.
We granted certiorari. 556 U.S. 1220, 129 S. Ct. 2160, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1155 (2009).
II
The framework for our decision is familiar. We must first determine whether Rule 23 answers the question in dispute. Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1, 4-5, 107 S. Ct. 967, 94 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987). If it does, it governs—New York’s law notwithstanding—unless it exceeds statutory authorization or Congress’s rulemaking power. Id., at 5, 107 S. Ct. 967, 94 L. Ed. 2d 1; see Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 463-464, 85 S. Ct. 1136, 14 L. Ed. 2d 8 (1965). We do not wade into Erie’s murky waters unless the Federal Rule is inapplicable or invalid. See 380 U.S., at 469-471, 85 S. Ct. 1136, 14 L. Ed. 2d 8.
A
The question in dispute is whether Shady Grove’s suit may proceed as a class action. Rule 23 provides an answer. It states that “[a] class action may be maintained” if two conditions are met: The suit must satisfy the criteria set forth in subdivision (a) (i.e., numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation), and it also must fit into one of the three categories described in subdivision (b). Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(b). By its terms this creates a categorical rule entitling a plaintiff whose suit meets the specified criteria to pursue his claim as a class action. (The Federal Rules regularly use “may” to confer categorical permission, see, e.g., Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 8(d)(2)—(3), 14(a)(1), 18(a)-(b), 20(a)(1)-(2), 27(a)(1), 30(a)(1), as do federal statutes that establish
[559 U.S. 399]
procedural entitlements, see, e.g., 29 U.S.C. § 626(c)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).) Thus, Rule 23 provides a one-size-fits-all formula for deciding the class-action question. Because § 901(b) attempts to answer the same question—i.e., it states that Shady Grove’s suit “may not be maintained as a class action” (emphasis added) because of the relief it seeks—it cannot apply in diversity suits unless Rule 23 is ultra vires.
The Second Circuit believed that § 901(b) and Rule 23 do not conflict because they address different issues. Rule 23, it said, concerns only the criteria for determining whether a given class can and should be certified; § 901(b), on the other hand, addresses an antecedent question: whether the particular type of claim is eligible for class treatment in the first place—a question on which Rule 23 is silent. See 549 F.3d, at 143-144. Allstate embraces this analysis. Brief for Respondent 12-13.
We disagree. To begin with, the line between eligibility and certifiability is entirely artificial. Both are preconditions for maintaining a class action. Allstate suggests that eligibility must depend on the “particular cause of action” asserted, instead of some other attribute of the suit, id., at 12. But that is not so. Congress could, for example, provide that only claims involving more than a certain number of plaintiffs are “eligible” for class treatment in federal court. In other words, relabeling Rule 23(a)’s prerequisites “eligibility criteria” would obviate Allstate’s objection—a sure sign that its eligibility-certifiability distinction is made-to-order.
There is no reason, in any event, to read Rule 23 as addressing only whether claims made eligible for class treatment by some other law should be certified as class actions. Allstate asserts that Rule 23 neither explicitly nor implicitly empowers a federal court “to certify a class in each and every case” where the Rule’s criteria are met. Id., at 13-14. But that is exactly what Rule 23 does: It says that if the
[559 U.S. 400]
prescribed preconditions are satisfied “[a] class action may be maintained” (emphasis added)—not “a class action may be permitted.” Courts do not maintain actions; litigants do. The discretion suggested by Rule 23’s “may” is discretion residing in the plaintiff: He may bring his claim in a class action if he wishes. And like the rest of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 automatically applies “in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 1. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 699-700, 99 S. Ct. 2545, 61 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1979).
Allstate points out that Congress has carved out some federal claims from Rule 23’s reach, see, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(1)(B)—which shows, Allstate contends, that Rule 23 does not authorize class actions for all claims, but rather leaves room for laws like § 901(b). But Congress, unlike New York, has ultimate authority over the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it can create exceptions to an individual rule as it sees fit—either by directly amending the rule or by enacting a separate statute overriding it in certain instances. Cf. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 668, 116 S. Ct. 1638, 134 L. Ed. 2d 880 (1996). The fact that Congress has created specific exceptions to Rule 23 hardly proves that the Rule does not apply generally. In fact, it proves the opposite. If Rule 23 did not authorize class actions across the board, the statutory exceptions would be unnecessary.
Allstate next suggests that the structure of § 901 shows that Rule 23 addresses only certifiability. Section 901(a), it notes, establishes class-certification criteria roughly analogous to those in Rule 23 (wherefore it agrees that subsection is pre-empted). But § 901(b)’s rule barring class actions for certain claims is set off as its own subsection, and where it applies, § 901(a) does not. This shows, according to Allstate, that § 901(b) concerns a separate subject. Perhaps it does concern a subject separate from the subject of § 901(a). But the question before us is whether it concerns a subject separate from the subject of Rule 23—and for purposes of answering
[559 U.S. 401]
that question the way New York has structured its statute is immaterial. Rule 23 permits all class actions that meet its requirements, and a State cannot limit that permission by structuring one part of its statute to track Rule 23 and enacting another part that imposes additional requirements. Both of § 901’s subsections undeniably answer the same question as Rule 23: whether a class action may proceed for a given suit. Cf. Burlington, 480 U.S., at 7-8, 107 S. Ct. 967, 94 L. Ed. 2d 1.
The dissent argues that § 901(b) has nothing to do with whether Shady Grove may maintain its suit as a class action, but affects only the remedy it may obtain if it wins. See post, at 443-451, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 345-351 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.). Whereas “Rule 23 governs procedural aspects of class litigation” by “prescrib [ing] the considerations relevant to class certification and postcertification proceedings,” § 901(b) addresses only “the size of a monetary award a class plaintiff may pursue.” Post, at 446-447, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 347-348. Accordingly, the dissent says, Rule 23 and New York’s law may coexist in peace.
We need not decide whether a state law that limits the remedies available in an existing class action would conflict with Rule 23; that is not what § 901(b) does. By its terms, the provision precludes a plaintiff from “main-tainting]” a class action seeking statutory penalties. Unlike a law that sets a ceiling on damages (or puts other remedies out of reach) in properly filed class actions, § 901(b) says nothing about what remedies a court may award; it prevents the class actions it covers from coming into existence at all. Consequently,
[559 U.S. 402]
a court bound by § 901(b) could not certify a class action seeking both statutory penalties and other remedies even if it announces in advance that it will refuse to award the penalties in the event the plaintiffs prevail; to do so would violate the statute’s clear prohibition on “maintain[ing]” such suits as class actions.
The dissent asserts that a plaintiff can avoid § 901(b)’s barrier by omitting from his complaint (or removing) a request for statutory penalties. See post, at 449-450, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 349-350. Even assuming all statutory penalties are waivable, the fact that a complaint omitting them could be brought as a class action would not at all prove that § 901(b) is addressed only to remedies. If the state law instead banned class actions for fraud claims, a would-be class-action plaintiff could drop the fraud counts from his complaint and proceed with the remainder in a class action. Yet that would not mean the law provides no remedy for fraud; the ban would affect only the procedural means by which the remedy may be pursued. In short, although the dissent correctly abandons Allstate’s eligibility-certifiability distinction, the alternative it offers fares no better.
The dissent all but admits that the literal terms of § 901(b) address the same subject as Rule 23—i.e., whether a class action may be maintained—but insists the provision’s purpose is to restrict only remedies. See post, at 447-448, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 348-349; post, at 450, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 349 (“[Wjhile phrased as responsive to the question whether certain class actions may begin, § 901(b) is unmistakably aimed at controlling how those actions must end”). Unlike Rule 23, designed to further procedural fairness and efficiency, § 901(b) (we are told) “responds to an entirely different concern”: the fear that allowing statutory damages to be awarded on a classwide basis would “produce overkill.” Post, at 447, 444, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 348, 346 (internal quotation marks omitted). The
[559 U.S. 403]
dissent reaches this conclusion on the basis of (1) constituent concern recorded in the law’s bill jacket; (2) a commentary suggesting that the legislature “apparently fear[edj” that combining class actions and statutory penalties “could result in annihilating punishment of the defendant,” V. Alexander, Practice Commentaries, C901:11, reprinted in 7B McKinney’s Consolidated Laws of New York Ann., p. 104 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); (3) a remark by the Governor in his signing statement that § 901(b) “ ‘provides a controlled remedy,’ ” post, at 444, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 346 (quoting Memorandum on Approving L. 1975, Ch. 207, reprinted in 1975 N. Y. Laws, p. 1748; emphasis deleted); and (4) a state court’s statement that the final text of § 901(b) “ ‘was the result of a compromise among competing interests,’ ” post, at 444, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 346 (quoting Sperry v. Crompton Corp., 8 N.Y.3d 204, 211, 863 N.E.2d 1012, 1015 (2007)).
This evidence of the New York Legislature’s purpose is pretty sparse. But even accepting the dissent’s account of the legislature’s objective at face value, it cannot override the statute’s clear text. Even if its aim is to restrict the remedy a plaintiff can obtain, § 901(b) achieves that end by limiting a plaintiffs power to maintain a class action. The manner in which the law “could have been written,” post, at 457, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 354, has no bearing; what matters is the law the legislature did enact. We cannot rewrite that to reflect our perception of legislative purpose, see Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79-80, 118 S. Ct. 998, 140 L. Ed. 2d 201 (1998). The dissent’s concern
[559 U.S. 404]
for state prerogatives is frustrated rather than furthered by revising state laws when a potential conflict with a Federal Rule arises; the state-friendly approach would be to accept the law as written and test the validity of the Federal Rule.
The dissent’s approach of determining whether state and federal rules conflict based on the subjective intentions of the state legislature is an enterprise destined to produce “confusion worse confounded,” Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 14, 61 S. Ct. 422, 85 L. Ed. 479 (1941). It would mean, to begin with, that one State’s statute could survive pre-emption (and accordingly affect the procedures in federal court) while another State’s identical law would not, merely because its authors had different aspirations. It would also mean that district courts would have to discern, in every diversity case, the purpose behind any putatively pre-empted state procedural rule, even if its text squarely conflicts with federal law. That task will often prove arduous. Many laws further more than one aim, and the aim of others may be impossible to discern. Moreover, to the extent the dissent’s purpose-driven approach depends on its characterization of § 901(b)’s aims as substantive, it would apply to many state rules ostensibly addressed to procedure. Pleading standards, for example, often embody policy preferences about the types of claims that should succeed—as do rules governing summary judgment, pretrial discovery, and the admissibility of certain evidence. Hard cases will abound. It is not even clear that a state supreme court’s pronouncement of the law’s purpose would settle the issue, since existence of the factual predicate
[559 U.S. 405]
for avoiding federal preemption is ultimately a federal question. Predictably, federal judges would be condemned to poring through state legislative history— which may be less easily obtained, less thorough, and less familiar than its federal counterpart, see R. Mersky & D. Dunn, Fundamentals of Legal Research 233 (8th ed. 2002); Torres & Windsor, State Legislative Histories: A Select, Annotated Bibliography, 85 L. Lib. J. 545, 547 (1993).
But while the dissent does indeed artificially narrow the scope of § 901(b) by finding that it pursues only substantive policies, that is not the central difficulty of the dissent’s position. The central difficulty is that even artificial narrowing cannot render § 901(b) compatible with Rule 23. Whatever the policies they pursue, they flatly contradict each other. Allstate asserts (and the dissent implies, see post, at 438, 446, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 342, 347) that we can (and must) interpret Rule 23 in a manner that avoids overstepping its authorizing statute. If the Rule were susceptible of two meanings—one that would violate
[559 U.S. 406]
§ 2072(b) and another that would not—we would agree. See Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 842, 845, 119 S. Ct. 2295, 144 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1999); cf. Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 503-504, 121 S. Ct. 1021, 149 L. Ed. 2d 32 (2001). But it is not. Rule 23 unambiguously authorizes any plaintiff, in any federal civil proceeding, to maintain a class action if the Rule’s prerequisites are met. We cannot contort its text, even to avert a collision with state law that might render it invalid. See Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740, 750, n. 9, 100 S. Ct. 1978, 64 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1980). What the dissent’s approach achieves is not the avoiding of a “conflict between Rule 23 and § 901(b),” post, at 452, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 351, but rather the invalidation of Rule 23 (pursuant to § 2072(b) of the Rules Enabling Act) to the extent that it conflicts with the substantive policies of § 901. There is no other way to reach the dissent’s destination. We must therefore confront head-on whether Rule 23 falls within the statutory authorization.
B
Erie involved the constitutional power of federal courts to supplant state law with judge-made rules. In that context, it made no difference whether the rule was technically one of substance or procedure; the touchstone was whether it “significantly affect[s] the result of a litigation.” Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 109, 65 S. Ct. 1464, 89 L. Ed. 2079 (1945). That is not the test for either the constitutionality or the statutory validity of a Federal Rule of Procedure. Congress has undoubted power to supplant state law, and undoubted power to prescribe rules for the courts it has created, so long as those rules regulate matters “rationally capable of classification” as procedure. Hanna, 380 U.S., at 472, 85 S. Ct. 1136, 14 L. Ed. 2d 8. In the Rules Enabling
[559 U.S. 407]
Act, Congress authorized this Court to promulgate rules of procedure subject to its review, 28 U.S.C. § 2072(a), but with the limitation that those rules “shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right,” § 2072(b).
We have long held that this limitation means that the Rule must “really regulat[e] procedure,—the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for disregard or infraction of them,” Sibbach, 312 U.S., at 14, 61 S. Ct. 422, 85 L. Ed. 479; see Hanna, supra, at 464, 85 S. Ct. 1136, 14 L. Ed. 2d 8; Burlington, 480 U.S., at 8, 107 S. Ct. 967, 94 L. Ed. 2d 1. The test is not whether the Rule affects a litigant’s substantive rights; most procedural rules do. Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 445, 66 S. Ct. 242, 90 L. Ed. 185 (1946). What matters is what the Rule itself regulates: If it governs only “the manner and the means” by which the litigants’ rights are “enforced,” it is valid; if it alters “the rules of decision by which [the] court will adjudicate [those] rights,” it is not. Id., at 446, 66 S. Ct. 242, 90 L. Ed. 185 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Applying that test, we have rejected every statutory challenge to a Federal Rule that has come before us. We have found to be in compliance with § 2072(b) Rules prescribing methods for serving process, see id., at 445-446, 66 S. Ct. 242, 90 L. Ed. 185 (Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(f)); Hanna, supra, at 463-465, 85 S. Ct. 1136, 14 L. Ed. 2d 8 (Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(d)(1)), and requiring litigants whose mental or physical condition is in dispute to submit to examinations, see Sibbach, supra, at 14-16, 61 S. Ct. 422, 85 L. Ed. 479 (Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 35); Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 113-114, 85 S. Ct. 234, 13 L. Ed. 2d 152 (1964) (same). Likewise, we have upheld Rules authorizing imposition of sanctions upon those who file frivolous appeals, see Burlington, supra, at 8, 107 S. Ct. 967, 94 L. Ed. 2d 1 (Fed. Rule App. Proc. 38), or who sign court papers without a reasonable inquiry into the facts asserted, see Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 551-554, 111 S. Ct. 922, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1140 (1991) (Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 11). Each of these Rules had some practical effect on the parties’ rights, but each undeniably regulated only the process for enforcing those rights; none altered the rights
[559 U.S. 408]
themselves, the available remedies, or the rules of decision by which the court adjudicated either.
Applying that criterion, we think it obvious that Rules allowing multiple claims (and claims by or against multiple parties) to be litigated together are also valid. See, e.g., Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 18 (joinder of claims), 20 (joinder of parties), 42(a) (consolidation of actions). Such Rules neither change plaintiffs’ separate entitlements to relief nor abridge defendants’ rights; they alter only how the claims are processed. For the same reason, Rule 23—at least insofar as it allows willing plaintiffs to join their separate claims against the same defendants in a class action—falls within § 2072(b)’s authorization. A class action, no less than traditional joinder (of which it is a species), merely enables a federal court to adjudicate claims of multiple parties at once, instead of in separate suits. And like traditional joinder, it leaves the parties’ legal rights and duties intact and the rules of decision unchanged.
Allstate contends that the authorization of class actions is not substantively neutral: Allowing Shady Grove to sue on behalf of a class “transform[s] [the] dispute over a five hundred dollar penalty into a dispute over a five million dollar penalty.” Brief for Respondent 1. Allstate’s aggregate liability, however, does not depend on whether the suit proceeds as a class action. Each of the 1,000-plus members of the putative class could (as Allstate acknowledges) bring a freestanding suit asserting his individual claim. It is undoubtedly true that some plaintiffs who would not bring individual suits for the relatively small sums involved will choose to join a class action. That has no bearing, however, on Allstate’s or the plaintiffs’ legal rights. The likelihood that some (even many) plaintiffs will be induced to sue by the availability of a class action is just the sort of “incidental effec[t]” we have long held does not violate § 2072(b), Mississippi Publishing, supra, at 445, 66 S. Ct. 242, 90 L. Ed. 185.
Allstate argues that Rule 23 violates § 2072(b) because the state law it displaces, § 901(b), creates a right that the Federal
[559 U.S. 409]
Rule abridges— namely, a “substantive right... not to be subjected to aggregated class-action liability” in a single suit. Brief for Respondent 31. To begin with, we doubt that that is so. Nothing in the text of § 901(b) (which is to be found in New York’s procedural code) confines it to claims under New York law; and of course New York has no power to alter substantive rights and duties created by other sovereigns. As we have said, the consequence of excluding certain class actions may be to cap the damages a defendant can face in a single suit, but the law itself alters only procedure. In that respect, § 901(b) is no different from a state law forbidding simple joinder. As a fallback argument, Allstate argues that even if § 901(b) is a procedural provision, it was enacted “for substantive reasons,” id., at 24 (emphasis added). Its end was not to improve “the conduct of the litigation process itself’ but to alter “the outcome of that process.” Id., at 26.
The fundamental difficulty with both these arguments is that the substantive nature of New York’s law, or its substantive purpose, makes no difference. A Federal Rule of Procedure is not valid in some jurisdictions and invalid in others—or valid in some cases and invalid in others—depending upon whether its effect is to frustrate a state substantive law (or a state procedural law enacted for substantive purposes). That could not be clearer in Sibbach:
“The petitioner says the phrase [‘substantive rights’ in the Rules Enabling Act] connotes more; that by its use Congress intended that in regulating procedure this Court should not deal with important and substantial rights theretofore recognized. Recognized where and by whom? The state courts are divided as to the power in the absence of statute to order a physical examination. In a number such an order is authorized by statute or rule.
“The asserted right, moreover, is no more important than many others enjoyed by litigants in District Courts sitting in the several states, before the Federal Rules
[559 U.S. 410]
of Civil Procedure altered and abolished old rights or privileges and created new ones in connection with the conduct of litigation.... If we were to adopt the suggested criterion of the importance of the alleged right we should invite endless litigation and confusion worse confounded. The test must be whether a rule really regulates procedure....” 312 U.S., at 13-14, 61 S. Ct. 422, 85 L. Ed. 479 (footnote omitted).
Hanna unmistakably expressed the same understanding that compliance of a Federal Rule with the Enabling Act is to be assessed by consulting the Rule itself, and not its effects in individual applications:
“[T]he court has been instructed to apply the Federal Rule, and can refuse to do so only if the Advisory Committee, this Court, and Congress erred in their prima facie judgment that the Rule in question transgresses neither the terms of the Enabling Act nor constitutional restrictions.” 380 U.S., at 471, 85 S. Ct. 1136, 14 L. Ed. 2d 8.
In sum, it is not the substantive or procedural nature or purpose of the affected state law that matters, but the substantive or procedural nature of the Federal Rule. We have held since Sibbach, and reaffirmed repeatedly, that the validity of a Federal Rule depends entirely upon whether it regulates procedure. See Sibbach, supra, at 14, 61 S. Ct. 422, 85 L. Ed. 479; Hanna, supra, at 464, 85 S. Ct. 1136, 14 L. Ed. 2d 8; Burlington, 480 U.S., at 8, 107 S. Ct. 967, 94 L. Ed. 2d 1. If it does, it is authorized by § 2072 and is valid in all jurisdictions, with respect to all claims, regardless of its incidental effect upon state-created rights.
C
A few words in response to the concurrence. We understand it to accept the framework we apply—which requires first, determining whether the federal and state rules can be reconciled (because they answer different questions), and second, if they cannot, determining whether the Federal Rule runs afoul of § 2072(b). Post, at 421-422, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 331-333 (Stevens, J.,
[559 U.S. 411]
concurring in part and concurring in judgment). The concurrence agrees with us that Rule 23 and § 901(b) conflict, post, at 429-431, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 336-338, and departs from us only with respect to the second part of the test, i.e., whether application of the Federal Rule violates § 2072(b), post, at 422-428, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 332-336. Like us, it answers no, but for a reason different from ours. Post, at 431-436, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 338-341.
The concurrence would decide this case on the basis, not that Rule 23 is procedural, but that the state law it displaces is procedural, in the sense that it does not “function as a part of the State’s definition of substantive rights and remedies.” Post, at 416-417, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 329. A state procedural rule is not pre-empted, according to the concurrence, so long as it is “so bound up with,” or “sufficiently intertwined with,” a substantive state-law right or remedy “that it defines the scope of that substantive right or remedy,” post, at 420, 428, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 331, 336.
This analysis squarely conflicts with Sibbach, which established the rule we apply. The concurrence contends that Sibbach did not rule out its approach, but that is not so. Recognizing the impracticability of a test that turns on the idiosyncrasies of state law, Sibbach adopted and applied a rule with a single criterion: whether the Federal Rule “really regulates procedure.” 312 U.S., at 14, 61 S. Ct. 422, 85 L. Ed. 479. That the
[559 U.S. 412]
concurrence’s approach would have yielded the same result in Sibbach proves nothing; what matters is the rule we did apply, and that rule leaves no room for special exemptions based on the function or purpose of a particular state rule. We have rejected an attempt to read into Sibbach an exception with no basis in the opinion, see Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S., at 113-114, 85 S. Ct. 234, 13 L. Ed. 2d 152, and we see no reason to find such an implied limitation today.
In reality, the concurrence seeks not to apply Sibbach, but to overrule it (or, what is the same, to rewrite it). Its approach, the concurrence insists, gives short shrift to the statutory text prohibiting the Federal Rules from “abridging], enlarging], or modifying] any substantive right,” § 2072(b). See post, at 424-425, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 333-334. There is something to that. It is possible to understand how it can be determined whether a Federal Rule “enlarges” substantive
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent Rumely was Secretary of an organization known as the Committee for Constitutional Government, which, among other things, engaged in the sale of books of a particular political tendentiousness. He refused to disclose to the House Select Committee on Lobbying Activities the names of those who made bulk purchases of these books for further distribution, and was convicted under R. S. § 102, as amended, 52 Stat. 942, 2 U. S. C. § 192, which provides penalties for refusal to give testimony or to produce relevant papers “upon any matter” under congressional inquiry. The Court of Appeals reversed, one judge dissenting. It held that the committee before which Rumely refused to furnish this information had no authority to compel its production. 90 U. S. App. D. C. 382, 197 F. 2d 166. Since the Court of Appeals thus took a view of the committee’s authority contrary to that adopted by the House in citing Rumely for contempt, we granted certiorari. 344 U. S. 812. This issue — whether the committee was authorized to exact the information which the witness withheld — must first be settled before we may consider whether Congress had the power to confer upon the committee the authority which it claimed.
Although we are here dealing with a resolution of the House of Representatives, the problem is much the same as that which confronts the Court when called upon to construe a statute that carries the seeds of constitutional controversy. The potential constitutional questions have far-reaching import. We are asked to recognize the penetrating and pervasive scope of the investigative power of Congress. The reach that may be claimed for that power is indicated by Woodrow Wilson’s characterization of it:
“It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served’ and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.” Wilson, Congressional Government, 303.
Although the indispensable “informing function of Congress” is not to be minimized, determination of the “rights” which this function implies illustrates the common juristic situation thus defined for the Court by Mr. Justice Holmes: “All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme. Yet all in fact are limited by the neighborhood of principles of policy which are other than those on which the particular right is founded, and which become strong enough to hold their own when a certain point is reached.” Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 355. President Wilson did not write in light of the history of events since he wrote; more particularly he did not write of the investigative power of Congress in the context of the First Amendment. And so, we would have to be that “blind” Court, against which Mr. Chief Justice Taft admonished in a famous passage, Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20, 37, that does not see what “[a] 11 others can see and understand” not to know that there is wide concern, both in and out of Congress, over some aspects of the exercise of the congressional power of investigation.
Accommodation of these contending principles — the one underlying the power of Congress to investigate, the other at the basis of the limitation imposed by the First Amendment — is not called for until after we have construed the scope of the authority which the House of Representatives gave to the Select Committee on Lobbying Activities. The pertinent portion of the resolution of August 12, 1949, reads:
“The committee is authorized and directed to conduct a study and investigation of (1) all lobbying activities intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation; and (2) all activities of agencies of the Federal Government intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation.” H. Res. 298, 81st Cong., 1st Sess.
This is the controlling charter of the committee’s powers. Its right to exact testimony and to call for the production of documents must be found in this language. The resolution must speak for itself, since Congress put no gloss upon it at the time of its passage. Nor is any help to be had from the fact that the purpose of the Buchanan Committee, as the Select Committee was known, was to try to “find out how well [the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 839] worked.” 96 Cong. Rec. 13882. That statute had a section of definitions, but Congress did not define the terms “lobbying” or “lobbying activities” in that Act, for it did not use them. Accordingly, the phrase “lobbying activities” in the resolution must be given the meaning that may fairly be attributed to it, having special regard for the principle of constitutional adjudication which makes it decisive in the choice of fair alternatives that one construction may raise serious constitutional questions avoided by another. In a long series of decisions we have acted on this principle. In the words of Mr. Chief Justice Taft, “[i]t is our duty in the interpretation of federal statutes to reach a conclusion which will avoid serious doubt of their constitutionality.” Richmond Co. v. United States, 275 U. S. 331, 346. Again, what Congress has written, we said through Mr. Chief Justice (then Mr. Justice) Stone, “must be construed with an eye to possible constitutional limitations so as to avoid doubts as to its validity.” Lucas v. Alexander, 279 U. S. 573, 577. As phrased by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, “if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62, and cases cited.
Patently, the Court’s duty to avoid a constitutional issue, if possible, applies not merely to legislation technically speaking but also to congressional action by way of resolution. See Federal Trade Comm’n v. American Tobacco Co., 264 U. S. 298. Indeed, this duty of not needlessly projecting delicate issues for judicial pronouncement is even more applicable to resolutions than to formal legislation. It can hardly be gainsaid that resolutions secure passage more casually and less responsibly, in the main, than do enactments requiring presidential approval.
Surely it cannot be denied that giving the scope to the resolution for which the Government contends, that is, deriving from it the power to inquire into all efforts of private individuals to influence public opinion through books and periodicals, however remote the radiations of influence which they may exert upon the ultimate legislative process, raises doubts of constitutionality in view of the prohibition of the First Amendment. In light of the opinion of Prettyman, J., below and of some of the views expressed here, it would not be seemly to maintain that these doubts are fanciful or factitious. Indeed, adjudication here, if it were necessary, would affect not an evanescent policy of Congress, but its power to inform itself, which underlies its policy-making function. Whenever constitutional limits upon the investigative power of Congress have to be drawn by this Court, it ought only to be done after Congress has demonstrated its full awareness of what is at stake by unequivocally authorizing an inquiry of dubious limits. Experience admonishes us to tread warily in this domain. The loose language of Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, the weighty criticism to which it has been subjected, see, e. g., Fairman, Mr. Justice Miller and the Supreme Court, 332-334; Landis, Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 Harv. L. Rev. 153, the inroads that •have been made upon that case by later cases, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U. S. 135, 170-171, and Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263, strongly counsel abstention from adjudication unless no choice is left.
Choice is left. As a matter of English, the phrase “lobbying activities” readily lends itself to the construction placed upon it below, namely, “lobbying in its commonly accepted sense,” that is, “representations made directly to the Congress, its members, or its committees,” 90 U. S. App. D. C. 382, 391, 197 F. 2d 166, 175, and does not reach what was in Chairman Buchanan’s mind, attempts “to saturate the thinking of the community.” 96 Cong. Rec. 13883. If “lobbying” was to cover all activities of anyone intending to influence, encourage, promote or retard legislation, why did Congress differentiate between “lobbying activities” and other “activities . . . intended to influence” ? Had Congress wished to authorize so extensive an investigation of the influences that form public opinion, would it not have used language at least as explicit as it employed in the very resolution in question in authorizing investigation of government agencies? Certainly it does no violence to the phrase “lobbying activities" to give it a more restricted scope. To give such meaning is not barred by intellectual honesty. So to interpret is in the candid service of avoiding a serious constitutional doubt. “Words have been strained more than they need to be strained here in order to avoid that doubt.” (Mr. Justice Holmes in Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148, with the concurrence of Mr. Justice Brandéis, Mr. Justice Sanford and Mr. Justice Stone.) With a view to observing this principle of wisdom and duty, the Court very recently strained words more than they need be strained here. United States v. C. I. O., 335 U. S. 106. The considerations which prevailed in that case should prevail in this.
Only a word need be said about the debate in Congress after the committee reported that Rumely had refused to produce the information which he had a right to refuse under the restricted meaning of the phrase “lobbying activities.” The view taken at that time by the committee and by the Congress that the committee was authorized to ask Rumely for the information he withheld is not legislative history defining the scope of a congressional measure. What was said in the debate on August 30, 1950, after the controversy had arisen regarding the scope of the resolution of August 12, 1949, had the usual infirmity of post litem motam, self-serving declarations. In any event, Rumely’s duty to answer must be judged as of the time of his refusal. The scope of the resolution defining that duty is therefore to be ascertained as of that time and cannot be enlarged by subsequent action of Congress.
Grave constitutional questions are matters properly to be decided by this Court but only when they inescapably come before us for adjudication. Until then it is our duty to abstain from marking the boundaries of congressional power or delimiting the protection guaranteed by the First Amendment. Only by such self-restraint will we avoid the mischief which has followed occasional departures from the principles which we profess.
The judgment below should be
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Minton took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The ambiguity of the terms of the resolution — that is, whether questions asked to which answers were refused were within those terms — is reflected by the close division by which the committee’s view of its own authority prevailed. The vote was 183 to 175.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O'Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act or Voting Rights Act), 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973 et seq., designated States and political subdivisions are required to obtain federal preclearance before giving effect to changes in their voting laws. See § 1978c. Here, the State of California (California or State), which is not subject to the Act’s preelearance requirements, has passed legislation altering the scheme for electing judges in Monterey County, California (Monterey County or County), a “covered” jurisdiction required to preclear its voting changes. In this appeal, we review the conclusion of a three-judge District Court that Monterey County need not seek approval of these changes before giving them effect. The District Court reasoned, specifically, that California is not subject to the preclearance requirement and that Monterey County merely implemented a California law without exercising any independent discretion. We hold that the Act’s preclearance requirements apply to measures mandated by a noncovered State to the extent that these measures will effect a voting change in a covered county. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the District Court.
I
The instant appeal marks the second occasion on which this Court has addressed issues arising in the course of litigation over the method for electing judges in Monterey County, and we assume familiarity with our previous decision in this case. See Lopez v. Monterey County, 519 U. S. 9 (1996).
A
Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act under its authority to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment’s proscription against voting discrimination. The Act contains generally applicable voting rights protections, but it also places special restrictions on voting activity within designated, or “covered,” jurisdictions. Jurisdictions — States or political subdivisions — are selected for coverage if they meet specified criteria suggesting the presence of voting discrimination in the jurisdiction. The criteria pertinent to this case were established by a 1970 amendment to the Act that extended coverage to any jurisdiction that “(i) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1,1968, any test or device [as a prerequisite to voting], and with respect to which (ii) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 per centum of the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1968, or that less than 50 per centum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1968.” 84 Stat. 815, 42 U. S. C. § 1978b(b).
The Act subjects covered jurisdictions to special restrictions on their voting laws. Section 4(a) suspends use of a “test or device” in any jurisdiction designated for coverage. § 1973b(a)(l). In addition, § 5 of the Act provides that covered jurisdictions must obtain federal approval for any measure that departs from the voting scheme in place in the jurisdiction on a specified date. The portion of § 5 applicable in this ease provides, specifically, that federal preelearanee is required “whenever a [covered] State or political subdivision... shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1,1968.” § 1973c.
A covered jurisdiction has two avenues available to seek the federal preelearanee required under §5. The jurisdiction may submit the proposed voting change to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General affirmatively approves the change or fails to object to it within 60 days, the change is deemed precleared and the jurisdiction may put it into effect. Ibid. Alternatively, either in the first instance or following an objection from the Attorney General, a covered jurisdiction may seek preelearanee for a voting change by filing a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Ibid. The change is precleared if the court declares that the proposed “qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title [proscribing voting restrictions based on membership in a language minority group].” § 1973c.
In 1971, Monterey County was designated a covered jurisdiction based on findings that, as of November 1, 1968, the County maintained California’s statewide literacy test as a prerequisite to voting and less than 50 percent of the County’s voting age population participated in the November 1968 Presidential election. 35 Fed. Reg. 12354 (1970); 36 Fed. Reg. 5809 (1971); see also 42 U.S.C. §1973b(b). Accordingly, the County must obtain federal preelearance for any departure from the voting scheme in place on November 1,1968.
In fact, over the last 30 years, there have been numerous changes in the structure of the County’s trial court system and the scheme for electing judges. On November 1, 1968, Monterey County had nine judicial districts: two municipal court and seven justice court districts. As we observed in our earlier opinion, see Lopez v. Monterey County, supra, at 12, municipal court districts encompassed larger populations than their justice court counterparts, and the former districts had two judges whereas the latter had one. Moreover, justice courts were not courts of record, and their judges frequently worked part time. Each of the nine districts in place in 1968 was wholly independent, and its judges were elected at large by voters in the district in which they served.
Since 1972, however, the County’s judicial system has undergone substantial change resulting in what is today a single, countywide municipal court served by 10 judges. Four County ordinances adopted between 1972 and 1976 reduced the number of justice court districts in the County from seven to three. Subsequently, a 1977 state law transformed a justice court district into a municipal court district, raising the total number of municipal districts to three. 1977 Cal. Stats., ch. 995.
The next noteworthy change in the County’s judicial election scheme occurred in 1979, with the consolidation of the County’s three municipal court districts. On June 5, 1979, the County passed Ordinance No. 2524, which provided that the Monterey Peninsula Judicial District, North Monterey County Judicial District, and the Salinas Judicial District would be combined to form the Monterey County Municipal Court District. App. to Juris. Statement 75. The same year, the State enacted a law, apparently at the County’s request, requiring the same merger of the municipal court districts and mapping out some of the mechanics of the new, consolidated district. 1979 Cal. Stats., ch. 694; see also §4 (noting that “this act is in accordance with the request of a local governmental entity or entities which desired legislative authority to carry out the program specified in this act”). The state Act provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]here is in the County of Monterey, on and after the effective date of this section, a single municipal court district which embraces the former Salinas Judicial District, Monterey Peninsula Judicial District and North Monterey County Judicial District.” § 2. The 1979 changes thus left the County with one municipal court district and two justice court districts.
The final step toward a single, countywide district occurred in 1983. County Ordinance No. 2930, passed by Monterey County’s Board of Supervisors on August 2,1983, merged the remaining two justice court districts into the municipal court district formed by the 1979 consolidation. App. to Juris. Statement 77-80. The merger became effective on January 1, 1984, and the resulting district was countywide. The State, again apparently at the County’s request, enacted legislation in September 1983, increasing the number of judges in the County’s municipal court district from seven to nine contingent upon the merger of the justice court districts already provided for by the County ordinance. 1983 Cal. Stats., eh. 1249, §§3, 16. The State subsequently recognized that the merger had taken effect and provided for the additional judgeships. 1985 Cal. Stats., ch. 659, § 1. Moreover, pursuant to state authorization, the County ultimately increased the number of sitting judges from 9 to the current 10. 1987 Cal. Stats., ch. 1211, §30; App. to Juris. Statement 81-82. Judicial elections took place under an at-large, countywide plan in 1986,1988, and 1990.
The County, although covered by § 5 of the Act, failed to seek federal preelearanee for any of its six consolidation ordinances. Nor did the State preclear its 1979 law that, like the County ordinance adopted the same year, directed the consolidation of the three municipal court districts. The State did seek the Attorney General’s approval, however, for the 1983 state law authorizing additional judgeships upon the final merger of the justice courts into a single, countywide municipal court district. In the process, the State provided the- Department of Justice with a copy of the County’s 1983 consolidation ordinance. The Attorney General did not oppose the State’s 1983 submission, and we have thus observed that this “submission may well have served to preclear the 1983 county ordinance.” Lopez v. Monterey County, 519 U. S., at 15. We noted, however, that preclearance of the County’s 1983 ordinance probably failed to satisfy the need to preelear the preceding consolidation ordinances, ibid. (“Thus, under our precedent, these previous consolidation ordinances do not appear to have received federal preelear-anee approval”), and the State does not challenge this conclusion here, see Brief for Appellee State of California 13, n. 10.
B
Appellants, Hispanic voters who reside in Monterey County, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 6, 1991, claiming that the County had failed to fulfill its § 5 obligation to preclear any of the consolidation ordinances passed between 1972 and 1983. A three-judge District Court concluded that the ordinances were voting changes requiring preclearance under §5 and that the ordinances were unenforceable until they were preeleared.
Accordingly, the County initiated proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an effort to preclear the ordinances. Ultimately, however, the County agreed to dismiss the suit without prejudice and to stipulate that its “ Hoard of Supervisors is unable to establish that the [consolidation ordinances] adopted by the County between 1968 and 1983 did not have the effect of denying the right to vote to Latinos in Monterey County due to the retrogressive effect several of these ordinances had on Latino voting strength in Monterey County.’” Lopez v. Monterey County, 871 F. Supp. 1264, 1256 (ND Cal. 1995) (quoting Monterey County Resolution 94-107 (Mar. 15, 1994)).
Back before the three-judge District Court in the Northern District of California, appellants and the County, working together, submitted alternatives to the districtwide voting scheme. Meanwhile, the State was allowed to intervene in the proceedings, and it opposed the proposed plans on the ground that they violated aspects of the California Constitution governing judicial elections. By late 1994, after unsuccessful attempts by the County to secure an amendment to the California Constitution, appellants and the County remained unable to formulate a judicial election plan that they felt would comport with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act and that did not violate some aspect of state law. Under these circumstances, the District Court opted to put a voting scheme in place for purposes of a single election. See 871 F. Supp., at 1255-1256. The temporary plan, under which judges were elected from districts but served eountywide, violated California constitutional provisions requiring that jurisdiction be coextensive with a judge’s electoral base and prohibiting the division of cities among two or more municipal courts. See Cal. Const., Art. VI, § 16(b); Art. VI, § 5(a). The District Court concluded, however, that the single election would interfere only minimally with state interests. See 871 F. Supp., at 1259-1260.
The Attorney General precleared the court’s interim plan in March 1995, and judges were selected in a 1995 special election to serve until January 1997. Following the election, however, this Court decided Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900 (1995), which, in the District Court’s view, cast doubt on the legality of the interim plan. Having determined that other options were not feasible, the court thus ordered a new judicial election to be held in March 1996 under a eountywide voting scheme, the very scheme that the County had effected through its consolidation ordinances and that appellants had challenged in their original complaint.
This Court granted appellants’ emergency stay application and enjoined the proposed, eountywide election. 516 U. S. 1104 (1996). We subsequently noted probable jurisdiction over the appeal, 517 U. S. 1118 (1996), and we reversed, Lopez v. Monterey County, 519 U. S. 9 (1996). The District Court had erred, we concluded, in directing an election to take place under a scheme that had not been precleared as required under §5. Accordingly, we remanded the matter to the District Court and directed that “[t]he requirement of federal scrutiny should be satisfied without further delay.” Id., at 25. In so doing, we expressly declined to pass on the merits of a claim raised by the State that the current, eountywide election scheme is not subject to § 5 preclearance because the scheme is now required by a combination of pre-cleared law and California law. Id., at 19-20. State law, under this view, does not require preelearanee because it is not the product of a covered jurisdiction.
On remand, the State moved to dismiss appellants' complaint on this theory, among others, and the District Court agreed that preelearanee was unnecessary because the countywide scheme was now mandated by California law. No. C-91-20559-RMW (ND Cal., Dec. 19, 1997), App. to Juris. Statement 1, 4-9. Among the other grounds for dismissal raised in its motion, the State also alleged that appellants' claims are barred by laches, that it was constitutional error to designate the County as a covered jurisdiction under § 5, and that the consolidation ordinances did not alter a voting “standard, practice, or procedure” subject to pre-elearanee under §5. The District Court did not address these alternative bases to dismiss appellants' complaint, however, and we do not reach them here. The State also moved to vacate a September 25, 1996, order extending the terms of the judges elected under the 1995 interim plan. The District Court granted this request along with the State’s motion to dismiss.
In granting the motion to dismiss, the District Court reasoned that § 5, by its own terms, creates a preclearance obligation only for covered jurisdictions. Noncovered entities, like the State, bear no responsibility to preclear voting changes that they “enact or seek to administer.” See id., at 5. “[T]he purpose of § 5 appears to be to target only those enactments by jurisdictions suspected of abridging the right to vote and not those put in force by a non-eovered, superior jurisdiction.” Ibid.
Here, the District Court concluded, the 1979 state law had consolidated the three existing municipal courts and mandated that there be one municipal court district in the County. This Act, in the court’s view, did not require pre-clearance because it was the product of the State, a non-eovered jurisdiction. The only additional change — effected by the County’s 1983 ordinance merging the remaining justice court districts with the municipal court district — had been precleared. Moreover, the court reasoned, even if the 1983 ordinance had not received preclearanee, an amendment to the California Constitution effective January 1,1995, eliminated justice courts, and thus the remaining two justice court districts would have merged with the municipal court district as a matter of course. See Cal. Const., Art. VI, § 5(b). The justice court districts would have been unable to become municipal court districts themselves, the District Court reasoned, in light of a state constitutional provision requiring a minimum of 40,000 residents in a municipal court district. App. to Juris. Statement 8; see Cal. Const., Art. VI, § 5(a). In reaching its conclusion, the court expressly rejected appellants’ claim that even voting changes effected by California law require preclearance before the County may “seek to administer” them. Relying on our decision in Young v. Fordice, 520 U. S. 273 (1997), the District Court concluded that a jurisdiction “ ‘seek[s] to administer’ ” a voting change, as that language is used in § 5, only where the jurisdiction exercises some element of discretion or policy choice in the matter. App. to Juris. Statement 8-9. Here, the court found, the County had no choice but to implement the countywide voting scheme.
We noted probable jurisdiction over the appeal from the order dismissing appellants’ complaint, 523 U. S. 1093 (1998), and we reverse.
II
A
Appellants and the County together contend that the County must obtain preclearanee for changes leading to the eountywide voting scheme before giving effect to this scheme. The State urges, in response, that §5 expressly limits its preelearance requirements to covered jurisdictions. “Partially covered” jurisdictions like California, the State insists, are under no obligation to comply with § 5. Appellants do not argue, however, that the State is obligated to seek preelearance for voting changes that it effects. Rather, appellants claim that the County, which is unquestionably subject to § 5, must pursue preelearance for state-sponsored voting changes that it “seek[s] to administer.” That the non-precleared aspects of the countywide voting plan may now be required by state law, in appellants’ view, is irrelevant to the § 5 analysis because it is the County that “seek[s] to administer” the scheme. Accordingly, the question before this Court is whether a covered jurisdiction “seek[s] to administer” a voting ehange when, without exercising any independent discretion, the jurisdiction implements a change required by the superior law of a noncovered State. Because we agree with appellants that a covered jurisdiction “seek[s] to administer” a voting ehange even where the jurisdiction exercises no discretion in giving effect to a state-mandated change, we conclude that the County is required to seek preelearance before implementing California laws that effect voting changes in the County.
The face of the Act itself provides the most compelling support for appellants’ claim. The phrase “seek to administer” provides no indication that Congress intended to limit § 5’s preelearance obligations to the discretionary actions of covered jurisdictions. To the contrary, “administer” is consistently defined in purely nondiseretionary terms. See, e. g., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 27 (1961) (“to manage the affairs of,” “to direct or superintend the execution, use, or conduct of”); Random House Dictionary of the English Language 26 (2d ed. 1987) (“to manage (affairs, a government, etc.); have executive charge of”); Black’s Law Dictionary 44 (6th ed. 1990) (“To manage or conduct”). The State’s view that “administer” is intended to capture a covered jurisdiction’s nonlegislative, executive initiatives is not to the contrary. Such a reading poses no harrier to the view that “administer” also encompasses nondiseretionary acts by covered jurisdictions endeavoring to comply with the superior law of the State.
Nor are we persuaded that Congress’ use of the word “seek” is intended to require an act of discretion by the covered jurisdiction in order to trigger the preclearance requirement. The word “seek” in this context is more readily understood as creating a temporal distinction. The Government has indicated that a covered jurisdiction need not seek preclearanee before enacting legislation that would effect a voting change. See 28 CFR § 51.22(a) (1997) (listing “[a]ny proposal for a change affecting voting submitted prior to final enactment” among “premature submissions” that Attorney General will not consider); see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 20. Preclearanee is required before actually administering a change, however, and use of the word “seek” in §5 makes this distinction clear.
We note, too, that this Court has elsewhere assumed that legislation from a partially covered State must be precleared to the extent that it affects covered counties. In United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144 (1977), we rejected a constitutional challenge brought by Hasidic residents of Kings County, New York, to a redistrieting plan enacted by the state legislature. We assumed in that ease that the state plan was subject to the Act’s preclearance requirements, even though the State was not a covered jurisdiction, because Kings and other counties were themselves covered by the Act. We observed that, after the State’s efforts to exempt its counties from the Act’s coverage proved unsuccessful, see New York ex rel. New York County v. United States, 419 U. S. 888 (1974), “it became necessary for New York [State] to secure the approval of the Attorney General or of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for its 1972 reapportionment statute insofar as that statute concerned [the covered] Counties,” 430 U. S., at 148-149. Moreover, the decision’s constitutional analysis relies on the fact that the redistriet-ing effort was meant to fulfill the State’s obligations under the Act. Id., at 162 (“[Petitioners have not shown, or offered to prove, that New York did more than the Attorney General was authorized to require it to do...”); see also Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899, 911-913 (1996) (evaluating whether partially covered State’s §5 obligations justified race-based districting without any consideration that State may not have been subject to preclearance requirement). These decisions reveal a clear assumption by this Court that § 5 preclearanee is required where a noncovered State effects voting changes in covered counties.
Nor have we been alone in this assumption. The Department of Justice claims to have received more than 1,300 submissions seeking to preclear state laws from the seven States that are currently partially covered: California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Juris. Statement 13, n. 3; see also 28 CFR pt. 51, App. (1997) (identifying partially covered States); see generally Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379, 392 (1971) (noting that a particular interpretation of § 5 “was accepted by at least some affected States and political subdivisions, which had submitted such changes for the Attorney General’s approval”). In fact, cases before this and other federal courts reveal numerous instances in which interested parties have labored under the assumption that laws enacted by partially covered States require preclearanee before they take effect in covered jurisdictions. See, e. g., Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630, 634 (1993) (“Because the [North Carolina] General Assembly’s reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the parties agree that § 5 applied”); Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U. S. 997, 1001, n. 2.(1994) (Florida submitted statewide redistrieting law for preclearance because five counties, are covered); Haith v. Martin, 618 F. Supp. 410 (EDNC 1985) (suit over need to preclear North Carolina laws affecting covered jurisdictions without any claim by State that, as a noncovered jurisdiction, its laws are not subject to § 5), summarily aff’d, 477 U. S. 901 (1986); United States v. Onslow County, 683 F. Supp. 1021, 1024 (EDNC 1988) (covered North Carolina county submitted changes for pre-clearance, including change required by state statute, and court concluded that change required §5 preclearance). While this Court is not bound by its prior assumptions, see, e. g., Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 630-631 (1993), the fact that courts and parties alike have routinely assumed a need for preelearance under the circumstances presented here supports our reading of § 5.
Finally, we find it especially relevant that the Attorney General also reads §5 as we do. According to the Government: “The Attorney General has consistently construed Section 5 to require preelearance when a covered political subdivision fseek[s] to administer’ an enactment of a partially covered State.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19; see also S. Eep. No. 97-417, pp. 11-12 (1982) (describing Attorney General’s objections to laws enacted by North Carolina and South Dakota, both partially covered States). Subject to certain limitations not implicated here, see, e. g., Presley v. Etowah County Comm’n, 502 U. S. 491, 508-509 (1992), we traditionally afford substantial deference to the Attorney General’s interpretation of § 5 in light of her “central role... in formulating and implementing” that section. Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. White, 439 U. S. 32, 39 (1978); see, e.g., NAACP v. Hampton County Election Comm’n, 470 U.S. 166, 178-179 (1985) (“Any doubt that these changes are covered by § 5 is resolved by the construction placed upon the Act by the Attorney General, which is entitled to considerable deference”); Perkins v. Matthews, supra, at 390-391 (“Our conclusion that both the location of the polling places and municipal boundary changes come within §5 draws further support from the interpretation followed by the Attorney General in his administration of the statute”). The Attorney General’s interpretation thus provides significant additional support for our reading of § 5.
In light of the section’s plain language and the Attorney General’s interpretation to the same effect, we conclude that § 5’s preelearanee requirement applies to a covered county’s nondiseretionary efforts to implement a voting change required by state law, notwithstanding the fact that the State is not itself a covered jurisdiction. Accordingly, we need not reach appellants’ alternative claim that the countywide district is in fact the product of the County’s discretion.
B
The State also urges that requiring preclearance here would tread on rights constitutionally reserved to the States. The State contends, specifically, that § 5 could not withstand constitutional scrutiny if it were interpreted to apply to voting measures enacted by States that have not been designated as historical wrongdoers in the voting rights sphere. In the State’s view, because California has not been designated as a covered jurisdiction, its laws are not subject to §5 preelearanee.
We have recognized that the Act, which authorizes federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policy-making, imposes substantial “federalism costs.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S., at 926. The Act was passed pursuant to Congress’ authority under the Fifteenth Amendment, however, and we have likewise acknowledged that the Reconstruction Amendments by their nature contemplate some intrusion into areas traditionally reserved to the States. City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 179 (1980). As the Court recently observed with respect to Congress’ power to legislate under the Fourteenth Amendment, “[(legislation which deters or remedies constitutional violations can fall within the sweep of Congress’ enforcement power even if in the process it prohibits conduct which is not itself unconstitutional and intrudes into legislative spheres of autonomy previously reserved to the States.” City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 518 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Moreover, we have specifically upheld the constitutionality of § 5 of the Act against a challenge that this provision usurps powers reserved to the States. See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 334-335 (1966); see also City of Rome v. United States, supra, at 178-183. Nor does Katzenbach require a different result where, as here, § 5 is held to cover acts initiated by noncovered States. The Court in Katzenbach recognized that, once a jurisdiction has been designated, the Act may guard against both discriminatory animus and the potentially harmful effect of neutral laws in that jurisdiction. 383 U. S., at 333-334. In City of Rome, we thus expressly reaffirmed that, "under the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress may prohibit voting practices that have only a discriminatory effect.” 446 U. S., at 175; see also id., at 178-180 (upholding preelearance requirement against federalism challenge).
This is, moreover, precisely what the text of § 5 requires. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia may preclear a proposed voting change only if the court concludes that the change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote” on the basis of an impermissible classification. 42 U. S. C. § 1973c (emphasis added). The Attorney General employs the same standard in deciding whether to object to a proposed voting change. See 28 CFR § 51.52(a) (1997).
Recognizing that Congress has the constitutional authority to designate covered jurisdictions and to guard against changes that give rise to a discriminatory effect in those jurisdictions, we find no merit in the claim that Congress lacks Fifteenth Amendment authority to require federal approval before the implementation of a state law that may have just such an effect in a covered county. Section 5, as we interpret it today, burdens state law only to the extent that that law affects voting in jurisdictions properly designated for coverage. With respect to literacy tests, in fact, the Act already allows for the very action that the State claims would be unconstitutional here. At least until a 1970 amendment to the Act barring literacy tests nationwide, see 42 U. S. C. §1973aa, §4 had been used to ban these tests in covered jurisdictions even where the tests had been enacted by a noneovered State. See Gaston County v. United States, 395 U. S. 285, 287 (1969) (although State was not covered, “[u]se of the State’s literacy test within the county was... suspended” when the county was designated a covered jurisdiction). Moreover, under § 4(b), a state-imposed literacy test may, as it did here, provide grounds for designating a county as a covered jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that the State as a whole is not covered.
The State seeks to bolster its constitutional argument by noting that partially covered States, like California, have no statutory ability to seek an exemption from the Act’s coverage. Section 4(a) permits a covered jurisdiction to seek declaratory relief exempting the jurisdiction from further coverage if it meets certain criteria. 42 U. S. C. § 1973b(a). Even if California were unable to use this “bailout” provision on behalf of its covered counties, but see United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S., at 148-149, n. 3 (noting that New York State sought exemptions on behalf of covered counties), this would not advance the State’s constitutional claim. Partially covered States facing suspension of their literacy tests in covered counties would have faced the same dilemma. In any event, there is no question that the County may avail itself of §4(a)’s bailout procedures.
In short, the Voting Rights Act, by its nature, intrudes on state sovereignty. The Fifteenth Amendment permits this intrusion, however, and our holding today adds nothing of constitutional moment to the burdens that the Act imposes.
The State also urges that certain of our prior decisions require a covered jurisdiction to exercise some discretion or poliey choice in order to trigger §5’s preclearanee requirements. In particular, the State relies on Young v. Fordice, 520 U. S. 273 (1997), and City of Monroe v. United States, 522 U. S. 34 (1997) (per curiam). The State, however, seeks to place more weight on these cases than they will bear. The State relies foremost upon Young, which involved a § 5 challenge to a covered State’s efforts to comply with voting changes mandated by the National Voters’ Registration Act. We concluded that changes brought about by efforts at compliance were themselves the result of discretionary decisions by the State, and these changes required §5 pre-clearance: “This Court has made clear that minor, as well as major, changes require preclearance. This is true even where, as here, the changes are made in an effort to comply with federal law, so long as those changes reflect policy choices made by state or local officials.” 520 U. S., at 284 (citations omitted). Like the District Court, the State seeks to invoke Young for the proposition that only the “policy choices” of covered jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirements. Young, however, involved an effort to comply with an Act of Congress, the very body that enacted the Voting Rights Act. Congress retains the authority to curtail the Act’s protections with subsequent legislation; alternatively, Congress may be assumed to have accounted for the policies underlying the Aet in rendering new law. Accordingly, the requirement that only “poliey choices... by state and local officials” would trigger the § 5 requirements in Young served merely to isolate for preclearanee those changes that are not wholly creatures of Congress.
The State also seeks to rely on City of Monroe, in which we held that preclearance of a voting change included in a statewide law empowered a municipality to implement that change, notwithstanding the city’s failure to preelear a change in its charter to the same effect. It is true that, in City of Monroe, the municipality was permitted to give effect to the statewide law without any need to preelear its effect at the city level. A second preclearance would have been wholly unnecessary, however. The Attorney General had already approved the change. 522 U. S., at 37 (“Since the Attorney General preeleared [the statewide law], Monroe may implement it”). Accordingly, City of Monroe does not stand for the proposition that covered jurisdictions are generally permitted to engage in the discretionless implementation of state laws without seeking preelearanee. The very change that the city of Monroe wished to enforce had already been preeleared.
Finally, we note that this Court has created an exception to the preelearanee requirement in certain eases involving federally court-ordered voting changes. As a general rule, voting changes crafted wholly by a federal district court in the first instance
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Alien Registration Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 670, 8 U. S. C. § 451 et seq., required aliens, with certain exceptions, to register pursuant to regulations of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization. Among the disclosures required was whether during the preceding five years the alien had been “affiliated with or active in (a member of, official of, a worker for) organizations, devoted in whole or in part to influencing or furthering the political activities, public relations, or public policy of a foreign government.”
Petitioners are German nationals who registered under the Act, the last of the three, Mayer, registering on December 23, 1940. Each stated when he registered that he was not affiliated with or active in such an organization. Each failed to disclose, in answer to another question pertaining to “memberships or activities in clubs, organizations, or societies,” that he was in any way connected with the Nazi party. They were indicted in 1944 with 28 others for conspiring to defraud the United States in the exercise of its governmental functions (see Curley v. United States, 130 F. 1, 4) in violation of § 37 of the Criminal Code, 18 U. S. C. § 88.
The indictment charges that petitioners continuously between September 1, 1939, and the date the indictment was returned, September 13, 1944, conspired with each other and with Draeger, the German consul in New York City and leader of the Nazi party in this country, with Draeger’s secretary, Vogel, and with other representatives of the Third Reich, to defraud the United States by concealing and misrepresenting their membership in the Nazi party. It charges that since 1933 the Nazi party was devoted to furthering the political activities and policy of the German Reich in this country, that each petitioner during the five years prior to his registration was a member of that party, that Draeger and Vogel directed petitioners in registering under the Act to conceal and falsify their connection with the Nazi party, that petitioners followed such directions, that after their registration they continued from day to day to misrepresent to the Government their connection with and activities in the Nazi party. The indictment alleges that, as a means of accomplishing the conspiracy, the petitioners appeared for registration and in registering falsely failed to disclose their connection with and activities in the Nazi party. The indictment sets forth forty overt acts. Many related to instructions given by Draeger and Vogel to various defendants from September to December 1940, in connection with their registration. Others related to the registering by petitioners in November and December, 1940. The last overt act alleged to have been committed by any of petitioners was the filing by Mayer of his registration statement on December 23, 1940.
Of the 31 indicted, only the three petitioners were convicted after a jury trial. Fiswick and Rudolph were sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen months each. Mayer was sentenced to imprisonment for a year and a day. The judgments of conviction were affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting. 153 F. 2d 176. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because the rulings of the lower courts on the continuing nature of the conspiracy were apparently in conflict with decisions of this Court. See United States v. Irvine, 98 U. S. 450; United States v. Kissel, 218 U. S. 601.
First. The nature and duration of the conspiracy assumed great importance at the trial for the following reason. Each petitioner after he was apprehended made damaging statements to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mayer, in November, 1943, stated that he had applied for membership in the Nazi party and had not disclosed the fact because Vogel told him not to. Fiswick’s statement made in April, 1944, was to the same effect. Rudolph made substantially the same admissions in November, 1943, and then in September, 1944, retracted them insofar as he had said that in registering under the Act and in failing to disclose his Nazi party affiliation he had followed instructions. His later reason for non-disclosure was his asserted desire to protect his family. Each of these statements was admitted at the trial. At first, each was admitted only as against the maker. - At the close of the Government’s case, however, the District Court ruled that each of these statements was admissible against each of the other co-conspirators. It so charged the jury. Later the jury returned to the courtroom for further instructions. One of the questions on which the foreman stated that they desired instruction related to that part of the charge “where you said something about all of the defendants were bound by the act of one or something, something as a group, and the other said the individuals.” The judge then repeated that the admissions of each were admissible against all provided there was a conspiracy and they were all in it.
The Solicitor General now rightly concedes that that ruling was erroneous. Though the result of a conspiracy may be continuing, the conspiracy does not thereby become a continuing one. See United States v. Irvine, supra. Continuity of action to produce the unlawful result, or as stated in United States v. Kissel, supra, p. 607, “continuous cooperation of the conspirators to keep it up,” is necessary. A conspiracy is a partnership in crime. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150, 253. Under § 37 of the Criminal Code, the basis of the present indictment, an overt act is necessary to complete the offense. The statute of limitations, unless suspended, runs from the last overt act during the existence of the conspiracy. Brown v. Elliott, 225 U. S. 392, 401. The overt acts averred and proved may thus mark the duration, as well as the scope, of the conspiracy.
In this case the last overt act, as we have noted, was the filing by Mayer of his registration statement on December 23, 1940. That act was adequate as an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to make a false return. But there is difficulty in also making it serve the function of an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to conceal from 1940 to 1944 the fact that false returns had been made. All continuity of action ended with the last overt act in December, 1940. There was no overt act of concealment which followed the act of making false statements. If the latter is permitted to do double duty, then a continuing result becomes a continuing conspiracy. If, as we think, the conspiracy charged and proved did not extend beyond the date of the last overt act, the admissions of each petitioner were improperly employed against the others. While the act of one partner in crime is admissible against the others where it is in furtherance of the criminal undertaking, Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U. S. 640, 646-647, and cases cited, all such responsibility is at an end when the conspiracy ends. Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 309; Brown v. United States, 150 U. S. 93, 98. Moreover, confession or admission by one co-conspirator after he has been apprehended is not in any sense a furtherance of the criminal enterprise. It is rather a frustration of it. If, as the Circuit Court of Appeals thought, the maintenance of the plot to deceive the Government was the objective of this conspiracy, the admissions made to the officers ended it. So far as each conspirator who confessed was concerned, the plot was then terminated. He thereupon ceased to act in the role of a conspirator. His admissions were therefore not admissible against his erstwhile fellow-conspirators. Gambino v. United States, 108 F. 2d 140, 142-143.
It is earnestly argued, however, that the error was harmless. The “harmless error” statute' (Judicial Code § 269, 28 U. S. C. § 391) provides that “On the hearing of any appeal, certiorari, or motion for a new trial, in any case, civil or criminal, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the court, without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” We have recently reviewed the history of this statute and the function it was designed to serve in criminal cases. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750. The Court there stated, pp. 764-765:
“If, when all is said and done, the conviction is sure that the error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect, the verdict and the judgment should stand, except perhaps where the departure is from a constitutional norm or a specific command of Congress. . . . But if one cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that substantial rights were not affected. The inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error. It is rather, even so, whether the error itself had substantial influence. If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.”
We cannot say with fair assurance in this case that the jury was not substantially swayed by the use of these admissions against all petitioners. It is not enough to say that there may be a strong case made out against each petitioner. The indictment charges a conspiracy, not the substantive crime of falsely registering. The evidence that petitioners conspired with each other and with Draeger, Vogel, and others, is not strong. Though we assume there was enough evidence to go to the jury on the existence of that conspiracy, the case was one which a prosecutor would be anxious to bolster.
The prosecutor’s case, apart from the admissions, may be briefly summarized. Draeger and Vogel were active in the affairs of the Nazi party in this, country. Their stenographer, a government witness, testified that applications for membership in the party were received at their office. Dues were paid there. A card file of members of the party and of applicants for membership was kept there. The name of each petitioner was on the list. A letter was sent to all on the list in August or September, 1940, over Draeger’s signature, requesting them to discuss a matter with Draeger. Those who appeared in response to the letter were told to conceal their Nazi party membership or affiliation when they registered under the Act. Another witness for the Government — a defendant in the case who was granted a severance — also testified that Vogel gave instructions to party members not to disclose their affiliation with the Nazi party. And a clerk in Draeger’s office testified for the Government that the party members who came to the consulate were told to say in their registration statements that they were members of an innocuous-sounding association of German nationals. There was no evidence that petitioners came to the consulate seeking advice. There was no direct evidence that petitioners had received the instructions from the consulate to conceal their party membership. There was no direct evidence that petitioners came to the consulate in response to the letter which was sent. They were not identified as being with any group which called there. There was no evidence that they conferred with Draeger or Vogel or with each other.
The Solicitor General states with commendable candor that in this state of the proof it was manifestly important for the prosecutor “to bring into the case against ■petitioners evidence of a character that might better convince the jury that when each failed to reveal his Party connection in registering he had done so upon Party instructions, and, hence, that he was a member of the conspiracy.” The admissions served that purpose. They supplied the first direct evidence that petitioners acted pursuant to the instructions of the consulate. It is true, as respondent emphasizes, that none of these admissions implicates any petitioner except the maker. But since, if there was a conspiracy, Draeger and Vogel were its hub, evidence which brought each petitioner into the circle was the only evidence which cemented them together in the illegal project. And when the jury was told that the admissions of one, though not implicating the others, might be used against all, the element of concert of action was strongly bolstered, if not added. Without the admissions, the jury might well have concluded that there were three separate conspiracies, not one. Cf. Kotteakos v. United States, supra. With the admissions, the charge of conspiracy received powerful reinforcement. And the charge that each petitioner conspired with the others became appreciably stronger, not from what he said but from what the other two said. We therefore cannot say with any confidence that the error in admitting each of these statements against the other petitioners did not influence the jury or had only a slight effect. Indeed, the admissions may well have been crucial. The admissions apparently became of considerable importance in the deliberations of the jury, for, as we have noted, they asked for clarification of the instructions on that point. And the admissions so strongly bolstered a weak case that it is impossible for us to conclude the error can be disregarded under the “harmless error” statute. The use made of the admissions at the trial constituted reversible error.
Second. A further question remains. As we have noted, Fiswick was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months. No fine was imposed. It now appears that he has served his sentence. Accordingly, it is suggested that the cause is moot and that the writ of certiorari should be dismissed as to him. We followed that procedure in St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U. S. 41, 42, saying that since the sentence had been served, “there was no longer a subject matter on which the judgment of this Court could operate.” We added, however, that the petitioner had not shown that “under either state or federal law further penalties or disabilities can be imposed on him as a result of the judgment which has now been satisfied.” P. 43.
The situation here is different. Fiswick is an alien. An alien sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more “because of conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude” is, unless pardoned, subject to deportation if the crime was committed within five years after the alien’s entry into the United States. 39 Stat. 874, 889, 8 U. S. C. § 155. The conspiracy with which Fiswick is charged was formed and executed within that five-year period, as his last entry was in 1937. The conspiracy of which he was convicted was one to impede the Government in one of its lawful functions, to prevent it from obtaining information which the Executive and Congress deemed vital to our internal security, to conceal by fraud, deceit, and perjury the ramifications of an organization in our midst bent on our undoing. We need not determine in this collateral way whether conviction for such a crime would involve “moral turpitude” within the meaning of the deportation laws. But the judgment, if undisturbed, stands as unimpeachable evidence that Fiswick committed the crime charged. The hazards of deportation because of that fact are real. To leave him to defend a deportation order on the ground that the crime of which he was convicted did not involve “moral turpitude” is to add to his burdens by depriving him of his best defense— that he was not properly convicted.
Moreover, other disabilities or burdens may flow from the judgment, improperly obtained, if we dismiss this case as moot and let the conviction stand. If Fiswick seeks naturalization, he must establish that during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his petition for naturalization he “has been and still is a person of good moral character.” 54 Stat. 1137, 1142, 8 U. S. C. § 707 (a) (3). An outstanding judgment of conviction for this crime stands as ominous proof that he did what was charged and puts beyond his reach any showing of ameliorating circumstances or explanatory matter that might remove part or all of the curse. And, even though he succeeded in being naturalized, he would, unless pardoned, carry through life the disability of a felon; and by reason of that fact he might lose certain civil rights. Thus Fiswick has a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed on him. In no practical sense, therefore, can Fiswick’s case be said to be moot.
It is said, however, that, having served his sentence, Fis-wick may not be resentenced on a new trial and that, if his conviction is reversed, he thereby escapes deportation. The argument is that he thwarts the deportation policy by electing to serve his sentence. We cannot assume, however, that Fiswick is guilty of the conspiracy charged. He was not accorded the trial to which he is entitled under our system of government. The conviction which he suffered was not in accordance with law. The errors in the trial impeach the conviction; and he must stand in the position of any man who has been accused of a crime but not yet shown to have committed it. To dismiss his case as moot would permit the Government to compound its error at Fiswick’s expense. That course does not comport with our standards of law enforcement.
Reversed.
See 5 Fed. Reg. 2836 for the regulations.
Regulations, supra, note 1, § 29.4 (1) (15).
Six entered pleas of guilty. There was a dismissal as to one, a severance as to fourteen. Ten were tried. The jury acquitted three and disagreed as to the other four.
At common law it was not necessary to aver or prove an overt act. See Hyde v. United States, 225 U. S. 347, 359. The same is true under the Sherman Act. Nash v. United States, 229 U. S. 373, 378; United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., supra, p. 252. But § 37 of the Criminal Code requires not only an agreement to do the unlawful act but also the doing of “any act to effect the object of the conspiracy.” See Hyde v. United States, supra, p. 359.
See, for example, § 1 of the Act of August 24, 1942, 56 Stat. 747, 18 U. S. C. Supp. II, § 590a, as amended by § 19 (b) of the Act of July 1,1944, 58 Stat. 649, 667,18 U. S. C. Supp. IV, § 590a.
The registration statements required by the Act were sworn statements. Regulations, supra note 1, § 29.4 (g), (j).
Convictions for perjury, Kaneda v. United States, 278 F. 694, for frauds on the revenues, Guarneri v. Kessler, 98 F. 2d 580, United States v. Reimer, 113 F. 2d 429, for frauds with respect to property, United States v. Burmaster, 24 F. 2d 57, have been held by the lower courts to meet that test. And counterfeiting was so classified by the Court in United States v. Smith, 289 U. S. 422. As to deportation for violations of the Alien Registration Act of 1940 see § 20 (b) (4) and (5). See also Alien Enemy Act of 1798, Rev. Stat. 4067-4070, as amended 40 Stat. 531, 50 U. S. C. §§ 21-24; Presidential Proclamation No. 2655, 10 Fed. Reg. 8947.
Although deportation is not technically a criminal punishment, it may visit great hardship on the alien. Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135, 147. As stated by the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brandéis, in Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276, 284, deportation may result in the loss “of all that makes life worth living.”
“All offenses which may be punished by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year shall be deemed felonies.” Criminal Code §335,18U.S.C.§ 541.
Thus Mo. Rev. Stats. Ann. § 4561 renders such person incompetent to serve on a jury and forever disqualifies him from voting or holding office, unless pardoned.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner’s flight from the country after the grant of his petition for writ of certiorari and after the submission of his cause on the merits necessitates a decision as to the disposition now to be made of this case. Since the petitioner by his own volition may have rendered moot any judgment on the merits, we must, as a matter of our own practice, decide whether the submission should be set aside and the writ of certiorari dismissed or whether we should postpone review indefinitely by ordering the case removed from the docket, pending the return of the fugitive.
Our practice, however, has been to order such cases to be removed from the docket. Smith v. United States, 94 U. S. 97; Bonahan v. Nebraska, 125 U. S. 692. We adhere to those precedents. Accordingly after this term the cause will be left off the docket until a direction to the contrary shall issue.
While Mr. Justice Burton has not participated in the consideration of the merits of this case, he has participated in this procedural action based upon the memorandum filed by the United States of America calling the attention of the Court to the petitioner’s flight from justice.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA or Act), 73 Stat. 522, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §401 et seq., was Congress’ first major attempt to regulate the internal affairs of labor unions. Title I of the Act provides a statutory “Bill of Rights” for union members, including various protections for members involved in union elections, with enforcement and appropriate remedies available in district court. Title IV, in contrast, provides an elaborate postelection procedure aimed solely at protecting union democracy through free and democratic elections, with primary responsibility for enforcement lodged with the Secretary of Labor. Resolution of the question presented by this case requires that we address the conflict that exists between the separate enforcement mechanisms included in these two Titles. In particular, we must determine whether suits alleging violations of Title I may properly be maintained in district court during the course of a union election.
The Court of Appeals approved a preliminary injunction issued by the District Court that enjoined an ongoing union election and ordered the staging of a new election pursuant to procedures promulgated by the court. After reviewing the complex statutory scheme created by Congress, we conclude that such judicial interference in an ongoing union election is not appropriate relief under § 102 of Title I, 29 U. S. C. § 412. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals.
Local No. 82, Furniture and Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, and Packers (Local 82) represents approximately 700 employees engaged in the furniture moving business in the Boston, Mass., area. The union is governed by a seven-member executive board whose officers, pursuant to § 401(b) of the LMRDA, 29 U. S. C. § 481(b), must be chosen by election no less than once every three years. These elections, consistent with the executive board’s discretion under the union’s bylaws and constitution, have traditionally been conducted by mail referendum balloting. The dispute giving rise to the present case stems from the union election that was regularly scheduled for the last two months of 1980.
On November 9, 1980, Local 82 held a meeting to nominate candidates for positions on its executive board. The meeting generated considerable interest, in part because dissident members of the union were attempting to turn the incumbent union officials out of office. Two aspects of the controversial meeting are especially important for present purposes. First, admission to the meeting was restricted to those members who could produce a computerized receipt showing that their dues had been paid up to date. Several union members, including respondent Jerome Crowley, were prohibited from entering the meeting because they did not have such dues receipts in their possession. Second, during the actual nominations process, there was disagreement relating to the office for which respondent John Lynch had been nominated. At the close of nominations, petitioner Bart Griffiths, the union’s incumbent secretary-treasurer, declared himself the only candidate nominated for that office; at the same time, he included Lynch among the candidates selected to run for union president.
Several dissatisfied members of the union, now respondents before this Court, filed a protest with the union. On November 20, their protest was denied by Local 82. Election ballots were thereafter distributed to all members of the union, who were instructed to mark and return the ballots by mail so that they would arrive in a designated post office box by 9 a. m. on December 13, 1980, at which time they were scheduled to be counted. Respondent Lynch’s name appeared on the ballot as a candidate for president, and not for secretary-treasurer.
On December 1, 1980, after the distribution of ballots had been completed, the respondents filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They alleged, inter alia, that Local 82 and its officers had violated several provisions of Title I of the LMRD A, and sought a preliminary injunction. In particular, the respondents claimed that restricting admission to the nominations meeting to those members who could produce computerized dues receipts violated their “equal rights... to nominate candidates [and] to attend membership meetings” under § 101(a)(1) of the Act, as well as their right freely to express views at meetings of the union under § 101(a)(2) of the Act. They also alleged that the union and its officers had violated § 101(a)(1) by failing to recognize respondent Lynch as a candidate for secretary-treasurer.
“Equal Rights. — Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization’s constitution and bylaws.” 73 Stat. 522, 29 U. S. C. § 411(a)(1).
After preliminary papers were filed, on December 12 the District Court issued a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo and to protect its own jurisdiction. See App. 40-47. Given that the next morning (December 13) was the pre-established deadline for voting, many, if not most, of the ballots had already been returned by the union’s voting members. Nonetheless, the court noted that federal-court jurisdiction was available under § 102 of Title I, 29 U. S. C. § 412, for claims alleging discriminatory application of union rules. Moreover, the court’s order specifically required that the ballots be sealed and delivered to the court, thereby preventing the petitioners from counting the ballots until a final determination could be made on the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Several days of hearings on the preliminary injunction, and several months of negotiations concerning an appropriate court order to accompany that injunction, followed. Finally, on July 13, 1981, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction accompanied by a memorandum opinion. 521 F. Supp. 614 (1981). The court first addressed more fully the petitioners’ argument that, because the challenged conduct concerned the procedures for conducting union elections, the respondents’ exclusive remedy was to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor under Title IV. The court rejected this argument, noting that, “at least with respect to actions challenging pre-election conduct, Title I of the LMRDA establishes an alternative enforcement mechanism for remedying conduct interfering with a member’s right to engage in the activities associated with union democracy.” Id., at 621 (footnote omitted). Therefore, the court concluded, it could properly invoke its jurisdiction under Title I, if only for those claims concerning dues receipts and the nomination of respondent Lynch that are now before this Court. Id., at 622-623. Because the suit concerned disputes arising out of a nominations meeting conducted in preparation for a union election, and given that the court had issued a temporary restraining order barring actual completion of the election, Title I jurisdiction could properly be asserted over this “pre-election conduct.” Id., at 621, n. 12.
After concluding that the respondents had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claims, the court issued its comprehensive injunction. The court explicitly intended to issue an order that “interfere[d] as little as possible with the nomination and election procedures” required by the union’s constitution and bylaws, id., at 634; moreover, the terms of the preliminary injunction were derived in large part from an ongoing process of negotiations and hearings that the court had conducted with the parties during the preceding six months. Nonetheless, the order declared the ballots cast in December 1980 to be “legally without effect,” id., at 636, n., and provided detailed procedures to be followed by the union during a new nominations meeting and a subsequent election. Among other things, the order selected an outside group of arbitrators to conduct and supervise the election, and set forth eligibility requirements for attending the nominations meeting, being a candidate for office, and voting. The order also provided that it would remain in effect until further order of the District Court.
The petitioners appealed, and the Secretary of Labor, who until then had not participated in the proceedings, intervened on their behalf. They argued that the District Court lacked authority under Title I to enjoin the tabulation of ballots and order new nominations and elections under court supervision. The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments, however, and affirmed in all respects. 679 F. 2d 978 (CAl 1982). It agreed with the District Court that Title I remedies are not foreclosed when violations of Title I occur during the course of an election. The court also held that §403 of the Act, which explicitly provides that Title IV’s remedies are exclusive for elections that are “already conducted,” 29 U. S. C. § 483, does not apply until all the ballots have actually been tabulated.
Writing in dissent, Judge Campbell was “unable to read Title I as extending so far as to allow a district court, once balloting has commenced, to invalidate an election and order a new one under its supervision and under terms and conditions extemporized by the courts and parties.” 679 F. 2d, at 1004. He believed that “the proper accommodation between Title I and Title IV requires consideration not only of the stage which the election process has reached but [also] the nature of the relief” requested and granted. Id., at 1005.
Because of the confusion evident among the lower federal courts that have tried to reconcile the remedial provisions under Title I and Title IV of the Act, we granted certiorari. 459 U. S. 1168 (1983). We now reverse.
II
To examine fully the relationship between the respective enforcement provisions of Title I and Title IV of the LMRDA, it is necessary first to summarize the relevant statutory provisions and Congress’ principal purposes in their enactment. The LMRDA was “the product of congressional concern with widespread abuses of power by union leadership.” Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U. S. 431, 435 (1982). Although the Act “had a history tracing back more than two decades,” ibid., and was directly generated by several years of congressional hearings, see S. Rep. No. 187, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1959) (hereafter S. Rep. No. 187), many specific provisions did not find their way into the Act until the proposed legislation was fully considered on the floor of the Senate, 456 U. S., at 435, n. 4. It should not be surprising, therefore, that the interaction between various provisions that were finally included in the Act has generated considerable uncertainty.
A
Chief among the causes for this confusion is Title I of the Act, which provides union members with an exhaustive “Bill of Rights” enforceable in federal court. §§101-105, 29 U. S. C. §§411-415. In particular, Title I is designed to guarantee every union member equal rights to vote and otherwise participate in union decisions, freedom from unreasonable restrictions on speech and assembly, and protection from improper discipline. See Finnegan v. Leu, supra, at 435-436; Steelworkers v. Sadlowski, 457 U. S. 102, 109-110 (1982). Given these purposes, there can be no doubt that the protections afforded by Title I extend to union members while they participate in union elections. As we have previously noted:
“Congress adopted the freedom of speech and assembly provision [§ 101(a)(2), 29 U. S. C. § 411(a)(2)] in order to promote union democracy. It recognized that democracy would be assured only if union members are free to discuss union policies and criticize the leadership without fear of reprisal. Congress also recognized that this freedom is particularly critical, and deserves vigorous protection, in the context of election campaigns. For it is in elections that members can wield their power, and directly express their approval or disapproval of the union leadership.” Sadlowski, supra, at 112 (citations omitted).
As first introduced by Senator McClellan on the floor of the Senate, see 105 Cong. Rec. 6469-6476, 6492-6493 (1959), Title I empowered the Secretary of Labor to seek injunctions and other relief in federal district court to enforce the rights guaranteed to union members. A few days later, however, the McClellan amendment was replaced by a substitute amendment offered by Senator Kuchel. See id., at 6693-6694, 6717-6727. Among the principal changes made by this substitute was to provide for enforcement of Title I through suits by individual union members in federal district court. Id., at 6717, 6720. As so amended, the legislation was endorsed in the Senate by a vote of 77-14, id., at 6727, and was quickly accepted without substantive change by the House, see H. R. 8400, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., §102 (1959); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1147, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 31 (1959) (hereafter H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1147). In relevant part, therefore, § 102 of the Act now provides:
“Any person whose rights secured by the provisions of this title have been infringed by any violation of this title may bring a civil action in a district court of the United States for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate.” 73 Stat. 523, 29 U. S. C. §412.
Standing by itself, this jurisdictional provision suggests that individual union members may properly maintain a Title I suit whenever rights guaranteed by that Title have been violated. At the same time, however, § 102 explicitly limits the relief that may be ordered by a district court to that which is “appropriate” to any given situation. See Hall v. Cole, 412 U. S. 1, 10-11 (1973).
B
Nor would it be appropriate to interpret the enforcement and remedial provisions of Title I in isolation. In particular, Title IV of the LMRDA specifically regulates the conduct of elections for union officers, and therefore protects many of the same rights as does Title I. See §§401-403, 29 U. S. C. §§ 481-483. Title IV “sets up a statutory scheme governing the election of union officers, fixing the terms during which they hold office, requiring that elections be by secret ballot, regulating the handling of campaign literature, requiring a reasonable opportunity for the nomination of candidates, authorizing unions to fix'reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed’ for candidates, and attempting to guarantee fair union elections in which all the members are allowed to participate.” Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U. S. 134, 140 (1964). In general terms, “Title IV’s special function in furthering the overall goals of the LMRDA is to insure ‘free and democratic’ elections,” Wirtz v. Glass Bottle Blowers Assn., 389 U. S. 463, 470 (1968), an interest “vital” not only to union members but also to the general public, id., at 475. See Wirtz v. Laborers, 389 U. S. 477, 483 (1968).
Although Congress meant to further this basic policy with a minimum of interference in the internal affairs of unions, see Calhoon, supra, at 140, § 402 of Title IV contains its own comprehensive administrative and judicial procedure for enforcing the standards established in that Title of the Act, 29 U. S. C. §482. See Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U. S. 560 (1975); Trbovich v. Mine Workers, 404 U. S. 528, 531 (1972); Calhoon, supra, at 138-140. “Any union member who alleges a violation [of Title IV] may initiate the enforcement procedure. He must first exhaust any internal remedies available under the constitution and bylaws of his union. Then he may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, who ‘shall investigate’ the complaint. Finally, if the Secretary finds probable cause to believe a violation has occurred, he ‘shall... bring a civil action against the labor organization’ in federal district court, to set aside the election if it has already been held, and to direct and supervise a new election.” Trbovich, supra, at 531 (quoting §402, 29 U. S. C. §482). See Calhoon, supra, at 140. Significantly, the court may invalidate an election already held, and order the Secretary to supervise a new election, only if the violation of Title IV “may have affected the outcome” of the previous election. § 402(c), 29 U. S. C. § 482(c).
Congress also included in Title IV an exclusivity provision that explains the relationship between the enforcement procedures established for violations of Title IV and the remedies available for violations of potentially overlapping state and federal laws. In relevant part, §403 of the LMRDA provides:
“Existing rights and remedies to enforce the constitution and bylaws of a labor organization with respect to elections prior to the conduct thereof shall not be affected by the provisions of this title. The remedy provided by this title for challenging an election already conducted shall be exclusive.” 73 Stat. 534, 29 U. S. C. §483.
Relying on this provision, and on the comprehensive nature of the enforcement scheme established by § 402, we have held that Title IV “sets up an exclusive method for protecting Title IV rights,” and that Congress “decided not to permit individuals to block or delay union elections by filing federal-court suits for violations of Title IV.” Calhoon, supra, at 140.
III
We have not previously determined exactly how the exclusivity of Title IV’s remedial scheme for enforcing rights guaranteed by that Title might affect remedies available to enforce other rights, such as those protected by Title I. Nor has Congress provided any definitive answers in this area. This case requires, however, that we decide whether Title I remedies are available to aggrieved union members while a union election is being conducted.
A
It is useful to begin by noting what the plain language of the Act clearly establishes about the relationship between the remedies provided under Title I and Title IV. First, the exclusivity provision included in § 403 of Title IV plainly bars Title I relief when an individual union member challenges the validity of an election that has already been completed. Second, the full panoply of Title I rights is available to individual union members “prior to the conduct” of a union election. As with the plain language of most federal labor laws, however, this simplicity is more apparent than real. Indeed, by its own terms, the provision offers no obvious solution to what remedies are available during the course of a union election, the issue presented by this case.
Even if the plain meaning of the “already conducted” language of § 403 could be read not to preclude other remedies until the actual tabulation and certification of ballots have been completed, we would hesitate to find such an interpretation determinative. First, such an approach would ignore the limitation on judicial remedies that Congress included in Title I, which allows a district court to award only “appropriate” relief. Moreover, we have previously “cautioned against a literal reading” of the LMRDA. Wirtz v. Glass Bottle Blowers Assn., supra, at 468. Like much federal labor legislation, the statute was “the product of conflict and compromise between strongly held and opposed views, and its proper construction frequently requires consideration of its wording against the background of its legislative history and in the light of the general objectives Congress sought to achieve.” Ibid, (citing National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U. S. 612, 619 (1967)). See Sadlowski, 457 U. S., at 111. Indeed, in many ways this admonition applies with its greatest force to the interaction between Title I and Title IV of the LMRDA, if only because of the unusual way in which the legislation was enacted.
Nor does the legislative history of the LMRDA provide any definitive indication of how Congress intended § 403 to apply to Title I suits while an election is being conducted. Throughout the legislative debate on this provision, the exclusivity of Title IV was predominantly, if not only, considered in the context of a union election, such as one held at a union meeting, that would take place for a discrete and limited period of time. Thus, Congress did not explicitly consider how the exclusivity provision might apply to an election that takes several weeks or months to complete. Moreover, the legislative history that is available on the meaning of §403 is largely derived from congressional action that occurred prior to the time that Title I was added to the LMRDA. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 187, at 21; id., at 104 (minority views); H. R. Rep. No. 741, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 17 (1959). The interplay between the rights and remedies provided to union members by Title I, and the exclusivity provision already included in Title IV, therefore received little, if any, attention from the Congress. Cf. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1147, at 35 (Conference Report, written after both Titles were included in the Act, but failing to explain what remedies are available during an election).
B
Despite this absence of conclusive evidence in the legislative history, the primary objectives that controlled congressional enactment of the LMRDA provide important guidance for our consideration of the availability of Title I remedies during a union election. In particular, throughout the congressional discussions preceding enactment of both Title I and Title IV, Congress clearly indicated its intent to consolidate challenges to union elections with the Secretary of Labor, and to have the Secretary supervise any new elections necessitated by violations of the Act. This strongly suggests that, even when Title I violations are properly alleged and proved, Congress would not have considered a court order requiring and judicially supervising a new election to be “appropriate” relief under Title I. At the same time, there is nothing in the legislative history suggesting that Congress intended to foreclose all access to federal courts under Title I during an election, especially when a statutory violation could be corrected without any major delay or disruption to an ongoing election. We therefore conclude that whether a Title I suit may properly be maintained by individual union members during the course of a union election depends upon the nature of the relief sought by the Title I claimants.
Throughout its consideration of the LMRDA, Congress clearly intended to lodge exclusive responsibility for post-election suits challenging the validity of a union election with the Secretary of Labor. The legislative history of Title IV consistently echoes this theme. For example, the election provisions contained in the Committee bill as originally reported to the full Senate gave the Secretary exclusive authority to enforce Title IV and to supervise whatever new elections might be needed because of violations of its provisions. S. 1555, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., §§ 302-303 (1959). As the Report of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare explained: “[S]ince the bill provides an effective and expeditious remedy for overthrowing an improperly held election and holding a new election, the Federal remedy is made the sole remedy and private litigation would be precluded.” S. Rep. No. 187, at 21. The bill that was finally passed by the Senate retained these procedures for violations of Title IV.
In the House, three separate bills were introduced, with all three containing substantially similar enforcement procedures for violations of Title IV. Unlike the Senate bill, the House bills permitted an aggrieved union member to file suit in federal district court to enforce his Title IV rights. See, e. g., H. R. 8400, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., §402 (1959) (Landrum-Griffin bill). Significantly, however, even these bills provided that the Secretary of Labor would supervise any new elections ordered by the court. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 741, supra, at 17 (if district court finds relevant statutory violation, the court should “declare the election, if any, to be void, and direct the conduct of a new election under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor”). Thus, even before the Conference Committee adopted the Title IV enforcement procedures included in the Senate bill, see H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1147, at 35, both Houses of Congress had consistently indicated their intent to have the Secretary of Labor supervise any new union elections necessitated by the Act.
Moreover, nothing in the flurry of activity that surrounded enactment of Title I, see supra, at 537-538, and n. 12, indicates that Congress intended that Title to reverse this consistent opposition to court supervision of union elections. Although the enactment of Title I offered additional protection to union members, including the establishment of various statutory safeguards effective during the course of a union election, there is no direct evidence to suggest that Congress believed that enforcement of Title I would either require or allow courts to pre-empt the expertise of the Secretary and supervise their own elections. In the absence of such legislative history, and given the clear congressional preference expressed in Title IV for supervision of new elections by the Secretary of Labor, we are compelled to conclude that Congress did not consider court supervision of union elections to be an “appropriate” remedy for a Title I suit filed during the course of a union election. § 102, 29 U. S. C. § 412.
That is not to say that a court has no jurisdiction over otherwise proper Title I claims that are filed during the course of a lengthy union election. The important congressional policies underlying enactment of Title I, see supra, at 536-537, likewise compel us to conclude that appropriate relief under Title I may be awarded by a court while an election is being conducted. Individual union members may properly allege violations of Title I that are easily remediable under that Title without substantially delaying or invalidating an ongoing election. For example, union members might claim that they did not receive election ballots distributed by the union because of their opposition to the incumbent officers running for reelection. Assuming that such union members prove a statutory violation under Title I, a court might appropriately order the union to forward ballots to the claimants before completion of the election. To foreclose a court from ordering such Title I remedies during an election would not only be inefficient, but would also frustrate the purposes that Congress sought to serve by including Title I in the LMRDA. Indeed, eliminating all Title I relief in this context might preclude aggrieved union members from ever obtaining relief for statutory violations, since the more drastic remedies under Title IV are ultimately dependent upon a showing that a violation “may have affected the outcome” of the election, § 402(c), 29 U. S. C. § 482(c).
c
Our conclusion that appropriate Title I relief during the course of a union election does not include the invalidation of an ongoing election or court supervision of a new election finds further support in our prior cases interpreting the LMRDA, and in the underlying policies of the Act that have controlled those decisions. In Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U. S. 134 (1964), for example, we were faced with a pre-election challenge to several union rules that controlled eligibility to run and nominate others for union office. The claimants in that case asked the court to enjoin the union from preparing for or conducting any election until the rules were revised. We first concluded that in substance the claims alleged violations of Title IV rather than Title I, because the latter only protects union members against the discriminatory application of union rules. Then, given that “Congress... decided not to permit individuals to block or delay union elections by filing federal-court suits for violations of Title IV,” id., at 140; see supra, at 540, we held that the District Court could not invoke its jurisdiction under Title I to hear Title IV claims. We relied for our conclusion in part on Congress’ intent “to allow unions great latitude in resolving their own internal controversies, and, where that fails, to utilize the agencies of Government most familiar with union problems to aid in bringing about a settlement through discussion before resort to the courts.” 379 U. S., at 140. See also ibid. (“It is apparent that Congress decided to utilize the special knowledge and discretion of the Secretary of Labor in order best to serve the public interest”).
In several subsequent decisions, we also relied on the important role played by the Secretary in enforcing Title IV violations and in supervising new union elections. See, e. g., Wirtz v. Glass Bottle Blowers Assn., 389 U. S., at 473-475; Wirtz v. Laborers, 389 U. S., at 482-484; Wirtz v. Hotel Employees, 391 U. S. 492 (1968). At the same time, we noted that another primary goal of Congress was to maximize the “ ‘amount of independence and self-government’ ” granted to unions. See Glass Bottle Blowers Assn., supra, at 472-473 (quoting S. Rep. No. 187, at 21); Hodgson v. Steelworkers, 403 U. S. 333 (1971). As we more fully explained in Trbovich v. Mine Workers, 404 U. S. 528 (1972), Congress made suit by the Secretary under Title IV the exclusive post-election remedy for challenges to an election “(1) to protect unions from frivolous litigation and unnecessary judicial interference with their elections, and (2) to centralize in a single proceeding such litigation as might be warranted with respect to a single election.” Id., at 532. Thus, exclusive postelection enforcement by the Secretary serves “as a device for eliminating frivolous complaints and consolidating meritorious ones.” Id., at 535.
Consistent with these policies, Trbovich cited Calhoon, supra, at 140, for the proposition that “§403 prohibits union members from initiating a private suit to set aside an election.” 404 U. S., at 531. Although this somewhat overstated our holding in Calhoon, which was limited to the exclusivity of postelection suits by the Secretary for violations of Title IV, we believe that the policies supporting Congress’ decision to consolidate Title IV suits with the Secretary are equally applicable to Title I suits that seek to “set aside an election.” Although the important protections provided to union members by Title I should not easily be precluded, the equally strong policies vesting the Secretary with exclusive supervisory authority over new union elections require that Title I remedies during the course of an election be limited to this extent.
We also note that, in a paragraph summarizing remedies under the LMRDA, our opinion in Bachowski briefly touched upon the interplay between the enforcement provisions under Title I and Title IV: “Certain LMRDA provisions concerning pre-election conduct, 29 U. S. C. §§ 411-413 and 481(c), are enforceable in suits brought by individual union members. Provisions concerning the conduct of the election itself, however, may be enforced only according to the post-election procedures specified in 29 U. S. C. § 4.82. Section 483 is thus not a prohibition against judicial review but simply underscores the exclusivity of the § 482 procedures in post-election cases.” Id., at 566-567 (emphasis added). To the extent that our decision today holds that district courts may award certain Title I relief during the course of a union election, that holding prevails over any inconsistency with the italicized sentence.
In sum, whether suits alleging violations of Title I of the LMRDA may properly be maintained during the course of a union election depends upon the appropriateness of the remedy required to eliminate the claimed statutory violation. If the remedy sought is invalidation of the election already being conducted with court supervision of a new election, then union members must utilize the remedies provided by Title IV. For less intrusive remedies sought during an election, however, a district court retains authority to order appropriate relief under Title I.
J-H
The procedural history of this case clearly demonstrates the undesirable consequences that follow from judicial supervision of a union election. The respondents filed suit after Local 82 had distributed election ballots to its members, but before some of the ballots had been returned or any of the ballots had been counted. Then, less than 24 hours before the election would have been completed and the ballots tabulated, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order that brought the election to a halt. This was followed by several months of negotiations between the parties and hearings before the District Court. Finally, the court issued an order declaring the interrupted election invalid, and setting forth elaborate procedures to be followed during a new election.
Several aspects of these proceedings demonstrate why they are inconsistent with the policies underlying the LMRDA. For example, the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction issued by the court delayed the union election that was originally scheduled for December 1980 for one full year. Among other consequences, this left the incumbent union officers in power beyond the scheduled expiration of their terms. Cf. § 401(b), 29 U. S. C. § 481(b) (officers shall be elected not less than once every three years). If the procedures under Title IV had been properly followed, the December 1980 election would have been presumed valid, see § 402(a), 29 U. S. C. § 482(a), and new officers would have replaced the incumbents. Moreover, the expertise of the Secretary in supervising elections was completely ignored. Not only did the court acting alone decide that a new election was required, but its order established procedures for that election and appointed outside arbitrators to supervise their implementation. This action by the District Court directly interfered with the Secretary’s exclusive responsibilities for supervising new elections, and was inconsistent with the basic objectives of the LMRDA enforcement scheme.
V
We conclude that the District Court overstepped the bounds of “appropriate” relief under Title I of the LMRDA when it enjoined an ongoing union election and ordered that a new election be held pursuant to court-ordered procedures. Accordingly, 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.
Also appearing as petitioners before this Court are George Harris, former president of Local 82, Bart Griffiths, secretary-treasurer of Local 82, Phillip Piemontese, chairman of the election committee of Local 82, and several unidentified members of that election committee.
In addition to Jerome Crowley and John Lynch, respondents before this Court include Anthony Coyne, Joseph Fahey, Robert Lunnin, James Hayes, Gerald Owens, Joseph Trask, Joseph Montagna, and Dennis Bates.
The respondents also filed protests with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, the international union with which Local 82 is affiliated, and with Teamsters Joint Council 10, the regional body containing Local 82. No action was ever taken by the international union, and a hearing scheduled by the regional body for December 23, 1980, was canceled after the present lawsuit was filed.
Section 101(a)(1) of the LMRDA provides in full:
Section 101(a)(2) of the LMRDA provides in full:
“Freedom of Speech and Assembly. — Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization’s established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.” 73 Stat. 522, 29 U. S. C.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The Court of Appeals in this case held that the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U. S. C. § 16901 et seq., violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, when applied to juveniles adjudicated as delinquent before SORNA’s enactment. We conclude that the Court of Appeals had no authority to enter that judgment because it had no live controversy before it.
I
Respondent Juvenile Male was 13 years old when he began sexually abusing a 10-year-old boy on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Montana. The abuse continued for approximately two years, until respondent was 15 and his victim 12. In 2005, respondent was charged in the District of Montana with delinquency under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 U. S. C. § 5031 et seq. Respondent pleaded “true” to charges that he knowingly engaged in sexual acts with a child under 12, which would have been a federal crime had respondent been an adult. See §§ 2241(c), 1153(a). The court sentenced respondent to two years of juvenile detention, followed by juvenile supervision until his 21st birthday. Respondent was to spend the first six months of his postcon-finement supervision in a prerelease center. See United States v. Juvenile Male, 560 U. S. 558, 559 (2010) (per curiam).
In 2006, while respondent remained in juvenile detention, Congress enacted SORNA. 120 Stat. 590. Under SORNA, a sex offender must “register, and keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction” where the offender resides, is employed, or attends school. 42 U. S. C. § 16913(a). This registration requirement extends to certain juveniles adjudicated as delinquent for serious sex offenses. § 16911(8). In addition, an interim rule issued by the Attorney General mandates that SORNA’s requirements apply retroactively to sex offenders convicted before the statute’s enactment. 72 Fed. Reg. 8897 (2007) (codified at 28 CFR pt. 72 (2010)); see 42U.S. C. § 16913(d).
In July 2007, the District Court determined that respondent had failed to comply with the requirements of his prere-lease program. The court revoked respondent’s juvenile supervision, imposed an additional 6-month term of detention, and ordered that the detention be followed by supervision until respondent’s 21st birthday. 560 U. S., at 559. At the Government’s urging, and over respondent’s objection, the court also imposed a “special eonditio[n]” of supervision requiring respondent to regisler and keep current as a sex offender. Id., at 560 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Pet. for Cert. 9 (noting the Government’s argument in the District Court that respondent should be required to register under SORNA “ ‘at least until’ ” his release from juvenile supervision on his 21st birthday).
On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, respondent challenged this “special conditio[n]” of supervision. He requested that the Court of Appeals “reverse th[e] portion of his sentence requiring Sex Offender Registration and remand with instructions that the district court... strik[e] Sex Offender Registration as a condition of juvenile supervision.” Opening Brief for Defendant-Appellant in No. 07-30290 (CA9), p. 25. Then, in May 2008, with his appeal still pending in the Ninth Circuit, respondent turned 21, and the juvenile-supervision order requiring him to register as a sex offender expired. 560 U. S., at 560.
Over a year after respondent’s 21st birthday, the Court of Appeals handed down its decision. 581 F. 3d 977 (CA9 2009), amended, 590 F. 3d 924 (2010). No party had raised any issue of mootness in the Ninth Circuit, and the Court of Appeals did not address the issue sua sponte. The court’s opinion discussed only the merits and concluded that applying SORNA to juvenile delinquents who committed their offenses “before SORNA’s passage violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.” Id., at 927. On that basis, the court vacated the District Court’s condition of supervision requiring sex-offender registration and reporting. Id., at 942. The United States petitioned for a writ of certiorari.
. While that petition was pending, this Court entered a per curiam opinion in this case certifying a preliminary question of Montana law to the Montana Supreme Court. 560 U. S. 558. The opinion noted that a “threshold issue of mootness” might prevent us from reviewing the decision below on the merits. Id., at 560. We explained that, because respondent is “no longer . . . subject” to the District Court’s “sex-offender-registration conditions,” respondent must “show that a decision invalidating” those conditions “would be sufficiently likely to redress ‘collateral consequences adequate to meet Article Ill’s injury-in-fact requirement.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U. S. 1, 14 (1998)). We noted that by the time of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, “respondent had become registered as a sex offender in Montana.” 560 U. S., at 561 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[pjerhaps the most likely potential ‘collateral con-sequenc[e]’ that might be remedied by a judgment in respondent’s favor is the requirement that respondent remain registered as a sex offender under Montana law.” Id., at 560-561. In order to ascertain whether a decision invalidating the District Court’s registration conditions would enable respondent to remove his name from the Montana sex-offender registry, the Court certified the following question to the Montana Supreme Court:
“Is respondent’s duty to remain registered as a sex offender under Montana law contingent upon the validity of the conditions of his now-expired federal juvenile-supervision order that required him to register as a sex offender, or is the duty an independent requirement of Montana law that is unaffected by the validity or invalidity of the federal juvenile-supervision conditions?” Id., at 561 (citations omitted).
The Montana Supreme Court has now responded to our certified question. See United States v. Juvenile Male, 2011 MT 104, 360 Mont. 317, 255 P. 3d 110. Its answer is that respondent’s “state law duty to remain registered as a sex offender is not contingent upon the validity of the conditions of his federal supervision order, but is an independent requirement of Montana law.” Id., at 318, 255 P. 3d, at 111.
J — I H-Í
It is a basic principle of Article III that a justiciable case or controversy must remain “extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 67 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[TJhroughout the litigation,” the party seeking relief “ ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer, supra, at 7 (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472, 477 (1990)).
In criminal cases, this requirement means that a defendant wishing to continue his appeals after the expiration of his sentence must suffer some “continuing injury” or “collateral consequence” sufficient to satisfy Article III. See Spencer, 523 U. S., at 7-8. When the defendant challenges his- underlying conviction, this Court’s cases have long presumed the existence of collateral consequences. Id., at 8; see Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 55-56 (1968). But when a defendant challenges only an expired sentence, no such presumption applies, and the defendant must bear the burden of identifying some ongoing “collateral consequenc[e]” that is “traceable” to the challenged portion of the sentence and “likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” See Spencer, supra, at 7, 14 (internal quotation marks omitted).
At the time of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case, the District Court’s order of juvenile supervision had expired, and respondent was no longer subject to the sex-offender-registration conditions that he sought to challenge on appeal. 560 U. S., at 560. As a result, respondent’s challenge was moot before the Ninth Circuit unless he could “show that a decision invalidating” the District Court’s order would likely redress some collateral consequence of the registration conditions. Ibid, (citing Spencer, supra, at 14).
As we noted in our prior opinion, one “potential collateral consequence that might be remedied” by an order invalidating the registration conditions “is the requirement that respondent remain registered” under Montana law. 560 U. S., at 560-561 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). But as the Montana Supreme Court has now clarified, respondent’s “state law duty to remain registered as a sex offender is not contingent upon the validity of the conditions of his federal supervision order,” 360 Mont., at 318, 255 P. 3d, at 111, and continues to apply regardless of the outcome in this case. True, a favorable decision in this case might serve as a useful precedent for respondent in a hypothetical lawsuit challenging Montana’s registration requirement on ex post facto grounds. But this possible, indirect benefit in a future lawsuit cannot save this case from mootness. See Camreta v. Greene, 563 U. S. 692, 712 (2011); Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Board of Trade of Chicago, 701 F. 2d 653, 656 (CA7 1989) (Posner, J.) (“[0]ne can never be certain that findings made in a decision concluding one lawsuit will not some day . . . control the outcome of another suit. But if that were enough to avoid mootness, no case would ever be moot”).
Respondent also argues that this case “cannot be considered moot in any practical sense” because, under current law, respondent may have “an independent duty to register as a sex offender” under SORNA itself. Brief in Opposition 6. But the duty to register under SORNA is not a consequence — collateral or otherwise — of the District Court’s special conditions of supervision. The statutory duty to register is, as respondent notes, an obligation that exists “independent” of those conditions. That continuing obligation might provide grounds for a preenforcement challenge to SORNA’s registration requirements. It does not, however, render the current controversy regarding the validity of respondent’s sentence any less moot.
Respondent further argues that this case falls within the established exception to mootness for disputes that are “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” Id., at 8 (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U. S. 147, 148-149 (1975) (per curiam,)). This exception, however, applies only where “(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subject to the same action again.” Spencer, supra, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). At the very least, respondent cannot satisfy the second of these requirements. He has now turned 21, and he will never again be subject to an order imposing special conditions of juvenile supervision. See, e. g., DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312 (1974) (per curiam). The capable-of-repetition exception to mootness thus does not apply, and the Ninth Circuit lacked the authority under Article III to decide this case on the merits.
The petition for a writ of certiorari and respondent’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal.
It is so ordered.
Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Soto-mayor would remand the case to the Ninth Circuit for that court's consideration of mootness in the first instance.
Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
On December 29, 2010, the Attorney General finalized the interim rule. See 75 Fed. Eeg. 81849. In Reynolds v. United States, No. 10-6549, this Court granted certiorari on the qucotion whether cox offenders convicted-before the enactment of SORNA have standing to challenge the validity of the Attorney General’s interim rule. 562 U. S. 1199 (2011); Pet. for Cert. in Reynolds, p. i. Reynolds io elated to be heard next Term.
See 42 U. S. C. § 16911(8) (SORNA applicable if the juvenile was “14 yearc of age or older at the time of the offense and the offense adjudicated was comparablo to or more severe than aggravated sexual abuse (as described in section 2241 of title 18)”); 72 Fed. Reg. 8897 (codified at 28 CFR pt. 72) (SORNA’s requirements extend to sex offenders convicted before the statute’s enactment).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 1291 of the Judicial Code confines appeals as of right to those from “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U. S. C. § 1291. This case raises the question whether an order vacating a dismissal predicated on the parties’ settlement agreement is final as a collateral order even without a district court’s resolution of the underlying cause of action. See Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 546 (1949). We hold that an order denying effect to a settlement agreement does not come within the narrow ambit of collateral orders.
I
Respondent, Desktop Direct, Inc. (Desktop), sells computers and like equipment under the trade name “Desktop Direct.” Petitioner, Digital Equipment Corporation, is engaged in a similar business and in late 1991 began using that trade name to market a new service it called “Desktop Direct from Digital.” In response, Desktop filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, charging Digital with unlawful use of the Desktop Direct name. Desktop sent Digital a copy of the complaint, and negotiations between officers of the two corporations ensued. Under a confidential settlement reached on March 25, 1992, Digital agreed to pay Desktop a sum of money for the right to use the “Desktop Direct” trade name and corresponding trademark, and for waiver of all damages and dismissal of the suit. That same day, Desktop filed a notice of dismissal in the District Court.
Several months later, Desktop moved to vacate the dismissal and rescind the settlement agreement, alleging misrepresentation of material facts during settlement negotiations. The District Court granted the motion, concluding “that a fact finder could determine that [Digital] failed to disclose material facts to [Desktop] during settlement negotiations which would have resulted in rejection of the settlement offer.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 13a. After the District Court declined to reconsider that ruling or stay its order vacating dismissal, Digital appealed.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the District Court order was not appealable under §1291, because it neither “end[ed] the litigation on the merits” nor “[fell] within the long-recognized ‘collateral order’ exception to the final judgment requirement.” 993 F. 2d 755, 757 (1993). Applying the three-pronged test for determining when “collateral order” appeal is allowed, see Cohen, supra; Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463 (1978), the Court of Appeals concluded that any benefits claimed under the settlement agreement were insufficiently “important” to warrant the immediate appeal as of right. Although Digital claimed what it styled a “right not to go to trial,” the court reasoned that any such privately negotiated right as Digital sought to vindicate was different in kind from an immunity rooted in an explicit constitutional or statutory provision or “compelling public policy rationale,” the denial of which has been held to be immediately appealable. 993 F. 2d, at 758-760.
The Tenth Circuit recognized that it was thus deviating from the rule followed in some other Courts of Appeals, see Forbus v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 958 F. 2d 1036 (CA11 1992); Grillet v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 927 F. 2d 217 (CA5 1991); Janneh v. GAF Corp., 887 F. 2d 432 (CA2 1989); but see Transtech Industries, Inc. v. A & Z Septic Clean, 5 F. 3d 51 (CA3 1993), cert. pending, No. 93-960. We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 942 (1993), to resolve this conflict and now affirm.
II
A
The collateral order doctrine is best understood not as an exception to the “final decision” rule laid down by Congress in § 1291, but as a “practical construction” of it, Cohen, supra, at 546; see, e. g., Coopers & Lybrand, supra, at 468. We have repeatedly held that the statute entitles a party to appeal not only from a district court decision that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing more for the court to do but execute the judgment,” Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229, 233 (1945), but also from a narrow class of decisions that do not terminate the litigation, but must, in the interest of “achieving a healthy legal system,” cf. Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323, 326 (1940), nonetheless be treated as “final.” The latter category comprises only those district court decisions that are conclusive, that resolve important questions completely separate from the merits, and that would render such important questions effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment in the underlying action. See generally Coopers & Lybrand, supra. Immediate appeals from such orders, we have explained, do not go against the grain of § 1291, with its object of efficient administration of justice in the federal courts, see generally Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Roller, 472 U. S. 424 (1985).
But we have also repeatedly stressed that the “narrow” exception should stay that way and never be allowed to swallow the general rule, id., at 436, that a party is entitled to a single appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered, in which claims of district court error at any stage of the litigation may be ventilated, see United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U. S. 263, 270 (1982). We have accordingly described the conditions for collateral order appeal as stringent, see, e. g., Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U. S. 794, 799 (1989), and have warned that the issue of appealability under §1291 is to be determined for the entire category to which a claim belongs, without regard to the chance that the litigation at hand might be speeded, or a “particular injustice]” averted, Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U. S. 517, 529 (1988), by a prompt appellate court decision. See also Richardson-Merrell, supra, at 439 (this Court “has expressly rejected efforts to reduce the finality requirement of § 1291 to a case-by-case [appealability] determination”); Carroll v. United States, 354 U. S. 394, 405 (1957).
B
Here, the Court of Appeals accepted Digital’s claim that the order vacating dismissal (and so rescinding the settlement agreement) was the “final word on the subject addressed,” 993 F. 2d, at 757 (citation omitted), and held the second Cohen condition, separability, to be satisfied, as well. Neither conclusion is beyond question, but each is best left untouched here, both because Desktop has made no serious effort to defend the Court of Appeals’ judgment on those points and because the failure to meet the third condition of the Cohen test, that the decision on an “important” question be “effectively unreviewable” upon final judgment, would in itself suffice to foreclose immediate appeal under §1291. Turning to these dispositive factors, we conclude, despite Digital’s position that it holds a “right not to stand trial” requiring protection by way of immediate appeal, that rights under private settlement agreements can be adequately vindicated on appeal from final judgment.
C
The roots of Digital’s argument that the settlement with Desktop gave it a “right not to stand trial altogether” (and that such a right per se satisfies the third Cohen requirement) are readily traced to Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651 (1977), where we held that § 1291 entitles a criminal defendant to appeal an adverse ruling on a double jeopardy claim, without waiting for the conclusion of his trial. After holding the second Cohen requirement satisfied by the distinction between the former jeopardy claim and the question of guilt to be resolved at trial, we emphasized that the Fifth Amendment not only secures the right to be free from multipie punishments, but by its very terms embodies the broader principle, “ ‘deeply ingrained in... the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence,’ ” that it is intolerable for “ ‘the State, with all its resources... to make repeated attempts to convict an individual [defendant], thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity.’” 431 U. S., at 661-662 (quoting Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187-188 (1957)). We found that immediate appeal was the only way to give “full protection” to this constitutional right “not to face trial at all.” 431 U. S., at 662, and n. 7; see also Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U. S. 500 (1979) (decision denying immunity under the Speech and Debate Clause would be appealable under § 1291).
Abney’s rationale was applied in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 742 (1982), where we held to be similarly appeal-able an order denying the petitioner absolute immunity from suit for civil damages arising from actions taken while petitioner was President of the United States. Seeing this immunity as a “functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office, rooted in the... separation of powers and supported by our history,” id., at 749, we stressed that it served “compelling public ends,” id., at 758, and would be irretrievably lost if the former President were not allowed an immediate appeal to vindicate this right to be free from the rigors of trial, see id., at 752, n. 32.
Next, in Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511 (1985), we held that similar considerations supported appeal under §1291 from decisions denying government officials qualified immunity from damages suits. An “essential attribute,” id., at 525, of this freedom from suit for past conduct not violative of clearly established law, we explained, is the “entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation,” id., at 526, one which would be “effectively lost if a case [were] erroneously permitted to go to trial,” ibid. Echoing the reasoning of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, supra (and Harlow v. Fitz gemid, 457 U. S. 800 (1982)), we explained that requiring an official with a colorable immunity claim to defend a suit for damages would be “peculiarly disruptive of effective government,” and would work the very “distraction... from... dut[y], inhibition of discretionary action, and deterrence of able people from public service” that qualified immunity was meant to avoid. See 472 U. S., at 526 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139,147 (1993) (State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court may be vindicated by immediate appeal under § 1291).
D
Digital puts this case on all fours with Mitchell. It maintains that it obtained dual rights under the settlement agreement with Desktop, not only a broad defense to liability but the “right not to stand trial,” the latter being just like the qualified immunity held immediately appealable in Mitchell. As in Mitchell, that right must be enforceable on collateral order appeal, Digital asserts, or an adverse trial ruling will destroy it forever.
While Digital’s argument may exert some pull on a narrow analysis, it does not hold up under the broad scrutiny to which all claims of immediate appealability under §1291 must be subjected. To be sure, Abney and Mitchell are fairly cited for the proposition that orders denying certain immunities are strong candidates for prompt appeal under § 1291. But Digital’s larger contention, that a party’s ability to characterize a district court’s decision as denying an irreparable “right not to stand trial” altogether is sufficient as well as necessary for a collateral order appeal, is neither an accurate distillation of our case law nor an appealing prospect for adding to it.
Even as they have recognized the need for immediate appeals under § 1291 to vindicate rights that would be “irretrievably lost,” Richardson-Merrell, 472 U. S., at 431, if review were confined to final judgments only, our cases have been at least as emphatic in recognizing that the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals should not, and cannot, depend on a party’s agility in so characterizing the right asserted. This must be so because the strong bias of § 1291 against piecemeal appeals almost never operates without some cost. A fully litigated case can no more be untried than the law’s proverbial bell can be unrung, and almost every pretrial or trial order might be called “effectively unreviewable” in the sense that relief from error can never extend to rewriting history. Thus, erroneous evidentiary rulings, grants or denials of attorney disqualification, see, e. g., RichardsonMerrell, supra, and restrictions on the rights of intervening parties, see Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U. S. 370 (1987), may burden litigants in ways that are only imperfectly reparable by appellate reversal of a final district court judgment, cf. Carroll, 354 U. S., at 406; Parr v. United States, 351 U. S. 513, 519-520 (1956); and other errors, real enough, will not seem serious enough to warrant reversal at all, when reviewed after a long trial on the merits, see Stringfellow, supra. In still other cases, see Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463 (1978), an erroneous district court decision will, as a practical matter, sound the “death knell” for many plaintiffs’ claims that might have gone forward if prompt error correction had been an option. But if immediate appellate review were available every such time, Congress’s final decision rule would end up a pretty puny one, and so the mere identification of some interest that would be “irretrievably lost” has never sufficed to meet the third Cohen requirement. See generally Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U. S. 495, 499 (1989) (“It is always true, however, that ‘there is value... in triumphing before trial, rather than after it’ ”) (quoting United States v. MacDonald, 435 U. S. 850, 860, n. 7 (1978)); Richardson-Merrell, supra, at 436.
Nor does limiting the focus to whether the interest asserted may be called a “right not to stand trial” offer much protection against the urge to push the § 1291 limits. We have, after all, acknowledged that virtually every right that could be enforced appropriately by pretrial dismissal might loosely be described as conferring a “right not to stand trial,” see, e. g., Midland Asphalt, 489 U. S., at 501; Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U. S., at 524. Allowing immediate appeals to vindicate every such right would move § 1291 aside for claims that the district court lacks personal jurisdiction, see Van Cauwenberghe, supra, that the statute of limitations has run, see 15B C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3918.5, and n. 65, p. 521 (1992), that the movant has been denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, see MacDonald, supra, that an action is barred on claim preclusion principles, that no material fact is in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or merely that the complaint fails to state a claim. Such motions can be made in virtually every case, see generally id., at 862; United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U. S., at 270, and it would be no consolation that a party’s meritless summary judgment motion or res judicata claim was rejected on immediate appeal; the damage to the efficient and congressionally mandated allocation of judicial responsibility would be done, and any improper purpose the appellant might have had in saddling its opponent with cost and delay would be accomplished. Cf. Richardson-Merrell, supra, at 434 (appeals from “entirely proper” decisions impose the same costs as do appeals from “injudicious” ones). Thus, precisely because candor forces us to acknowledge that there is no single, “obviously correct way to characterize” an asserted right, Lauro Lines, supra, at 500, we have held that §1291 requires courts of appeals to view claims of a “right not to be tried” with skepticism, if not a jaundiced eye. Cf. Van Cauwenberghe, supra, at 524-525.
In Midland Asphalt, for example, we had no trouble in dispatching a defendant’s claim of entitlement to an immediate appeal from an order denying dismissal for alleged violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), forbidding disclosure of secret grand jury information. Noting “ ‘a crucial distinction between a right not to be tried and a right whose remedy requires the dismissal of charges,’ ” 489 U. S., at 801, quoting Hollywood Motor Car, supra, at 269, we observed that Rule 6(e) “contains no hint,” 489 U. S., at 802, of an immunity from trial, and we contrasted that Rule with the Fifth Amendment’s express provision that “[n]o person shall be held to answer” for a serious crime absent grand jury indictment. Only such an “explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur,” we suggested, id., at 801, could be grounds for an immediate appeal of right under § 1291.
The characterization issue surfaced again (and more ominously for Digital, see infra, at 880) in Lauro Lines, supra, where a defendant sought to appeal under §1291 from an order denying effect to a contractual provision that a Neapolitan court would be the forum for trying all disputes arising from the parties’ cruise-ship agreement. While we realized of course that the value of the forum-selection clause would be diminished if the defendant could be tried before appealing, we saw the contractual right to limit trial to an Italian forum as “different in kind” from the entitlement to “avoid suit altogether” that Abney and Mitchell held could be “adequately vindicated]” only on immediate appeal. 490 U. S., at 501.
E
As Digital reads the cases, the only things standing in the way of an appeal to perfect its claimed rights under the settlement agreement are the lone statement in Midland Asphalt, to the effect that only explicit statutory and constitutional immunities may be appealed immediately under § 1291, and language (said to be stray) repeated in many of our collateral order decisions, suggesting that the “importance” of the right asserted is an independent condition of appeal-ability. See Brief for Petitioner 28-34. The first, Digital explains, cannot be reconciled with Mitchell’s holding, that denial of qualified immunity (which we would be hard pressed to call “explicitly... guarantee^] ” by a particular constitutional or statutory provision) is a collateral order under § 1291; as between Mitchell and the Midland Asphalt dictum, Digital says, the dictum must give way.. As for the second obstacle, Digital adamantly maintains that “importance” has no place in a doctrine justified as supplying a gloss on Congress’s “final decision” language.
1
These arguments miss the mark. First, even if Mitchell could not be squared fully with the literal words of the Midland Asphalt sentence (but cf. Lauro Lines, 490 U. S., at 499, noting that Midland Asphalt was a criminal case and Mitchell was not), that would be only because the qualified immunity right is inexplicit, not because it lacks a good pedigree in public law. Indeed, the insight that explicitness may not be needed for jurisdiction consistent with § 1291 only leaves Digital with the unenviable task of explaining why other rights that might fairly be said to include an (implicit) “right to avoid trial” aspect are less in need of protection by immediate review, or more readily vindicated on appeal from final judgment, than the (claimed) privately negotiated right to be free from suit. It is far from clear, for example, why § 1291 should bless a party who bargained for the right to avoid trial, but not a party who “purchased” the right by having once prevailed at trial and now pleads res judicata, see In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 694 F. 2d 1041 (CA5 1983); or a party who seeks shelter under the statute of limitations, see, e.g., United States v. Weiss, 7 F. 3d 1088 (CA2 1993), which is usually understood to secure the same sort of “repose” that Digital seeks to vindicate here, see Brief for Petitioner 25; or a party not even subject to a claim on which relief could be granted. See also Cobbledick, 309 U. S., at 325 (“Bearing the discomfiture and cost of a prosecution for crime even by an innocent person is one of the painful obligations of citizenship”); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U. S. 368, 378 (1981) (“[Potential harm” should be compared to “the harm resulting from other interlocutory orders that may be erroneous”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Digital answers that the status under § 1291 of these other (seemingly analogous) rights should not give us pause, because the text and structure of this particular settlement with Desktop confer what no res judicata claimant could ever have, an express right not to stand trial. But we cannot attach much significance one way or another to the supposed clarity of the agreement’s terms in this case. To ground a ruling here on whether this settlement agreement in terms confers the prized “right not to stand trial” (a point Desktop by no means concedes) would flout our own frequent admonitions, see, e. g., Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U. S., at 529, that availability of collateral order appeal must be determined at a higher level of generality. Indeed, just because it would be the rare settlement agreement that could not be construed to include (at least an implicit) freedom-from-trial “aspect,” we decide this case on the assumption that if Digital prevailed here, any district court order denying effect to a settlement agreement could be appealed immediately. (And even if form were held to matter, settlement agreements would all include “immunity from suit” language a good deal plainer than what Digital relies on here, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 44.) See also Van Cauwenberghe, swpra, at 524 (“For purposes of determining appealability,... we will assume, but do not decide, that petitioner has presented a substantial claim” on the merits).
2
The more fundamental response, however, to the claim that an agreement's provision for immunity from trial can distinguish it from other arguable rights to be trial free is simply that such a right by agreement does not rise to the level of importance needed for recognition under §1291. This, indeed, is the bone of the fiercest contention in the case. In disparaging any distinction between an order denying a claim grounded on an explicit constitutional guarantee of immunity from trial and an order at odds with an equally explicit right by private agreement of the parties, Digital stresses that the relative “importance” of these rights, heavily relied upon by the Court of Appeals, is a rogue factor. No decision of this Court, Digital maintains, has held an order unappealable as “unimportant” when it has otherwise met the three Cohen requirements, and whether a decided issue is thought “important,” it says, should have no bearing on whether it is “final” under § 1291.
If “finality” were as narrow a concept as Digital maintains, however, the Court would have had little reason to go beyond the first factor in Cohen, see also United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land in Babylon, Suffolk Cty., 129 F. 2d 678, 680 (CA2 1942) (Frank, J.) (“ ‘Final’ is not a clear one-purpose word”). And if “importance” were truly aberrational, we would not find it featured so prominently in the Cohen opinion itself, which describes the “small class” of immediately appealable prejudgment decisions in terms of rights that are “too important to be denied review” right away, see 337 U. S., at 546. To be sure, Digital may validly question whether “importance” is a factor “beyond” the three Cohen conditions or whether it is best considered, as we have sometimes suggested it should be, in connection with the second, “separability,” requirement, see, e.g., Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U. S., at 468; Lauro Lines, 490 U. S., at 498, but neither enquiry could lead to the conclusion that “importance” is itself unimportant. To the contrary, the third Cohen question, whether a right is “adequately vindicable” or “effectively reviewable,” simply cannot be answered without a judgment about the value of the interests that would be lost through rigorous application of a final judgment requirement. See generally Van Cauwenberghe, supra, at 524 0“[T]he substance of the rights entailed, rather than the advantage to a litigant in winning his claim sooner,’ ” is dis-positive) (quoting MacDonald, 435 U. S., at 860, n. 7); Lauro Lines, supra, at 502-503 (Scalia, J., concurring).
While there is no need to decide here that a privately conferred right could never supply the basis of a collateral order appeal, but cf. n. 7, infra (discussing 9 U. S. C. § 16), there are surely sound reasons for treating such rights differently from those originating in the Constitution or statutes. When a policy is embodied in a constitutional or statutory provision entitling a party to immunity from suit (a rare form of protection), there is little room for the judiciary to gainsay its “importance.” Including a provision in a private contract, by contrast, is barely a prima facie indication that the right secured is “important” to the benefited party (contracts being replete with boilerplate), let alone that its value exceeds that of other rights not embodied in agreements (e. g., the right to be free from a second suit based on a claim that has already been litigated), or that it qualifies as “important” in Cohen’s sense, as being weightier than the societal interests advanced by the ordinary operation of final judgment principles. Where statutory and constitutional rights are concerned, “irretrievably] los[s]” can hardly be trivial, and the collateral order doctrine might therefore be understood as reflecting the familiar principle of statutory construction that, when possible, courts should construe statutes (here § 1291) to foster harmony with other statutory and constitutional law, see, e. g., Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 1018 (1984); United States ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. Burleson, 255 U. S. 407, 437-438 (1921) (Holmes, J., dissenting). But it is one thing to say that the policy of § 1291 to avoid piecemeal litigation should be reconciled with policies embodied in other statutes or the Constitution, and quite another to suggest that this public policy may be trumped routinely by the expectations or clever drafting of private parties.
Indeed, we do not take issue with the Tenth Circuit’s observation that this case shares more in common with Lauro Lines than with Mitchell. It is hard to see how, for purposes of § 1291, the supposedly explicit “right not to be tried” element of the settlement agreement in this case differs from the unarguably explicit, privately negotiated “right not to be tried in any forum other than Naples, Italy,” in that one. There, no less than here (if Digital reads the settlement agreement correctly), one private party secured from another a promise not to bring suit for reasons that presumably included avoiding the burden, expense, and perhaps embarrassment of a certain class of trials (all but Neapolitan ones or, here, all prompted by Desktop). Cf. Lauro Lines, supra, at 501 (asserted right was “surely as effectively vindicable” on final judgment appeal as was the right in Van Cauwenberghe). The losing argument in Lauro Lines should be a losing argument here.
Nor are we swayed by Digital’s last-ditch effort to come within Cohen’s sense of “importance” by trying to show that settlement-agreement “immunities” merit first-class treatment for purposes of collateral order appeal, because they advance the public policy favoring voluntary resolution of disputes. It defies common sense to maintain that parties’ readiness to settle will be significantly dampened (or the corresponding public interest impaired) by a rule that a district court’s decision to let allegedly barred litigation go forward may be challenged as a matter of right only on appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff’s favor.
Ill
A
Even, finally, if the term “importance” were to be exorcised from the Cohen analysis altogether, Digital’s rights would remain “adequately vindicable” or “effectively reviewable” on final judgment to an extent that other immunities, like the right to be free from a second trial on a criminal charge, are not. As noted already, experience suggests that freedom from trial is rarely the sine qua non (or “the essence,” see Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U. S., at 525) of a negotiated settlement agreement. Avoiding the burden of a trial is no doubt a welcome incident of out-of-court dispute resolution (just as it is for parties who prevail on pretrial motions), but in the run-of-the-mill cases this boon will rarely compare with the “‘embarrassment’” and “‘anxiety’” averted by a successful double jeopardy claimant, see Abney, 431 U. S., at 661-662, or the “ ‘distraction from... dut[y],’ ” Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 526, avoided by qualified immunity. Judged within the four corners of the settlement agreement, avoiding trial probably pales in comparison with the benefit of limiting exposure to liability (an interest that is fully vindicable on appeal from final judgment). In the rare case where a party had a special reason, apart from the generic desire to triumph early, for having bargained for an immunity from trial, e. g., an unusual interest in preventing disclosure of particular information, it may seek protection from the district court.
The case for adequate vindication without immediate appeal is strengthened, moreover, by recognizing that a settling party has a source of recompense unknown to trial immunity claimants dependent on public law alone. The essence of Digital’s claim here is that Desktop, for valuable consideration, promised not to sue, and we have been given no reason to doubt that Utah law provides for the enforcement of that promise in the same way that other rights arising from private agreements are enforced, through an action for breach of contract. See, e. g., VanDyke v. Mountain Coin Machine Distributors, Inc., 758 P. 2d 962 (Utah App. 1988) (upholding compensatory and punitive damages award against party pursuing suit in the face of settlement agreement); see generally 5A A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts §1251 (1964); cf. Yockey v. Horn, 880 F. 2d 945, 947 (CA7 1989) (awarding damages for breach of settlement agreement promise not to “participate in any litigation” against plaintiff); see also Richardson-Merrell, 472 U. S., at 435, and n. 2 (existence of alternative fora for vindicating asserted rights is relevant to appealability under § 1291). And as for Digital’s suggestion, see Brief for Petitioner 25, that Desktop is using this proceeding not to remedy a fraud but merely to renege on a promise because it now thinks it should have negotiated a better deal, when a party claims fraud or otherwise seeks recision of a settlement for such improper purposes, its opponent need not rely on a court of appeals for protection. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 11 (opponent may move for sanction when litigation is motivated by an “improper purpose, such as... unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation”).
B
In preserving the strict limitations on review as of right under § 1291, our holding should cause no dismay, for the law is not without its safety valve to deal with cases where the contest over a settlement’s enforceability raises serious legal questions taking the case out of the ordinary run. While Digital’s insistence that the District Court applied a fundamentally wrong legal standard in vacating the dismissal order here may not be considered in deciding appealability under §1291, see n. 6, supra, it plainly is relevant to the availability of the discretionary interlocutory appeal from particular district court orders “involv[ing] a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion,” provided for in § 1292(b) of Title 28. Indeed, because we suppose that a defendant’s claimed entitlement to a privately negotiated “immunity from suit” could in some instances raise “a controlling question of law... [which]... may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation,” the discretionary appeal provision (allowing courts to consider the merits of individual claims) would seem a better vehicle for vindicating serious contractual interpretation claims than the blunt, categorical instrument of §1291 collateral order appeal. See Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U. S., at 529-530 (internal quotation marks omitted); Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U. S., at 474-475.
IV
The words of § 1291 have long been construed to recognize that certain categories of prejudgment decisions exist for which it is both justifiable and necessary to depart from the general rule, that “the whole case and every matter in controversy in it [must be] decided in a single appeal.” McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 665-666 (1891). But denying effect to the sort of (asserted) contractual right at issue here is far removed from those immediately appealable decisions involving rights more deeply rooted in public policy, and the rights Digital asserts may, in the main, be vindicated through means less disruptive to the orderly administration of justice than immediate, mandatory appeal. We accordingly hold that a refusal to enforce a settlement agreement claimed to shelter a party from suit altogether does not supply the basis for immediate appeal under §1291. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
The Tenth Circuit also denied Digital’s request to stay the District Court proceedings. We granted a stay pending our disposition of Digital’s petition for cert
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States brought this quiet title action against the State of Idaho. The question is whether the National Government holds title, in trust for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, to lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d’Alene and the St. Joe River. We hold that it does.
I
The Coeur d’Alene Tribe once inhabited more than 3.5 million acres in what is now northern Idaho and northeastern Washington, including the area of Lake Coeur d’Alene and the St. Joe River. 95 F. Supp. 2d 1094,1095-1096,1099-1100 (Idaho 1998). Tribal members traditionally used the lake and its related waterways for food, fiber, transportation, recreation, and cultural activities. Id., at 1099-1102. The Tribe depended on submerged lands for everything from water potatoes harvested from the lake to fish weirs and traps anchored in riverbeds and banks. Id., at 1100.
Under an 1846 treaty with Great Britain, the United States acquired title to the region of Lake Coeur d’Alene, see Treaty in Regard to Limits Westward of the Rocky Mountains, 9 Stat. 869, subject to the aboriginal right of possession held by resident tribes, see generally Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U. S. 661, 667 (1974); F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 486-493 (1982 ed.). In 1867, in the face of immigration into the Tribe’s aboriginal territory, 95 F. Supp. 2d, at 1102, President Johnson issued an Executive Order setting aside a reservation of comparatively modest size, although the Tribe was apparently unaware of this action until at least 1871, when it petitioned the Government to set aside a reservation, id., at 1102-1103. The Tribe found the 1867 boundaries unsatisfactory, due in part to their failure to make adequate provision for fishing and other uses of important waterways. When the Tribe petitioned the Commissioner of Indian Affairs a second time, it insisted on a reservation that included key river valleys because “we are not as yet quite up to living on farming” and “for a while yet we need have some hunting and fishing.” App. 27.
Following further negotiations, the Tribe in 1873 agreed to relinquish (for compensation) all claims to its aboriginal lands outside the bounds of a more substantial reservation that negotiators for the United States agreed to “set apart and secure” “for the exclusive use of the Coeur d’Alene Indians, and to protect... from settlement or occupancy by other persons.” Id., at 33. The reservation boundaries described in the agreement covered part of the St. Joe River (then called the St. Joseph), and all of Lake Coeur d’Alene except a sliver cut off by the northern boundary. Id., at 33-34; 95 F. Supp. 2d, at 1095-1096.
Although by its own terms the agreement was not binding without congressional approval, App. 36-37, later in 1873 President Grant issued an Executive Order directing that the reservation specified in the agreement be “withdrawn from sale and set apart as a reservation for the Cur d’Alene Indians.” Exec. Order of Nov. 8,1873, reprinted in 1 C. Kapler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties 837 (1904). The 1873 Executive Order set the northern boundary of the reservation directly across Lake Coeur d’Alene, which, the District Court found, was contrary “to the usual practice of meandering a survey line along the mean high water mark.” 95 F. Supp. 2d, at 1108; App. 14, 20 (expert trial testimony). An 1883 Government survey fixed the reservation’s total area at 598,499.85 acres, which the District Court found necessarily “included submerged lands within the reservation boundaries.” 95 F. Supp. 2d, at 1108.
As of 1885, Congress had neither ratified the 1873 agreement nor compensated the Tribe. This inaction prompted the Tribe to petition the Government again, to “make with us a proper treaty of peace and friendship... by which your petitioners may be properly and fully compensated for such portion of their lands not now reserved to them; [and] that their present reserve may be confirmed to them.” App. 350-351. In response, Congress authorized new negotiations to obtain the Tribe’s agreement to cede land outside the borders of the 1873 reservation. Act of May 15, 1886, ch. 333, 24 Stat. 44. In 1887, the Tribe agreed to cede
“all right, title, and claim which they now have, or ever had, to all lands in said Territories [Washington, Idaho, and Montana] and elsewhere, except the portion of land within the boundaries of their present reservation in the Territory of Idaho, known as the Coeur d’Alene Reservation.” App. 378.
The Government, in return, promised to compensate the Tribe, and agreed that
“[i]n consideration of the foregoing cession and agreements... the Coeur d’Alene Reservation shall be held forever as Indian land and as homes for the Coeur d’Alene Indians... and no part of said reservation shall ever be sold, occupied, open to white settlement, or otherwise disposed of without the consent of the Indians residing on said reservation.” Id., at 379.
As before, the agreement was not binding on either party until ratified by Congress. Id., at 382.
In January 1888, not having as yet ratified any agreement with the Tribe, the Senate expressed uncertainty about the extent of the Tribe’s reservation and adopted a resolution directing the Secretary of the Interior to “inform the Senate as to the extent of the present area and boundaries of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation in the Territory of Idaho,” and specifically, “whether such area includes any portion, and if so, about how much of the navigable waters of Lake Coeur d’Alene, and of Coeur d’Alene and St. Joseph Rivers.” S. Mise. Doc. No. 36, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1888). The Secretary responded in February 1888 with a report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, stating that “the reservation appears to embrace all the navigable waters of Lake Coeur d’Alene, except a very small fragment cut off by the north boundary of the reservation,” and that “[t]he St. Joseph River also flows through the reservation.” S. Exec. Doc. No. 76, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1888). Based largely, it appears, on this report, Idaho conceded in the Court of Appeals (as it does here) that the 1873 Executive Order reservation included submerged lands. See Opening Brief for Appellant in No. 98-35831 (CA9), p. 17 (“Certainly, the State concedes that by 1888, the executive branch had construed the 1873 Coeur d’Alene Reservation as including submerged lands”); Brief for Petitioner 17.
In May 1888, shortly after receiving the Secretary’s report, Congress passed an Act granting a right-of-way to the Washington and Idaho Railroad Company “for the extension of its railroad through the lands in Idaho Territory set apart for the use of the Coeur d’Alene Indians by executive order, commonly known as the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation.” Act of May 30, 1888, ch. 336, § 1, 25 Stat. 160. Notably, the Act directed that the Tribe’s consent be obtained and that the Tribe alone (no one else being mentioned) be compensated for the right-of-way, a part of which crossed over navigable waters within the reservation. Id., §3, 25 Stat. 161; see also Reply Brief for Petitioner 16.
Congress was not prepared to ratify the 1887 agreement, however, owing to a growing desire to obtain for the public not only any interest of the Tribe in land outside the 1873 reservation, but certain portions of the reservation itself. The House Committee on Indian Affairs later recalled that the 1887 agreement was not promptly ratified for
“sundry reasons, among which was a desire on the part of the United States to acquire an additional area, to wit, a certain valuable portion of the reservation specially dedicated to the exclusive use of said Indians under an Executive order of 1873, and which portions of said lands, situate[d] on the northern end of said reservation, is valuable and necessary to the citizens of the United States for sundry reasons. It contains numerous, extensive, and valuable mineral ledges. It contains large bodies of valuable timber.... It contains a magnificent sheet of water, the Coeur d’Alene Lake....” H. R. Rep. No. 1109, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., 4(1890).
But Congress did not simply alter the 1873 boundaries unilaterally. Instead, the Tribe was understood to be entitled beneficially to the reservation as then defined, and the 1889 Indian Appropriations Act included a provision directing the Secretary of the Interior “to negotiate with the Coeur d’Alene tribe of Indians,” and, specifically, to negotiate “for the purchase and release by said tribe of such portions of its reservation not agricultural and valuable chiefly for minerals and timber as such tribe shall consent to sell.” Act of Mar. 2, 1889, ch. 412, §4, 25 Stat. 1002. Later that year, the Tribe and Government negotiators reached a new agreement under which the Tribe would cede the northern portion of the reservation, including approximately two-thirds of Lake Coeur d’Alene, in exchange for $500,000. App. 198; see also 95 F. Supp. 2d, at 1118. The new boundary line, like the old one, ran across the lake, and General Simpson, a negotiator for the United States, reassured the Tribe that “you still have the St. Joseph River and the lower part of the lake.” App. 183. And, again, the agreement was not to be binding on either party until both it and the 1887 agreement were ratified by Congress. Id., at 199.
On June 7, 1890, the Senate passed a bill ratifying both the 1887 and 1889 agreements. S. 2828,51st Cong., 1st Sess. (1890); 21 Cong. Rec. 5769-5770 (1890). On June 10, the Senate bill was referred to the House, where a parallel bill had already been reported by the House Committee on Indian Affairs. H. R. Rep. No. 1109, 51st Cong., 1st Sess. (1890); see 21 Cong. Rec. 2775 (1890).
On July 3, 1890, while the Senate bill was under consideration by the House Committee on Indian Affairs, Congress passed the Idaho Statehood Act, admitting Idaho into the Union “on an equal footing with the original States,” Act of July 3,1890, ch. 656,26 Stat. 215. The Statehood Act “accepted, ratified, and confirmed” the Idaho Constitution, ibid., which “forever disclaimed] all right and title to... all lands lying within [Idaho] owned or held by any Indians or Indian tribes” and provided that “until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States,” Idaho Const., Art. XXI, § 19 (1890).
A little over a month later, on August 19,1890, the House Committee on Indian Affairs reported that the Senate bill ratifying the 1887 and 1889 agreements was identical to the House bill that it had already recommended. H. R. Rep. No. 2988, 51st Cong., 1st Sess. (1890). On March 3, 1891, Congress “accepted, ratified, and confirmed” both the 1887 and 1889 agreements with the Tribe. Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 543, §§ 19, 20, 26 Stat. 1027,1029. The Act also directed the Secretary of the Interior to convey to one Frederick Post a “portion of [the] reservation,” id., at 1031, that the Tribe had purported to sell to Post in 1871. The property, located on the Spokane River and known as Post Falls, was described as “all three of the river channels and islands, with enough land on the north and south shores for water-power and improvements.” Ibid.
In 1894, Congress approved yet another agreement with the Tribe, this time for the cession of a lakeside townsite called Harrison, within the boundary of the ratified reservation. Act of Aug. 15, 1894, ch. 290,28 Stat. 322, agreement reprinted in App. 389; see also 95 F. Supp. 2d, at 1117. The agreement with the Tribe described the cession as covering “all the land” embraced within a tract that included a portion of the lake. App. 392. Like the earlier railroad cession, this one was subject to compensation to the Tribe and no one else.
The United States, acting in its own capacity and as trustee for the Tribe, initiated this action against the State of Idaho to quiet title (in the United States, to be held for the use and benefit of the Tribe) to the submerged lands within the exterior boundaries of the Tribe’s current reservation, which encompass the lower third of Lake Coeur d’Alene and part of the St. Joe River. The Tribe intervened to assert its interest in the submerged lands, and Idaho counterclaimed, seeking to quiet title in its own favor. Ibid. Following a 9-day trial, the District Court quieted title “in favor of the United States, as trustee, and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, as the beneficially interested party of the trusteeship, to the bed and banks of the Coeur d’Alene Lake and the St. Joe River lying within the current boundaries of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation.” 95 F. Supp. 2d, at 1117. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 210 F. 3d 1067 (2000). We granted certiorari, 531 U. S. 1050 (2000), and we now affirm.
II
Due to the public importance of navigable waterways, ownership of the land underlying such waters is “strongly identified with the sovereign power of government.” Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544, 552 (1981). See generally Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U. S. 261, 284 (1997); United States v. Alaska, 521 U. S. 1, 5 (1997). In order to allow new States to enter the Union on an “equal footing” with the original States with regard to this important interest, “the United States early adopted and constantly has adhered to the policy of regarding lands under navigable waters in acquired territory... as held for the ultimate benefit of future States.” United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U. S. 49, 55 (1926); see also Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 48-50 (1894). Therefore, in contrast to the law governing surface land held by the United States, see Scott v. Lattig, 227 U. S. 229, 244 (1913), the default rule is that title to land under navigable waters passes from the United States to a newly admitted State. Shively, supra, at 26-50. Specifically, although Congress has the power before statehood to convey land beneath navigable waters, and to reserve such land for the United States, “‘[a] court deciding a question of title to the bed of navigable water must... begin with a strong presumption’ against defeat of a State’s title.” Alaska, supra, at 34 (quoting Montana, supra, at 552).
Armed with that presumption, we have looked to Congress’s declarations and intent when we have had to resolve conflicts over submerged lands claimed to have been reserved or conveyed by the United States before statehood. Alaska, supra, at 36 (“Whether title to submerged lands rests with a State, of course, is ultimately a matter of federal intent”); Utah Div. of State Lands v. United States, 482 U. S. 193, 201-202 (1987); Montana, supra, at 550-557; Holt State Bank, supra, at 57-59; Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U. S. 78, 87-90 (1918); Shively, supra, at 48-51.
The issue of congressional intent is refined somewhat when submerged lands are located within a tract that the National Government has dealt with in some special way before statehood, as by reserving lands for a particular national purpose such as a wildlife refuge or, as here, an Indian reservation. Because reserving submerged lands does not necessarily imply the intent “to defeat a future State’s title to the land,” Utah Div. of State Lands, supra, at 202, we undertake a two-step enquiry in reservation cases. We ask whether Congress intended to include land under navigable waters within the federal reservation and, if so, whether Congress intended to defeat the future State’s title to the submerged lands. Alaska, supra, at 36; Utah, supra, at 202.
Our most recent case of this sort, United States v. Alaska, supra, addressed two parcels of land initially reserved not by Congress but, as here, by the Executive Branch. We explained that the two-step test of congressional intent is satisfied when an Executive reservation clearly includes submerged lands, and Congress recognizes the reservation in a way that demonstrates an intent to defeat state title. Id., at 41-46, 55-61. We considered whether Congress was on notice that the Executive reservation included submerged lands, see id., at 42, 45, 56, and whether the purpose of the reservation would have been compromised if the submerged lands had passed to the State, id., at 42-43, 45-46, 58. Where the purpose would have been undermined, we explained, “[i]t is simply not plausible that the United States sought to reserve only the upland portions of the area,” id., at 39-40.
Here, Idaho has conceded that “the executive branch had intended, or by 1888 had interpreted, the 1873 Executive Order Reservation to include submerged lands.” Brief for Petitioner 17. The concession is a sound one. A right to control the lakebed and adjacent waters was traditionally important to the Tribe, which emphasized in its petition to the Government that it continued to depend on fishing. Cf. Montana, supra, at 556 (finding no intent to include submerged lands within a reservation where the tribe did not depend on fishing or use of navigable water). The District Court found that the acreage determination of the reserved area in 1883 necessarily included the area of the lakebed within the unusual boundary line crossing the lake from east to west. Cf. Alaska, supra, at 39 (concluding that a boundary following the ocean side of offshore islands necessarily embraced submerged lands shoreward of the islands). In light of those findings and Idaho’s concession, the parties here concentrate on the second question, of Congress’s intent to defeat Idaho’s title to the submerged lands.
In the Court of Appeals, Idaho also conceded one point covered in this second part of the enquiry. It agreed that after the Secretary of the Interior’s 1888 report that the reservation embraced nearly “all the navigable water of Lake Coeur d’Alene,” S. Exec. Doc. No. 76, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., at 3, Congress was on notice that the Executive Order reservation included submerged lands. Opening Brief for Appellant in No. 98-35831 (CA9), at 11 (“[Congress was] informed that the Coeur d’Alene Reservation embraced submerged lands”). Again, Idaho’s concession was prudent in light of the District Court’s findings of facts. 95 F. Supp. 2d, at 1114 (“The evidence shows that prior to Idaho’s statehood, Congress was on notice that the Executive Order of 1873 reserved for the benefit of the Tribe the submerged lands within the boundaries of the Coeur d’Alene Reservation”).
The District Court did not merely impute to Congress knowledge of the land survey, but also explained how the submerged lands and related water rights had been continuously important to the Tribe throughout the period prior to congressional action confirming the reservation and granting Idaho statehood. And the District Court made the following findings about the period preceding negotiations authorized by Congress:
“The facts demonstrate that an influx of non-Indians into the Tribe’s aboriginal territory prompted the Federal Government to negotiate with the Coeur d’Aleñes in an attempt to confine the Tribe to a reservation and to obtain the Tribe’s release of its aboriginal lands for settlement. Before it would agree to these conditions, however, the Tribe demanded an enlarged reservation that included the Lake and rivers. Thus, the Federal Government could only achieve its goals of promoting settlement, avoiding hostilities and extinguishing aboriginal title by agreeing to a reservation that included the submerged lands.” Id., at 1107.
This, in summary, was the background for the 1873 Executive Order’s inclusion of submerged lands, which in turn were the subject of the 1888 request by the Senate to the Secretary of the Interior for advice about the Tribe’s rights over the “navigable waters of Lake Coeur d’Alene and the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joseph Rivers,” S. Misc. Doc. No. 36, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1. As noted, the Secretary answered in the affirmative, S. Exec. Doc. No. 76, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., at 3, consistently with the survey indicating that the submerged lands were within the reservation. Thus, the District Court remarked that it would be difficult to imagine circumstances that could have made it more plain to Congress that submerged lands were within the reservation. 95 F. Supp. 2d, at 1114.
The manner in which Congress then proceeded to deal with the Tribe shows clearly that preservation of the land within the reservation, absent contrary agreement with the Tribe, was central to Congress’s complementary objectives of dealing with pressures of white settlement and establishing the reservation by permanent legislation. The Tribe had shown its readiness to fight to preserve its land rights when in 1858 it defeated a force of the United States military, which it misunderstood as intending to take aboriginal lands. See H. R. Rep. No. 1109, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., at 2-3. The concern with hostility arose again in 1873 before the reservation boundaries were established, when a surveyor on the scene had warned the Surveyor General that “[sjhould the fisheries be excluded there will in my opinion be trouble with these Indians.” App. 30.
Hence, although the goal of extinguishing aboriginal title could have been achieved by congressional fiat, see Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U. S. 272, 279-282 (1955), and Congress was free to define the reservation boundaries however it saw fit, the goal of avoiding hostility seemingly could not have been attained without the agreement of the Tribe. Congress in any event made it expressly plain that its object was to obtain tribal interests only by tribal consent. When in 1886 Congress took steps toward extinguishing aboriginal title to all lands outside the 1873 boundaries, it did so by authorizing negotiation of agreements ceding title for compensation. Soon after that, when Congress decided to seek a reduction in the size of the 1873 reservation itself, the Secretary of the Interior advised the Senate against fiddling with the scope of the reservation without the Tribe’s agreement. The report of February 1888 likewise urged that any move to diminish the reservation “should be done, if done at all, with the full and free consent of the Indians, and they should, of course, receive proper compensation for any land so taken.” App. 129. Accordingly, after receiving the Secretary’s report, Congress undertook in the 1889 Act to authorize negotiation with the Tribe for the consensual, compensated cession of such portions of the Tribe’s reservation “as such tribe shall consent to sell,” Act of Mar. 2,1889, ch. 412, § 4, 25 Stat. 1002. In the meantime it honored the reservation’s recently clarified boundaries by requiring that the Tribe be compensated for the Washington and Idaho Railroad Company right-of-way, Act of May 30,1888, ch. 336, § 1, 25 Stat. 160.
The facts, including the provisions of Acts of Congress in 1886, 1888, and 1889, thus demonstrate that Congress understood its objective as turning on the Tribe’s agreement to the abrogation of any land claim it might have and to any reduction of the 1873 reservation’s boundaries. The explicit statutory provisions requiring agreement of the Tribe were unchanged right through to the point of Congress’s final 1891 ratification of the reservation, in an Act that of course contained no cession by the Tribe of submerged lands within the reservation’s outer boundaries. Nor, it should be added, is there any hint in the evidence that delay in final passage of the ratifying Act was meant to pull a fast one by allowing the reservation’s submerged lands to pass to Idaho under a legal presumption, by virtue of the Statehood Act approved eight months before Congress took final action on the reservation. There is no evidence that the Act confirming the reservation was delayed for any reason but comparison of the respective House and Senate bills, to assure that they were identical prior to the House’s passage of the Senate version.
The record thus answers the State’s argument that, because the 1889 Act indicates that Congress sought to obtain portions of the reservation “valuable chiefly for minerals and timber,” Congress was not necessarily thinking one thing or another about the balance of the reservation land. Reply Brief for Petitioner 6-7; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 12-13. The argument simply ignores the evidence that Congress did know that the reservation included submerged lands, and that it authorized the reservation’s modification solely by agreement. The intent, in other words, was that anything not consensually ceded by the Tribe would remain for the Tribe’s benefitj an objective flatly at odds with Idaho’s view that Congress meant to transfer the balance of submerged lands to the State in what would have amounted to an act of bad faith accomplished by unspoken operation of law. Indeed, the implausibility of the State’s current position is underscored by the fact that it made a contrary argument in the Court of Appeals, where it emphasized the District Court’s finding that the 1889 Act was an authorization “to negotiate with the Tribe for a release of the submerged lands,” and recognized that “[Congress was] informed that the Coeur d’Alene Reservation embraced submerged lands.” Opening Brief for Appellant in No. 98-35831 (CA9), at 11, 31.
Idaho’s position is at odds not only with evidence of congressional intent before statehood, but also with later congressional understanding that statehood had not affected the submerged lands in question. Eight months after passing the Statehood Act, Congress ratified the 1887 and 1889 agreements in their entireties (including language in the 1887 agreement that “the Coeur d’Alene Reservation shall be held forever as Indian land”), with no signal that some of the land over which the parties to those agreements had negotiated had passed in the interim to Idaho. The ratification Act suggested in a further way Congress’s understanding that the 1873 reservation’s submerged lands had not passed to the State, by including a provision confirming the Tribe’s sale of river channels to Frederick Post. Confirmation would have been beyond Congress’s power if title to the submerged riverbed had already passed to the State. Finally, the Act of Congress ceding the portion of reservation land for the townsite of Harrison confirms Congress’s understanding that the lakebed within the reservation’s boundaries was part of the reservation. Only three years after the Act confirming the reservation, the town-site cession was treated just as the right-of-way for the railroad had been treated before statehood. The Tribe (and no one else) was compensated for a cession whose bounds suggested inclusion of submerged lands; the boundary lines did not stop at the water’s edge and meander the entire shore, but continued into the area of the lake to encompass submerged territory that the National Government simply could not have conveyed if it had passed to Idaho at the time of statehood.
In sum, Congress undertook to negotiate with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe for reduction in the territory of an Executive Order reservation that Idaho concedes included the submerged lands at issue here. Congress was aware that the submerged lands were included and clearly intended to redefine the area of the reservation that covered them only by consensual transfer, in exchange for the guarantee that the Tribe would retain the remainder. There is no indication that Congress ever modified its objective of negotiated consensual transfer, which would have been defeated if Congress had let parts of the reservation pass to the State before the agreements with the Tribe were final. Any imputation to Congress either of bad faith or of secrecy in dropping its express objective of consensual dealing with the Tribe is at odds with the evidence. We therefore think the negotiating history, not to mention subsequent events, “ma[k]e [it] very plain,” Holt State Bank, 270 U. S., at 55, that Congress recognized the full extent of the Executive Order reservation lying within the stated boundaries it ultimately confirmed, and intended to bar passage to Idaho of title to the submerged lands at issue here.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Petitioner, the State of Idaho, did not challenge the District Court’s factual findings on appeal. See 210 F. 3d 1067, 1070 (CA9 2000).
Although the State did not challenge the District Court’s factual findings below, it claims in its reply brief to us that it was “commonplace” for reservation boundaries to cross navigable waters. Reply Brief for Petitioner 9. Ultimately, this factual dispute is of little consequence; the District Court found that the boundary and acreage calculations showed the understanding of the Government and the Tribe that submerged lands were included, 95 F. Supp. 2d, at 1108, and the State conceded on appeal that “[c]ertainly,... by 1888, the executive branch had construed the 1873 Coeur d’Alene Reservation as including submerged lands.” Opening Brief for Appellant in No. 98-35831 (CA9), p. 17.
See generally, e. g., Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U. S. 661, 667-668 (1974) (under common law and various Nonintercourse Acts, Indian title can only be extinguished with federal consent).
Because this action was brought by the United States, it does not implicate the Eleventh Amendment bar raised when the Tribe pressed its own claim to the submerged lands in Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U. S. 261 (1997). See Arizona v. California, 460 U. S. 605, 614 (1983).
The United States’s complaint was apparently motivated by Idaho’s issuance of permits for the construction of “docks, piers, floats, pilings, breakwaters, boat ramps and other such aids to navigation within the southern one-third of Coeur d’Alene Lake.” Complaint in CIV94-0328-N-EJL (D. Idaho), pp. 6-7.
The District Court and Court of Appeals accepted the United States’s position that it had reserved the submerged lands, and that Congress intended that reservation to defeat Idaho’s title. They did not reach the Tribe’s alternative theory that, notwithstanding the scope of any reservation, the Tribe retained aboriginal title to the submerged lands, which cannot be extinguished without explicit action by Congress, see Oneida Indian Nation, 414 U. S., at 667-668; cf. United States v. Winans, 198 U. S. 371, 381 (1905) (explaining that a treaty ceding some aboriginal lands to the United States and setting apart other lands as a reservation “was not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them — a reservation of those not granted”). The Tribe does not press its unextinguished-aboriginal-title argument here. See Brief for Respondent Coeur d’Alene Tribe 25, n. 12.
See also Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report (1873), reprinted in App. 45 (explaining that Tribe was dissatisfied with a previous reservation and that the 1873 agreement was required “[f]or the purpose of extinguishing [the Tribe’s] claim to all the tract of country claimed by them”). See generally Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544, 556 (1981) (creation of Indian reservation is appropriate public purpose justifying defeat of state title to submerged lands).
Given the preceding discussion of, among other things, the earlier congressional Acts, it should go without saying that this reference to the fact that the Senate passed the ratification Act before statehood is not intended to suggest that the Senate action constituted the enactment of an expression of intent on behalf of the whole Congress, let alone that it was sufficient of itself to defeat Idaho’s title to the submerged lands. But cf. post, at 285 (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting).
The State says that the conveyance to Post included land that was outside the boundary of the 1873 reservation. Reply Brief for Petitioner 18. That merely suggests the possibility that Congress intended to defeat the State’s title to even more territory than the United States is claiming here.
The State also hypothesizes that the relevant portions of the Spokane River may not have been considered navigable at the time of the conveyance, ibid., in which case the equal footing doctrine would not apply and the conveyance would say nothing about Congress’s intent with regard to submerged lands underlying navigable waters. We need not resolve this factual question, which was not addressed below. Suffice it to say that Congress’s actions in 1891 were consistent with an understanding that the State did not have title to the riverbeds conveyed to Post, which, along with the later Harrison cession of part of the concededly navigable lake, is consistent with an understanding that no submerged lands within the reservation’s stated boundaries had passed to Idaho.
Here, we agree with the dissent, post, at 284, that Congress cannot, after statehood, reserve or convey submerged lands that “ha[ve] already been bestowed” upon a State. See Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 26-28 (1894) (
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Jefferson County, Alabama, imposes an occupational tax on persons working within the county who are not otherwise required to pay a license fee under state law. The controversy before us stems from proceedings the county commenced to collect the tax from two federal judges who hold court in the county. Preliminarily, the parties dispute whether, as the federal judges assert, the collection proceedings may be removed to, and adjudicated in, federal court. On the merits, the judges maintain that they are shielded from payment of the tax by the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, while the county urges that the doctrine does not apply unless the tax discriminates against an officeholder because of the source of his pay or compensation.
We hold that the case was properly removed under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a)(3), and that the Tax Injunction Act, §1341, does not bar federal-court adjudication. We further conclude that Jefferson County’s tax operates as a nondiscriminatory tax on the judges’ compensation, to which the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, 4 U. S. C. § 111, consents.
I
A
Alabama counties, as entities created by the State, can impose no tax absent state authorization. See Estes v. Gadsden, 266 Ala. 166, 170, 94 So. 2d 744, 747 (1957). Alabama, the parties to this litigation agree, has not authorized its counties to levy an income tax. See Jefferson County v. Acker, 850 F. Supp. 1536, 1537-1538, n. 2 (ND Ala. 1994); McPheeter v. Auburn, 288 Ala. 286, 292, 259 So. 2d 833, 837 (1972); Estes, 266 Ala., at 171-172, 94 So. 2d, at 748-750. In 1967, Alabama authorized its counties to levy a “license or privilege tax” upon persons who do not pay any other license tax to either the State or county. 1967 Ala. Acts 406, §3. As stated in the authorization, a county may impose the tax “upon any person for engaging in any business” for which a license or privilege tax is not required by either the State of Alabama or the county under the laws of the State of Alabama. §4.
Pursuant to Alabama’s authorization, Jefferson County, in 1987, enacted Ordinance Number 1120, “establish[ing] a license or privilege tax on persons engaged in any vocation, occupation, calling or profession in [the] County who is not required by law to pay any license or privilege tax to either the State of Alabama or the County.” Ordinance No. 1120, preamble (1987) (Ordinance or Ordinance No. 1120). The Ordinance declares it “unlawful... to engage in” a covered occupation without paying the tax. §2. Included among those subject to the tax are “hold[ers] of any kind of office or position either by election or appointment, by any federal, state, county or city officer or employee where the services of such official or employee are rendered within Jefferson County.” § 1(C). The fee is measured by one-half percent of the “gross receipts” of the person subject to the tax. §2. “[G]ross receipts” is defined as having “the same meaning” as “compensation,” and includes “all salaries, wages, commissions, [and] bonuses.” § 1(F). Ordinance No. 1120 thus implements the taxing authority accorded counties by the Alabama Legislature. The State’s permission left no room for a local tax on compensation of a different name or order.
B
Respondents William M. Acker, Jr., and U. W. demon are United States District Judges for the Northern District of Alabama. Both maintain their principal office in Jefferson County, and both resist payment of the county’s “license or privilege tax” on the ground that it violates the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine. The county instituted a collection suit in Alabama small claims court against each of the judges, which each removed to the Federal District Court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1442 (1994 ed. and Supp. III). After denying the county’s motions to remand, the federal court consolidated the eases, and eventually granted summary judgment for respondents; the court held Jefferson County’s tax unconstitutional under the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine to the extent that the tax reached the compensation of federal judges. See Jefferson County, 850 F. Supp., at 1537, 1545-1546.
A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit initially reversed the District Court’s judgment, Jefferson County v. Acker, 61 F. 3d 848 (1995), but the Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the District Court’s disposition, Jefferson County v. Acker, 92 F. 3d 1561, 1576 (1996). We granted Jefferson County’s initial petition for certiorari and remanded the case for further consideration of the question whether the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1341, deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Jefferson County v. Acker, 520 U. S. 1261 (1997). On remand, the Eleventh Circuit adhered to its prior en bane decision. See 137 F. 3d 1314, 1324 (1998) (en banc). We again granted certiorari to consider both the threshold Tax Injunction Act issue and the merits of the case. 525 U. S. 1039-1040 (1998). We take up as well an anterior question raised by the Solicitor General: Was removal from state court to federal court unauthorized by the federal officer removal statute?
II
The federal officer removal provision at issue states:
“(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
“(3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties.” 28 U. S. C. § 1442 (1994 ed. and Supp. III).
It is the general rule that an action may be removed from state court to federal court only if a federal district court would have original jurisdiction over the claim in suit. See 28 U. S. C. § 1441(a). To remove a ease as one falling within federal-question jurisdiction, the federal question ordinarily must appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; an anticipated or actual federal defense generally does not qualify a ease for removal. See Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149, 152 (1908). Suits against federal officers are exceptional in this regard. Under the federal officer removal statute, suits against federal officers may be removed despite the nonfederal cast of the complaint; the federal-question element is met if the defense depends on federal law.
To qualify for removal, an officer of the federal courts must both raise a colorable federal defense, see Mesa v. California, 489 U. S. 121, 139 (1989), and establish that the suit is “for a[n] act under color of office,” 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a)(3) (emphasis added). To satisfy the latter requirement, the officer must show a nexus, a “‘causal connection’ between the charged conduct and asserted official authority.” Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U. S. 402, 409 (1969) (quoting Maryland v. Soper (No. 1), 270 U. S. 9, 33 (1926)).
In construing the colorable federal defense requirement, we have rejected a “narrow, grudging interpretation” of the statute, recognizing that “one of the most important reasons for removal is to have the validity of the defense of official immunity tried in a federal court.” 395 U. S., at 407. We therefore do not require the officer virtually to “win his ease before he can have it removed.” Ibid. Here, the judges argued, and the Eleventh Circuit held, that Jefferson County’s tax falls on “the performance of federal judicial duties in Jefferson County” and “risk[s] interfering with the operation of the federal judiciary” in violation of the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine; that argument, although we ultimately reject it, see infra, at 435-443, presents a color-able federal defense. Jefferson County, 92 F. 3d, at 1572. There is no dispute on this point. See post, at 448 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
We next consider whether the judges have shown that the comity's tax collection suits are “for a[n] act under color of office.” 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a)(3) (emphasis added). The essence of the judges' colorable defense is that Jefferson County's Ordinance expressly declares it "unlawful” for them to "engage in [their] occupation” without paying the tax, Ordinance No. 1120, §2, and thus subjects them to an impermissible licensing scheme. The judges accordingly see Jefferson County’s enforcement actions as suits "for” their having “engage[d] in [their] occupation.” The Solicitor General, in contrast, argues that there is no causal connection between the suits and the judges' official acts because “[t]he tax... was imposed only upon [the judges] personally and not upon the United States or upon any instrumentality of the United States.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20. To choose between those readings of the Ordinance is to decide the merits of this case. Just as requiring a "clearly sustainable defense” rather than a colorable defense would defeat the purpose of the removal statute, Willingham, 895 U. S., at 407, so would demanding an airtight ease on the merits in order to show the required causal connection. Accordingly, we credit the judges’ theory of the ease for purposes of both elements of our jurisdictional inquiry and conclude that the judges have made an adequate threshold showing that the suit is “for a[n] act under color of office.” 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a)(3).
Justice Scalia maintains that the county’s lawsuit was not grandly "for” the judges’ performance of their official duties, but narrowly “for” their having refused to pay the tax. The judges’ resistance to payment of the tax, he states, was neither required by the responsibilities of their offices nor undertaken in the course of job performance. See post, at 447. The county’s lawsuit, however, was not simply “for” a refusal; it was "for” payment of a tax. The county asserted that the judges had failed to comply with the Ordinance; read literally, as the judges urge and as we accept solely for purposes of this jurisdictional inquiry, that measure required the judges to pay a license fee before “engaging] in [their] occupation.” Ordinance No. 1120, §2. The circumstances that gave rise to the tax liability, not just the taxpayers’ refusal to pay, “constitute the basis” for the tax collection lawsuits at issue. See Willingham, 395 U. S., at 409 (“ It is enough that [petitioners’] acts or [their] presence at the place in performance of [their] official duty constitute the basis... of the state prosecution.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, those circumstances encompass holding court in the county and receiving income for that activity. In this light, we are satisfied that the judges have shown the essential nexus between their activity “under color of office” and the county’s demand, in the collection suits, for payment of the local tax.
III
The Tax Injunction Act provides:
“The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U. S. C. §1341.
This statutory text “is to be enforced according to its terms” and should be interpreted to advance “its purpose” of “confin[ing] federal-court intervention in state government.” Arkansas v. Farm Credit Servs. of Central Ark., 520 U. S. 821, 826-827 (1997). By its terms, the Act bars anticipatory relief, suits to stop (“enjoin, suspend or restrain”) the collection of taxes. Recognizing that there is “little practical difference” between an injunction and anticipatory relief in the form of a declaratory judgment, the Court has held that declaratory relief falls within the Act’s compass. California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U. S. 393, 408 (1982). But a suit to collect a tax is surely not brought to restrain state action, and therefore does not fit the Act’s description of suits barred from federal district court adjudication. See Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. v. Pilot Petroleum Corp., 900 F. 2d 816, 818 (CA5 1990) (“The Tax Injunction Act does not bar federal court jurisdiction [of a] suit... to collect a state tax.”).
Nevertheless, in Keleher v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 947 F. 2d 547 (CA2 1991), the Court of Appeals concluded:
“[I]n removing the federal courts’ power to ‘enjoin, suspend or restrain’ state and local taxes, [Congress] necessarily intended for federal courts to abstain from hearing tax enforcement actions in which the validity of a state or local tax might reasonably be raised as a defense.” Id., at 551.
We do not agree that the Act’s purpose requires us to disregard the text formulation Congress adopted.
Congress modeled the Tax Injunction Act, which passed in 1937, upon previously enacted federal “statutes of similar import,” measures that parallel state laws barring “actions in State courts to enjoin the collection of State and county taxes.” S. Rep. No. 1035, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1937). The federal statute Congress had in plain view was an 1867 measure depriving courts of jurisdiction over suits brought “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection” of any federal tax. Act of Mar. 2, 1867, ch. 169, § 10, 14 Stat. 475, now codified at 26 U. S. C. § 7421(a) (1994 ed., Supp. III). The 1867 provision, of course, does not bar federal-court adjudication of suits initiated by the United States to collect federal taxes; it precludes only suits brought by taxpayers to restrain the United States from assessing or collecting such taxes. Similarly, the state laws to which Congress referred surely do not preclude the States from enforcing their taxes in court.
The Tax Injunction Act was thus shaped by state and federal provisions barring anticipatory actions by taxpayers to stop the tax collector from initiating collection proceedings. It was not the design of these provisions to prohibit taxpayers from defending suits brought by a government to obtain collection of a tax. Congress, it appears, sought particularly to stop out-of-state corporations from using diversity jurisdiction to gain injunctive relief against a state tax in federal court, an advantage unavailable to in-state taxpayers denied anticipatory relief under state law. See S. Rep. No. 1035, supra, at 2. In sum, we hold that the Tax Injunction Act, as indicated by its terms and purpose, does not bar collection suits, nor does it prevent taxpayers from urging defenses in such suits that the tax for which collection is sought is invalid.
IV
The Eleventh Circuit held that Jefferson County’s license tax, as applied to federal judges, amounts to “a direct tax on the federal government or its instrumentalities” in violation of the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine. Jefferson County, 92 F. 3d, at 1576. That ruling extends the doctrine beyond the tight limits this Court has set and is inconsistent with the controlling federal statute. The county’s Ordinance lays no “demands directly on the Federal Government,” United States v. New Mexico, 455 U. S. 720, 735 (1982); it is, and operates as,.a tax on employees’ compensation. The Public Salary Tax Act allows a State and its taxing authorities to tax the pay federal employees receive “if the taxation does not discriminate against the [federal] employee because of the source of the pay or compensation.” 4 U. S. C. § 111. We hold that Jefferson County’s tax falls within that allowance.
A
Until 1938, the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine was expansively applied to prohibit Federal and State Governments from taxing the salaries of another sovereign’s employees. See, e. g., Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie Cty., 16 Pet. 435, 450 (1842); Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 124 (1871). In Graves v. New York ex rel O'Keefe, 306 U. S. 466, 486-487 (1939), the Court expressly overruled prior decisions and held that a State’s imposition of a tax on federal employees’ salaries “lays [no] unconstitutional burden upon [the Federal Government].” Although taxes “upon the incomes of employees of a government, state or national,... may be passed on economically to that government,” the Court reasoned, the federal design tolerates such “indirect [and] incidental” burdens. Id., at 487. Since Graves, we have reaffirmed “a narrow approach to governmental tax immunity,” New Mexico, 455 U. S., at 735; we have closely confined the doctrine to “ba[r] only those taxes that [are] imposed directly on one sovereign by the other or that diseriminat[e] against a sovereign or those with whom it deal[s],” Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803, 811 (1989). In contracting the once expansive intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, we have recognized that the area is one over which Congress is the principal superintendent. See New Mexico, 455 U. S., at 737-738.
Indeed, congressional action coincided with the Graves turnaround. In the Public Salary Tax Act, under consideration before Graves was announced and enacted shortly thereafter, see Davis, 489 U. S., at 811-812, Congress consented to nondiseriminatory state and local taxation of federal employees’ “pay or compensation for personal service,” 4 U. S. C. § 111. Section 111 effectively “codified the result in Graves,” and thereby “foreclosed the possibility that subsequent judicial reconsideration... might reestablish the broader interpretation of the immunity doctrine.” Davis, 489 U. S., at 812; see also id., at 813 (the immunity for which §111 provides is “coextensive with the prohibition against discriminatory taxes embodied in the modern constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity”).
In Howard v. Commissioners of Sinking Fund of Louisville, 844 U. S. 624 (1958), the Court held that a "license fee” similar in relevant respects to Jefferson County’s was an "income tax” for purposes of a federal statute that defines “income tax” as "any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by, net income, gross income, or gross receipts,” 4 U. S. C. § 110(c). See 344 U. S., at 625, n. 2, 629. The Court so concluded even though the local tax was styled as "a tax upon the privilege of working within [the municipality],” was not an "income tax” under state law, and deviated from textbook income tax characteristics. Id., at 628-629; see also id., at 629 (Douglas, J., dissenting) ("Many kinds of income are excluded, e. g., dividends, interest, capital gains. The exclusions emphasize that the tax is on the 'privilege of working or doing business in [the municipality].”).
As Howard indicates, whether Jefferson County’s license tax fits within the Public Salary Tax Act’s allowance is a question of federal law. The practical impact, not the State’s name tag, determines the answer to that question. See also Detroit v. Murray Cory, of America, 355 U. S. 489, 492 (1958) (“[I]n determining whether th[e] ta[x] violated the Government’s constitutional immunity we must look through form and behind labels to substance.”); cf. Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 281 U. S. 146, 159 (1930) (compatibly with the Fourteenth Amendment, a State “may impose different specific taxes upon different trades and professions”; “[i]n levying such taxes, the State is not required to resort to close distinctions or to maintain a precise, scientific uniformity with reference to composition, use or value”). This much is beyond genuine debate.
B
The judges acknowledge that Jefferson County’s Ordinance is valid if it “impose[s] a true tax on... income,” but argue that the Ordinance ranks instead as an impermissible licensing scheme. Brief for Respondents 13-14, 27-33. Two aspects of the Ordinance, they say, remove the tax from the Public Salary Tax Act shelter for “taxation of pay or compensation for personal service,” 4 U. S. C. § 111, and render the tax unconstitutional. First, the judges urge, the very words of the Ordinance make it unlawful for them and others to engage in their occupations without paying the license fee. Second, they maintain, the complete exclusion of persons who hold other Alabama licenses, however low the fee in comparison to Jefferson County’s tax, is inconsistent with a true tax on income, but entirely consistent with a regulatory scheme requiring persons to have one and only one occupational license in a State. We are not persuaded.
Jefferson County’s Ordinance declares it “unlawful... to engage in” a covered occupation (as pertinent here, to carry out the duties of a federal judge) without paying the license fee. Ordinance No. 1120, §2. Based on the quoted words, the respondent judges urge, as the Eleventh Circuit ruled, that the Ordinance is invalid under Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U. S. 51, 57 (1920), which held that a State could not require a federal postal employee to obtain a state driver’s license before performing his federal duties. See Jefferson County, 92 F. 3d, at 1572-1573. In reading the Ordinance to impose a license requirement resembling the driver’s license at issue in Johnson, the judges stress the Ordinance’s incautious “unlawful... to engage in” language. Those words, however, likely were written with nonfederal employees, the vast majority of the occupational taxpayers, in front view. As earlier observed, see supra, at 439, the actual operation of the Ordinance, i. e., its practical impact, is critical. See Murray Corp., 355 U. S., at 492.
In practice, Jefferson County’s license tax serves a revenue-raising, not a regulatory, purpose. Jefferson County neither issues licenses to taxpayers, nor in any way regulates them in the performance of their duties based on their status as licensed taxpayers. Cf. Johnson, 254 U. S., at 57 (“[The state license requirement] lays hold of [Federal Government employees] in their specific attempt to obey [federal] orders and requires qualifications in addition to those that the [Federal] Government has pronounced sufficient.”); Leslie Miller, Inc. v. Arkansas, 352 U. S. 187, 189, 190 (1956) (per curiam) (holding that private contractors, seeking to bid on federal contracts, cannot be required first to submit to state licensing procedures that “determin[e]” a contractor’s “qualifications”; such state regulation is inconsistent with the governing federal procurement statute and regulations, which provide standards for judging the “responsibility” of competitive bidders (internal quotation marks omitted)). In response to the judges’ refusal to pay the tax, Jefferson County has done no more than institute a collection suit. See Jefferson County, 92 F. 3d, at 1565. Alabama, of course, cannot make it unlawful to carry out the duties of a federal office without local permission, and in fact does not endeavor to do so.
We consider next the judges’ argument that the wholesale exemption for those who hold another state or county license reveals the Ordinance’s true character as a licensing scheme, not an income tax. If the tax were genuinely an income tax, they urge, those license holders would not be excluded, although they might be allowed to claim their other license fees as credits or deductions against the county tax. Alabama’s enabling Act does not allow its counties to so provide; those otherwise subject to license or privilege taxes under Alabama’s laws may not be reached by a county’s occupational tax. See 1967 Ala. Acts 406, §4. The dispositive measure, however, is the Public Salary Tax Act, which does not require the local tax to be a typical “income tax.” Just as the statute in Howard consented broadly to “any tax measured by net income, gross income, or gross receipts,” 344 U. S., at 629, the Public Salary Tax Act consents to any tax on “pay or compensation,” which Jefferson County’s surely is. The sole caveat is that the tax “not discriminate... because of the [federal] source of the pay or compensation,” 4 U. S. C. § 111, and we next consider that matter.
C
In Davis, the Court held that a state tax exempting retirement benefits paid by the State but not those paid by the Federal Government violated the Public Salary Tax Act’s nondiscrimination requirement. See 489 U. S., at 817-818. Jefferson County’s tax, by contrast, does not discriminate against federal judges in particular, or federal officeholders in general, based on the federal source of their pay or compensation. The tax is paid by all State District and Circuit Court judges in Jefferson County and the three State Supreme Court justices who have satellite offices in the county. See Jefferson County, 850 F. Supp., at 1549.
The judges urge that, as federal judges can never fit within the county’s exemption for those who hold licenses under other state or county laws, that exemption unlawfully disfavors them. See Brief for Respondents 14-15. The record shows no discrimination, however, between similarly situated federal and state employees. Cf. Davis, 489 U. S., at 814 (“It is undisputed that Michigan’s tax system discriminates in favor of retired state employees and against retired federal employees.”). Should Alabama or Jefferson County authorities take to exempting state officials while leaving federal officials (or a subcategory of them) subject to the tax, that would indeed present a starkly different case. Here, however, there is no sound reason to deny Alabama counties the right to tax with an even hand the compensation of federal, state, and local officeholders whose services are rendered within the county. See United States v. County of Fresno, 429 U. S. 452, 462 (1977) (upholding requirement that employees of U. S. Forest Service pay California property tax on homes located on federal land and provided to employees as part of their compensation; Court observed that state tax does not discriminate unconstitutionally against federal employees if the tax is “imposed equally on... similarly situated constituents of the State”).
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
For the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Scalia, The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Souter, and Justice Thomas do not believe this case was properly removed from state court. The Court having concluded otherwise, they join Parts I, III, and IV of this opinion.
Most States, it appears, like Alabama, have not authorized local imposition of an “income tax.” See J. Aronson & J. Hilley, Financing State and Local Governments 149 (4th ed. 1986) (“Eleven states have authorized their local governments to levy wage or income taxes.”); cf. 1 GCH State Tax Guide ¶ 15-100, p. 3512 (1998) (listing cities in 11 States that impose personal income taxes).
The District Court also held that applying the tax to the judges diminished their pay and therefore violated the Compensation Clause of Article III of the Constitution. See Jefferson County v. Acker, 850 F. Supp., at 1548; U. S. Const., Art. III, § 1 (federal judges “shall... receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office”)- The Court of Appeals declined to address that question, and it is not before this Court. See Jefferson County v. Acker, 92 F. 3d 1561, 1566 (CA11 1996) (en banc).
Other subsections of §1442 establish similar removal rights for other federal officers. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1442(a), (b) (1994 ed. and Supp. III).
The Second Circuit further stated that “[e]ven if Congress did not intend the Act’s jurisdictional bar to reach so far,... we believe that general principles of federal court abstention would nonetheless require us to stay our hand here.” 947 F. 2d, at 551. Keleher was a diversity action raising “‘difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import.’” Ibid, (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 814 (1976)). See infra, at 435, n. 5.
As noted in Keleher v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 947 F. 2d 547, 551 (CA2 1991), see supra, at 434, n. 4, abstention and stay doctrines may counsel federal courts to withhold adjudication, according priority to state courts on questions concerning the meaning and proper application of a state tax law. Cf. Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315, 332-334 (1943); Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U. S. 706, 719-721 (1996) (in a case seeking damages, rather than equitable relief, a federal court may not abstain, but can stay the action pending resolution of the state-law issue). No one has argued for the application of such doctrines here.
Graves carried out the doctrinal contraction presaged in Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405, 424 (1938), which held that the Federal Government could tax the salaries of employees of the Port of New York Authority. See also James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 138, 149, 159-161 (1937) (in determining that a state “privilege ta[x]” on federal contractors did not violate the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, the Court rejected the theory that a tax on income is a tax on its source (internal quotation marks omitted)).
New Mexico held that New Mexico transgressed no constitutional limit when it required federal contractors to pay the State’s gross receipts tax for the “privilege” of doing business with the Federal Government in the State. 455 U. S., at 727, 744 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Section 111 provides:
“The United States consents to the taxation of pay or compensation for personal service as an officer or employee of the United States, a territory or possession or political subdivision thereof, the government of the District of Columbia, or an agency or instrumentality of one or more of the foregoing, by a duly constituted taxing authority having jurisdiction, if the taxation does not discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of the pay or compensation.”
Howard construed the Buck Act, which authorizes state and local governments to collect “income tax[es]” from individuals who work in a “Federal area” “to the same extent... as though such area was not a Federal area.” 4 U. S. C. § 106(a). The Buck Act defines “Federal area” to mean “any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States.” § 110(e). The United States submits that “[t]his definition appears, by its terms, to encompass premises used by the United States for the purposes of operating a federal courthouse,” but further notes that the “origin and purpose of the Buck Act... were... limited... to ensuring] that federal officers and employees who reside or work within exclusive federal enclaves would be treated equally with those who reside and work outside such areas.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28, n. 8 (citing S. Rep. No. 1625, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 3 (1940)). As we conclude that the Public Salary Tax Act consents to Jefferson County’s tax, we need not decide whether the Buck Act applies to this case.
Justice Breyer both recapitulates the reasoning of Justice Douglas’ dissenting opinion in Howard and endeavors to distinguish the Court’s decision in that case as involving “only [a] jurisdictional issue.” Post, at 457 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). One of the two questions on which the Court granted certiorari in Howard, however, explicitly asked the Court to determine “[t]he validity of the Louisville occupational tax or license fee ordinance as applied to employees of the [Naval] Ordnance Plant.” 344 U. S., at 625. The Court squarely held: “[T]he tax is valid.” Id., at 629.
The shortcomings Justice Breyer identifies in his first three objections, post, at 449-452, are of a sort this Court routinely rejects as cause for federal curtailment of the taxing power of state and local governments. See Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 281 U. S. 146, 159 (1930). His fourth objection, post, at 452-453, speaks of burdens Jefferson County imposes directly on the Federal Government — obligations to withhold the tax, to make complicated calculations, to keep detailed records. Justice Breyer overlooks that it is the actual operation of the Ordinance — what is and not what might be — that counts in determining the merits of this case. See Detroit v. Murray Corp. of America, 355 U. S. 489, 492 (1958).
As a matter of undisputed fact, the burdens Justice Breyer posits are hypothetical, not real. As the parties stipulated, “[a]U active judges of the Northern District of Alabama except [respondents] have paid the County Occupational Tax on differing percentages of their judicial salaries,” but “neither the Administrative Office of the United States Courts nor any Article III judge in the Northern District of Alabama... has ever made an oath certifying the alleged amounts of a federal judge’s salary earned within and without Jefferson County,” and “[t]he Administrative
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a state-court action brought by one who is a “supervisor” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act §2(11), 29 U. S. C. §152(11), for interference by a union with his contractual relationships with his employer is pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act).
r — H
Respondent Robert C. Jones was offered a supervisory-position by the Georgia Power Co. (Company). Jones reported for work on June 12, 1978. By agreement, he took vacation time after his second day on the job and reported for work again on June 20, 1978. On this latter date he was discharged.
Jones believed that the Company had been persuaded to discharge him by the union bargaining agent, Local 926 of the International Union of Operating Engineers (Union). The reason for the Union’s hostility, he believed, was his decision years ago to work for a nonunion employer. On June 28, 1978, Jones filed a charge with the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) against the Union, alleging that the Union had “procured” his discharge, “and thereby coerced [the Company] in the selection of its supervisors and bargaining representative, because [Jones] had not been a member in good standing of said labor organization.” Allegedly, this action violated §§ 8(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. App. to Juris. Statement 25a.
In a letter dated July 19, 1978, the Regional Director said that further proceedings on respondent’s charge were unwarranted and that he would not issue a complaint. He explained that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Union had caused Jones’ discharge; there was also a lack of evidence indicating that the Union had restrained or coerced the Company in the selection of its representative for purposes of collective bargaining. The Regional Director had instead come to the conclusion that Jones’ discharge had been a part of changes in the Company’s supervisory structure and that the Union had merely participated in discussions regarding the changes.
Instead of appealing to the General Counsel, Jones proceeded to state court, suing both the Union and the Company. Count I of his complaint claimed that the Union had interfered with the contract between him and the Company. The allegations were simple. He pleaded that he had been a member of Local 926 from 1969 to 1974, when he resigned from the Union. More recently, the Company had offered him the job of equipment supervisor at one of its plants, and he and the Company had entered into a contract in reliance on which he had terminated his prior employment. The crucial allegation was that petitioner Thomas D. Archer, the business agent and representative of the Union, had “maliciously and with full intent, intimidated and coerced Georgia Power Company, or caused Georgia Power Company to be intimidated and coerced, into breaching its employment contract with the Plaintiff. ” Respondent prayed for a judgment of $80,000 against petitioners, to be composed of $25,000 in lost wages, $50,000 in punitive damages, and $5,000 in attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. Count II of his complaint sought relief against the Company and alleged that the Company had breached its employment contract.
The Georgia trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the common-law tort action had been pre-empted because the subject matter of the complaint was arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board. The court observed that there was no justification for allowing joint federal-state control over the alleged conduct, since the state interest in protecting state citizens from the alleged conduct was insignificant and the risk of interference with the Board’s jurisdiction was substantial.
The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the case against the Union. 159 Ga. App. 693, 285 S. E. 2d 30 (1981). Following Georgia precedent it considered to be controlling, Sheet Metal Workers International Assn. v. Carter, 133 Ga. App. 872, 212 S. E. 2d 645 (1975), and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Briscoe, 143 Ga. App. 417, 239 S. E. 2d 38 (1977), the State Court of Appeals held the cause of action not pre-empted because Georgia had a deep and abiding interest in protecting its citizens’ contractual rights and because the cause of action, which sounded in tort, was so unrelated to the concerns of the federal labor laws that it would not interfere with the administration of those laws. As an additional reason for not finding preemption, the court stated that the Union’s acts were not even arguably within the ambit of § 7 or § 8 of the NLRA, thus purporting to distinguish Iron Workers v. Perko, 373 U. S. 701 (1963). The Georgia Supreme Court denied review, and petitioners appealed.
We postponed to the hearing on the merits consideration of our appellate jurisdiction. 456 U. S. 987 (1982). Petitioners now acknowledge that this is not a mandatory appeal. We agree, but, treating the papers as a petition for writ of certio-rari, we grant the petition. Concluding that the Georgia Court of Appeals erred, we reverse.
The issue before us “is a variant of a familiar theme.” San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 239 (1959). The Court has often been asked to determine whether particular state causes of action or regulations may coexist with the comprehensive amalgam of substantive law and regulatory arrangements that Congress set up in the NLRA to govern labor-management relations affecting interstate commerce. E. g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters, 436 U. S. 180 (1978); Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U. S. 290 (1977); Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U. S. 53 (1966); Garmon, supra. Our approach to the pre-emption issue has thus been stated and restated. First, we determine whether the conduct that the State seeks to regulate or to make the basis of liability is actually or arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA. Garmon, supra, at 245; see Sears, supra, at 187-190. Although the “Garmon guidelines [are not to be applied] in a literal, mechanical fashion,” Sears, supra, at 188, if the conduct at issue is arguably prohibited or protected otherwise applicable state law and procedures are ordinarily pre-empted. Farmer, supra, at 296. When, however, the conduct at issue is only a peripheral concern of the Act or touches on interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, it could not be inferred that Congress intended to deprive the State of the power to act, we refuse to invalidate state regulation or sanction of the conduct. Garmon, supra, at 243-244. The question of whether regulation should be allowed because of the deeply rooted nature of the local interest involves a sensitive balancing of any harm to the regulatory scheme established by Congress, either in terms of negating the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction or in terms of conflicting substantive rules, and the importance of the asserted cause of action to the State as a protection to its citizens. See Sears, supra, at 188-189; Farmer, supra, at 297.
Not only is this case a variant of a familiar theme, but we have heard this same tune before. In Iron Workers v. Perko, supra, the Court considered whether a common-law tort action for interference with a contract of employment was pre-empted by the NLRA. Perko, a member of the Iron Workers’ Union, was employed at times as a superintendent and at other times as a foreman. While acting as a superintendent, he violated a Union rule, and his membership was suspended in consequence. Union representatives then told Perko’s employer that because of Perko’s transgression Union members would no longer take orders from him. Some weeks thereafter he was discharged on account of his dispute with the Union.
We concluded that Perko’s common-law cause of action was pre-empted because it was founded on conduct that for several reasons was arguably within the ambit of §7 or §8. First, Perko was discharged both as a superintendent and a foreman. Even conceding that the position of superintendent was supervisory and beyond the reach of the Act, the foreman’s position was arguably nonsupervisory and covered by the Act. Hence, Perko’s discharge arguably violated the proscription of § 8(b)(1)(A) against a union interfering with the protected rights of employees and that of § 8(b)(2) against causing an employer to discriminate against an employee contrary to § 8(a)(3). Second, the Union arguably violated § 8(b)(1)(A), since causing the discharge of a supervisor might coerce employees, who would fear meeting their supervisor’s fate, into forgoing their § 7 rights to engage in concerted action. Third, the Union’s conduct might also have violated § 8(b)(1)(B), which prohibits unions from restraining or coercing “an employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.” Perko, we concluded, may well have had sufficient grievance-handling responsibilities to come within the realm of supervisors whose selection the Union could not seek to dictate.
Since Jones, unlike Perko, had a job only as a supervisor and not also as an employee, the Union does not rely on the first reason given in Perko for finding the challenged conduct arguably subject to the proscriptions of the Act. It is urged that the other two reasons given in Perko for such a holding are fully applicable here. The Union adds that Jones’ cause of action threatens to punish the workers’ arguably protected conduct in protesting, noncoercively, the selection of people for supervisory positions whether or not they entail collective-bargaining responsibilities. For these reasons, the Union submits that Jones’ state-court action is preempted. We agree.
Ill
In Perko, the Court thought the Board could reasonably construe § 8(b)(1)(A) to prohibit the discharge of a supervisor for failure to observe Union rules because the discharge would inevitably tend to coerce nonsupervisory employees to submit to Union regimentation and hence coerce them in the exercise of their § 7 rights. In that event, the Board could also order the Union to reimburse the supervisor for his lost wages. The Board’s subsequent holdings apply a variant of this approach in the construction industry, where it is not unusual for workers to fluctuate, as Perko did, 373 U. S., at 706, between supervisory and nonsupervisory positions. In Local Union No. 725, Plumbers, 225 N. L. R. B. 138 (1976), enf’d, 572 F. 2d 550 (CA5 1978), the Union caused the employer to breach a promise to hire the charging party as a supervisor. For two reasons, the Board held that the Union had violated § 8(b)(1)(A) and was liable to the charging party for backpay. First, it was found that certain employees depending on Union job referrals had learned of the Union’s conduct and were thereby intimidated in the exercise of their rights under the Act. Second, the Board reasoned that “because workers in the construction industry frequently cycle in and out of supervisory jobs, discrimination against [an individual] in his attempt to become a supervisor would carry over to intimidate him once he again became a statutory employee.” See 572 F. 2d, at 552. The Board’s “fluctuating status” approach is arguably applicable to this case. Jones was employed in the construction industry, and, in view of the low-level supervisory position he held, it was not unlikely that he would from time to time serve in a nonsupervisory position. It also is as clear here as it was in Perko that the Union’s conduct was arguably prohibited by § 8(b)(1)(B), which forbids a union to coerce an employer in the choice of his bargaining representative. In Perko, there was some doubt whether Perko was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act; here there is no doubt in that respect. Of course, not every supervisor is a “representative ‘for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances’ ” within the meaning of § 8(b)(1)(B), Florida Power & Light Co. v. Electrical Workers, 417 U. S. 790, 811, n. 21 (1974). But in this case, Jones was to occupy the position of equipment supervisor; it is enough if in this position he would be authorized or expected to deal with grievances arising under the collective-bargaining agreement, American Broadcasting Cos. v. Writers Guild, 437 U. S. 411, 427, n. 25 (1978); and Jones’ complaint filed with the Regional Director indicated that he would have collective-bargaining responsibilities. It is at least arguable that this was the case; and it was for the Board, not the state courts, to decide whether Jones was the kind of a supervisor who could invoke § 8(b)(1)(B). We thus agree with the Union and the Board that the Union, if it was responsible for Jones’ discharge, arguably coerced the Company in the choice of its collective-bargaining representative.
h-4 <
For several reasons, none of them sound m our view, the Georgia Court of Appeals thought that the Act did not preempt the cause of action that Jones submitted to the state courts. First, the Court of Appeals may have interpreted the Regional Director’s letter as indicating that the Board lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Jones’ complaint because of Jones’ supervisory status. That is plainly not the case, for the Regional Director’s statement did not decline jurisdiction but addressed the merits of the complaint. See generally Garmon, 359 U. S., at 245-246.
Second, the Court of Appeals believed that the Regional Director’s rejection of the complaint for insufficient evidence of a violation satisfied all of the interests of the federal law and cleared the way for a state cause of action. If this position was grounded on the notion that supervisors do not have a cause of action in any circumstances, it is contrary to Board cases and to Perko. If, as seems more likely, the argument is that the complainant adequately submitted his dispute to the Board, it is untenable. Jones did not exhaust his administrative remedies, for he did not appeal to the General Counsel. Beyond that, the Garmon pre-emption doctrine not only mandates the substantive pre-emption by the federal labor law in the areas to which it applies, but also protects the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board over matters arguably within the reach of the Act. Even if Jones had satisfied ordinary primary-jurisdiction requirements, which he did not, he would not have taken adequate account of the decision of Congress to vest in one administrative agency nationwide jurisdiction to adjudicate controversies within the Act’s purview. Matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board are normally for it, not a state court, to decide. This implements the congressional desire to achieve uniform as well as effective enforcement of the national labor policy.
In addition to relying on the reasoning of the Georgia Court of Appeals, Jones argues that there should be no preemption because the state cause of action and the unfair labor practice charge are not sufficiently alike. Jones relies on Sears, Roebuck & Co., where we said that “the critical inquiry” in deciding whether a state claim is pre-empted because the challenged conduct is arguably prohibited by the federal labor laws is “whether the controversy presented to the state court is identical to ... or different from . . . that which could have been, but was not, presented to the Labor Board.” 436 U. S., at 197. Jones asserts that a § 8(b)(1)(B) unfair labor practice claim is made out only by proving coercion of an employer in the selection of its bargaining representative, whereas, he explains, to make out his state cause of action it need only be shown that the Union caused, either coercively or noncoercively, the employer’s selection of a supervisor. Because federal law does not forbid noncoerced, but union-caused discharges, it is said that the state cause of action is as distinct from the federal unfair labor practice claim as were the causes of action this Court found not preempted in Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U. S. 53 (1966); Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U. S. 290 (1977); and Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters, supra.
We reject this argument. First, the argument concedes that the state cause of action is pre-empted to the extent that it covers coercive influence on the employer; and we note that Jones’ complaint in the state court alleged that the Union agent had “intimidated and coerced” Georgia Power into breaching its contract with Jones. Jones thus sought to prove a coerced discharge and breach of contract, the very claim that is concededly pre-empted. Second, permitting state causes of action for noncoercive interference with contractual relationships to go forward in the state courts would continually require the state court to decide in the first instance whether the Union’s conduct was coercive, and hence beyond its power to sanction, or noncoercive, and thus the proper subject of a state suit. Decisions on such questions of federal labor law should be resolved by the Board.
Third, even if the Georgia law reaches noncoercive interference with contractual relationships, a fundamental part of such a claim is that the Union actually caused the discharge and hence was responsible for the employer’s breach of contract. Of course, this same crucial element must be proved to make out a § 8(b)(1)(B) case: the discharge must be shown to be the result of Union influence. Even on Jones’ view of the elements of his state-law cause of action, the federal and state claims are thus the same in a fundamental respect, and here the Regional Director had concluded that the Union was not at fault.
This was not the case in Sears. There the state-court action was for trespass. It challenged only the location of the Union picketing. The unfair labor practice charge, however, would have focused on whether the picketing had recogni-tional or work reassignment objectives, issues “completely unrelated to the simple question whether a trespass had occurred.” 436 U. S., at 198. Permitting the trespass action to go forward accordingly created “no realistic risk of interference with the Labor Board’s primary jurisdiction to enforce the statutory prohibition against unfair labor practices.” Ibid. The same cannot be said here. The Regional Director concluded that the Union had in no way been responsible for Jones’ discharge. That same issue of causation would have been presented for decision had Jones’ case come before the Board, just as the issue would recurringly be at the core of § 8(b)(1)(B) cases. Despite the Regional Director’s determination, and the Board’s undoubted jurisdiction to decide the issue had a complaint issued, Jones sought to relitigate the question in the state courts. The risk of interference with the Board’s jurisdiction is thus obvious and substantial.
We thus cannot agree that Jones’ efforts to recover damages from the Union for interference with his contractual relationships with his employer was of only peripheral concern to the federal labor policy. Our decisions in Perko and its companion case, Plumbers v. Borden, 373 U. S. 690 (1963), refute Jones’ submission. They also foreclose any claim that Jones’ action against the Union for interference with his job is so deeply rooted in local law that Georgia’s interest in enforcing that law overrides the interference with the federal labor law that prosecution of the state action would entail.
Beyond this is the proposition, pressed by the Union, that although an employer may not be coerced in its choice of a collective-bargaining agent employees have the protected right to exert noncoercive influence on the choice of low-level supervisors.
“[CJourts have generally held over Board protest that employees’ strikes over changes in even low level supervisory personnel are not protected. See Henning & Cheadle, Inc. v. NLRB, [522 F. 2d 1050, 1055 (CA7 1975)]; American Art Clay Co. v. NLRB, [328 F. 2d 88, 90-91 (CA7 1964)]; Dobbs Houses, Inc. v. NLRB, [325 F. 2d 531, 538-539 (CA5 1963)]. On the other hand, courts have found protected the writing of letters expressing opposition, NLRB v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co., 167 F. 2d 983 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 335 U. S. 845 . . . (1948), or the simple voicing of complaints, NLRB v. Guernsey-Muskingum Elec. Coop., Inc., 285 F. 2d 8 (6th Cir. 1960). By thus examining both the substantive interest and the means of advancing it, courts have balanced more finely the competing interests involved. The result is a general absence of per se rules.” Abilities and Goodwill, Inc. v. NLRB, 612 F. 2d 6, 9 (CA1 1979).
Thus, had Jones’ complaint come before the Board, his complaint would arguably have been rejected on the ground that the Union’s conduct in this case was protected activity.
Finally, the argument is made that Jones should be permitted to go forward in the state court because he could be awarded punitive damages and attorney’s fees, whereas he would be limited to backpay if his complaint had gone forward before the Board. But such a claim was squarely rejected in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S., at 246-247.
The judgment below is accordingly
Reversed.
A supervisor is defined as follows:
“(11) The term ‘supervisor’ means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.” §2(11), 61 Stat. 138.
Supervisors are expressly excluded from the definition of employee in § 2(3), 29 U. S. C. § 152(3). Only “employees” are given rights under § 7, 29 U. S. C. § 157, which provides in relevant part:
“Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3).” 61 Stat. 140.
We refer to Jones as respondent because, as we shall explain, see n. 7, infra, we review this case on writ of certiorari rather than on appeal.
Sections 8(a) and 8(b) define certain employer and union practices as unfair labor practices. As pertinent to this case, § 8(b), 61 Stat. 141, 29 U. S. C. § 158(b), provides:
“It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents— “(1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7... or (B) an employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances;
“(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of this section . . .”
Section 8(a)(3), 61 Stat. 140, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158(a)(3), makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer—
“(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization . . . .”
The following is the text of the letter:
July 19, 1978
Robert C. Jones
2954 Orchard Lane, S. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30354
Re: International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 926 Case 10-CB-2905
Dear Mr. Jones:
The above-captioned case charging a violation under Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, has been carefully investigated and considered.
As a result of the investigation, it does not appear that further proceedings on the charge are warranted. The Region concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Union caused your discharge or that it restrained or coerced the Employer in the selection of its representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Rather, it appears that the Employer implemented certain changes in its supervisory structure which included your removal from the project. While the Union did participate in discussions regarding the changes, there was no evidence that it engaged in any unlawful conduct regarding your status as a supervisor. I am, therefore, refusing to issue complaint in this matter.
Form NLRB-4938, Procedure for Filing an Appeal, is attached. The appeal period expires at the close of business on August 1, 1978.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Curtis L. Mack Regional Director
App. to Juris. Statement 26a.
Appeal to the General Counsel is provided by 29 CFR § 102.19 (1982). Respondent said he “didn’t see much point” in taking such an appeal. App. 105 (deposition of Robert C. Jones, Feb. 20, 1979).
The court affirmed the dismissal of the cause of action against the employer. The merits of that decision are not before us.
Petitioners initially argued in their jurisdictional statement that they were entitled to a mandatory appeal. They believed that this case fell within 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2), which allows parties an appeal as of right when a state statute is challenged in state court as being repugnant to the laws of the United States and the state court upholds the validity of the statute. The Georgia right-to-work law, Ga. Code Ann. § 54-905 (1981), recodified at Ga. Code Ann. § 34-6-24 (1982), was identified as the statute whose validity had been wrongly upheld. Petitioners now acknowledge that the Georgia Court of Appeals did not consider the question of whether the NLRA prohibited Jones’ reliance on the State’s right-to-work law; the court held only that the Georgia common-law tort action for interference with contractual relations was not pre-empted by the national labor laws. Petitioners’ current perception appears correct. Because a common-law cause of action cannot be said to be a “statute” for purposes of § 1257(2), this case is not within our § 1257(2) appellate jurisdiction.
The NLRA has been held to pre-empt state law and state causes of action relating to conduct that is neither protected nor prohibited, where it is determined that Congress intended the conduct to be unregulated and left to the free play of economic forces. See Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 427 U. S. 132, 140 (1976); Teamsters v. Morton, 377 U. S. 252, 260 (1964). This branch of the pre-emption doctrine is not at issue in this case.
Since the Board’s decision in Local 725, it has become evident that the Board will not adhere to the general proposition voiced in Perko that the discharge of a supervisor for failure to abide by union rules is alone enough to discourage employees from exercising their § 7 rights. Parker-Robb Chevrolet, Inc., 262 N. L. R. B. 402, 404 (1982). The Board asserts, however, that the holding in Local 725, reflecting the peculiarities of the construction industry, survives its later decision.
Recognizing that an employer so frequently draws his collective-bargaining representative from the existing pool of supervisors, the Board has held that the Union violates § 8(b)(1)(B) by coercing the choice of a supervisor even without proving that the supervisor in question actually has collective-bargaining authority. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has disagreed with the Board in this respect. NLRB v. Rochester Musicians Assn. Local 66, 514 F. 2d 988, 992 (1975). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on the other hand, has not entirely rejected the Board’s position. Newspaper Guild, Erie Newspaper Guild, Local 187 v. NLRB, 489 F. 2d 416, 420-422 (1973).
In Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, we held that an action for a malicious and injurious libel in the course of a labor dispute, although an unfair practice and prohibited by the Act, was not pre-empted since it was unprotected conduct and since remedying injury to reputation was of only slight concern to the national labor policy and was a matter deeply rooted in state law. For similar reasons, in Farmer v. Carpenters we held that insofar as the state-court suit rested on claims of discriminatory hiring hall referrals and breach of contract, it was pre-empted, but that it was not pre-empted and could go forward insofar as it alleged the outrageous and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We deal with Sears, Roebuck & Co. in the text, infra, this page and 683.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These consolidated petitions each challenge a conviction under 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1). In relevant part, that section imposes a 5-year minimum term of imprisonment upon a person who “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . uses or carries a firearm.” We are asked to decide whether evidence of the proximity and accessibility of a firearm to drugs or drug proceeds is alone sufficient to support a conviction for “use” of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense under 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1).
I
In May 1989, petitioner Roland Bailey was stopped by police officers after they noticed that his car lacked a front license plate and an inspection sticker. When Bailey failed to produce a driver’s license, the officers ordered him out of the car. As he stepped out, the officers saw Bailey push something between the seat and the front console. A search of the passenger compartment revealed oné round of ammunition and 27 plastic bags containing a total of 30 grams of cocaine. After arresting Bailey, the officers searched the trunk of his car where they found, among a number of items, a large amount of cash and a bag containing a loaded 9-mm. pistol.
Bailey was charged on several counts, including using and carrying a firearm in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1). A prosecution expert testified at trial that drug dealers frequently carry a firearm to protect their drugs and money as well as themselves. Bailey was convicted by the jury on all charges, and his sentence included a consecutive 60-month term of imprisonment on the § 924(c)(1) conviction.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Bailey’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction under § 924(c)(1). United States v. Bailey, 995 F. 2d 1113 (CADC 1993). The court held that Bailey could be convicted for “using” a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime if the jury could reasonably infer that the gun facilitated Bailey’s commission of a drug offense. Id., at 1119. In Bailey’s case, the court explained, the trier of fact could reasonably infer that Bailey had used the gun in the trunk to protect his drugs and drug proceeds and to facilitate sales. Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, dissenting in part, argued that prior Circuit precedent required reversal of Bailey’s conviction.
In June 1991, an undercover officer made a controlled buy of crack cocaine from petitioner Candisha Robinson. The officer observed Robinson retrieve the drugs from the bedroom of her one-bedroom apartment. After a second controlled buy, the police executed a search warrant of the apartment. Inside a locked trunk in the bedroom closet, the police found, among other things, an unloaded, holstered .22-caliber Derringer, papers and a tax return belonging to Robinson, 10.88 grams of crack cocaine, and a marked $20 bill from the first controlled buy.
Robinson was indicted on a number of counts, including using or carrying a firearm in violation of § 924(c)(1). A prosecution expert testified that the Derringer was a “second gun,” i. e., a type of gun a drug dealer might hide on his or her person for use until reaching a “real gun.” The expert also testified that drug dealers generally use guns to protect themselves from other dealers, the police, and their own employees. Robinson was convicted on all counts, including the § 924(c)(1) count, for which she received a 60-month term of imprisonment. The District Court denied Robinson’s motion for a judgment of acquittal with respect to the “using or carrying” conviction and ruled that the evidence was sufficient to establish a violation of § 924(c)(1).
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed Robinson’s conviction on the § 924(c)(1) count. United States v. Robinson, 997 F. 2d 884 (CADC 1993). The court determined, “[g]iven the way section 924(c)(1) is drafted, even if an individual intends to use a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense, the conduct of that individual is not reached by the statute unless the individual actually uses the firearm for that purpose.” Id., at 887. The court held that Robinson’s possession of an unloaded .22-caliber Derringer in a locked trunk in a bedroom closet fell significantly short of the type of evidence the court had previously held necessary to establish actual use under § 924(c)(1). The mere proximity of the gun to the drugs was held insufficient to support the conviction. Judge Henderson dissented, arguing, among other things, that the firearm facilitated Robinson’s distribution of drugs because it protected Robinson and the drugs during sales.
In order to resolve the apparent inconsistencies in its decisions applying § 924(c)(1), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit consolidated the two cases and reheard them en banc. In a divided opinion, a majority of the court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that each defendant had used a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense and affirmed the § 924(c)(1) conviction in each case. 36 F. 3d 106 (CADC 1994) (en banc).
The majority rejected a multifactor weighing approach to determine sufficiency of the evidence to support a § 924(c)(1) conviction. The District of Columbia Circuit had previously applied a nonexclusive set of factors, including: accessibility of the gun, its proximity to drugs, whether or not it was loaded, what type of weapon was involved, and whether expert testimony supported the Government’s theory of “use.” The majority explained that this approach invited the reviewing court to reweigh the evidence and make its own finding with respect to an ultimate fact, a function properly left to the jury; had produced widely divergent and contradictory results; and was out of step with the broader definition of “use” employed by other Circuits.
The court replaced the multifactor test with an “accessibility and proximity” test. “[W]e hold that one uses a gun, i. e., avails oneself of a gun, and therefore violates [§ 924(c)(1)], whenever one puts or keeps the gun in a particular place from which one (or one’s agent) can gain access to it if and when needed to facilitate a drug crime.” Id., at 115. The court applied this new standard and affirmed the convictions of both Bailey and Robinson. In both cases, the court determined that the gun was sufficiently accessible and proximate to the drugs or drug proceeds that the jury could properly infer that the defendant had placed the gun in order to further the drug offenses or to protect the possession of the drugs.
Judge Wald, in dissent, argued that the court’s previous multifactor test provided a better standard for appellate review of § 924(e)(1) convictions. Judge Williams, joined by Judges Silberman and Buckley, also dissented. He explained his understanding that “use” under § 924(c)(1) denoted active employment of the firearm “rather than possession with a contingent intent to use.” Id., at 121. “[B]y articulating a ‘proximity’ plus ‘accessibility’ test, however, the court has in effect diluted ‘use’ to mean simply possession with a floating intent to use.” Ibid.
As the debate within the District of Columbia Circuit illustrates, § 924(c)(1) has been the source of much perplexity in the courts. The Circuits are in conflict both in the standards they have articulated, compare United States v. Torres-Rodriguez, 930 P. 2d 1375,1385 (CA9 1991) (mere possession sufficient to satisfy § 924(c)), with United States v. Castro-Lara, 970 F. 2d 976, 983 (CA1 1992) (mere possession insufficient), cert. denied sub nom. Sarraff v. United States, 508 U. S. 962 (1993); and in the results they have reached, compare United States v. Feliz-Cordero, 859 F. 2d 250, 254 (CA2 1988) (presence of gun in dresser drawer in apartment with drugs, drug proceeds, and paraphernalia insufficient to meet § 924(c)(1)), with United States v. McFadden, 13 F. 3d 463, 465 (CA1 1994) (evidence of gun hidden under mattress with money, near drugs, was sufficient to show “use”), and United States v. Hager, 969 F. 2d 883, 889 (CA10) (gun in boots in living room near drugs was “used”), cert. denied, 506- U. S. 964 (1992). We granted certiorari to clarify the meaning of “use” under § 924(c)(1). 514 U. S. 1062 (1995).
II
Section 924(c)(1) requires the imposition of specified penalties if the defendant, “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . , uses or carries a firearm.” Petitioners argue that “use” signifies active employment of a firearm. The Government opposes that definition and defends the proximity and accessibility test adopted by the Court of Appeals. We agree with petitioners, and hold that § 924(c)(1) requires evidence sufficient to show an active employment of the firearm by the defendant, a use that makes the firearm an operative factor in relation to the predicate offense.
This action is not the first one in which the Court has grappled with the proper understanding of “use” in § 924(c)(1). In Smith, we faced the question whether the barter of a gun for drugs was a “use,” and concluded that it was. Smith v. United States, 508 U. S. 223 (1993). As the debate in Smith illustrated, the word “use” poses some interpretational difficulties because of the different meanings attributable to it. Consider the paradoxical statement: “I use a gun to protect my house, but I’ve never had to use it.” “Use” draws meaning from its context, and we will look not only to the word itself, but also to the statute and the sentencing scheme, to determine the meaning Congress intended.
We agree with the majority below that “use” must connote more than mere possession of a firearm by a person who commits a drug offense. See 36 F. 3d, at 109; accord, United States v. Castro-Lara, supra, at 983; United States v. Theodoropoulos, 866 F. 2d 587, 597-598 (CA3 1989); United States v. Wilson, 884 F. 2d 174, 177 (CA5 1989). Had Congress intended possession alone to trigger liability under § 924(c)(1), it easily could have so provided. This obvious conclusion is supported by the frequent use of the term “possess” in the gun-crime statutes to describe prohibited gun-related conduct. See, e. g., §§ 922(g), 922(j), 922(k), 922(c)(1), 930(a), 930(b).
Where the Court of Appeals erred was not in its conclusion that “use” means more than mere possession, but in its standard for evaluating whether the involvement of a firearm amounted to something more than mere possession. Its proximity and accessibility standard provides almost no limitation on the kind of possession that would be criminalized; in practice, nearly every possession of a firearm by a person engaged in drug trafficking would satisfy the standard, “thereby erasing] the line that the statutes, and the courts, have tried to draw.” United States v. McFadden, supra, at 469 (Breyer, C. J., dissenting). Rather than requiring actual use, the District of Columbia Circuit would criminalize “simple] possession with a floating intent to use.” 36 F. 3d, at 121 (Williams, J., dissenting). The shortcomings of this test are succinctly explained in Judge Williams’ dissent:
“While the majority attempts to fine-tune the concept of facilitation (and thereby, use) through its twin guideposts of proximity and accessibility, the ultimate result is that possession amounts to ‘use’ because possession enhances the defendant’s confidence. Had Congress intended that, all it need have mentioned is possession. In this regard, the majority’s test is either so broad as to assure automatic affirmance of any jury conviction or, if not so broad, is unlikely to produce a clear guideline.” Id., at 124-125 (citations omitted).
An evidentiary standard for finding “use” that is satisfied in almost every case by evidence of mere possession does not adhere to the obvious congressional intent to require more than possession to trigger the statute’s application.
This conclusion — that a conviction for “use” of a firearm under § 924(c)(1) requires more than a showing of mere possession — requires us to answer a more difficult question. What must the Government show, beyond mere possession, to establish “use” for the purposes of the statute? We conclude that the language, context, and history of § 924(c)(1) indicate that the Government must show active employment of the firearm.
We start, as we must, with the language of the statute. See United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235, 241 (1989). The word “use” in the statute must be given its “ordinary or natural” meaning, a meaning variously defined as “[t]o convert to one’s service,” “to employ,” “to avail oneself of,” and “to carry out a purpose or action by means of.” Smith, supra, at 228-229 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Webster’s New International Dictionary of English Language 2806 (2d ed. 1949) and Black’s Law Dictionary 1541 (6th ed. 1990)). These various definitions of “use” imply action and implementation. See also McFadden, 13 F. 3d, at 467 (Breyer, C. J., dissenting) (“[T]he ordinary meanings of the words ‘use and ‘carry’ . . . connote activity beyond simple possession”).
We consider not only the bare meaning of the word but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme. “ ‘[T]he meaning of statutory language, plain or not, depends on context.’” Brown v. Gardner, 513 U. S. 115, 118 (1994) (citing King v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 502 U. S. 215, 221 (1991)). Looking past the word “use” itself, we read § 924(c)(1) with the assumption that Congress intended each of its terms to have meaning. “Judges should hesitate . . . to treat [as surplusage] statutory terms in any setting, and resistance should be heightened when the words describe an element of a criminal offense.” Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U. S. 135, 140-141 (1994). Here, Congress has specified two types of conduct with a firearm: “uses” or “carries.”
Under the Government’s reading of § 924(c)(1), “use” includes even the action of a defendant who puts a gun into place to protect drugs or to embolden himself. This reading is of such breadth that no role remains for “carry.” The Government admits that the meanings of “use” and “carry” converge under its interpretation, but maintains that this overlap is a product of the particular history of § 924(c)(1). Therefore, the Government argues, the canon of construction that instructs that “a legislature is presumed to have used no superfluous words,” Platt v. Union Pacific R. Co., 99 U. S. 48, 58 (1879), is inapplicable. Brief for United States 24-25. We disagree. Nothing here indicates that Congress, when it provided these two terms, intended that they be understood to be redundant.
We assume that Congress used two terms because it intended each term to have a particular, nonsuperfluous meaning. While a broad reading of “use” undermines virtually any function for “carry,” a more limited, active interpretation of “use” preserves a meaningful role for “carries” as an alternative basis for a charge. Under the interpretation we enunciate today, a firearm can be used without being carried, e. g., when an offender has a gun on display during a transaction, or barters with a firearm without handling it; and a firearm can be carried without being used, e. g., when an offender keeps a gun hidden in his clothing throughout a drug transaction.
This reading receives further support from the context of § 924(c)(1). As we observed in Smith, “using a firearm” should not have a “different meaning in § 924(c)(1) than it does in § 924(d).” 508 U. S., at 235. See also United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 371 (1988) (“A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme”). Section 924(d)(1) provides for the forfeiture of any firearm that is “used” or “intended to be used” in certain crimes. In that provision, Congress recognized a distinction between firearms “used” in commission of a crime and those “intended to be used,” and provided for forfeiture of a weapon even before it had been “used.” In § 924(c)(1), however, liability attaches only to cases of actual use, not intended use, as when an offender places a firearm with the intent to use it later if necessary. The difference between the two provisions demonstrates that, had Congress meant to broaden application of the statute beyond actual “use,” Congress could and would have so specified, as it did in § 924(d)(1).
The amendment history of § 924(c) casts further light on Congress’ intended meaning. The original version, passed in 1968, read:
“(c) Whoever—
“(1) uses a firearm to commit any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, or
“(2) carries a firearm unlawfully during the commission of any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States,
“shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than 10 years.” § 102, 82 Stat. 1224.
The phrase “uses a firearm to commit” indicates that Congress originally intended to reach the situation where the firearm was actively employed during commission of the crime. This original language would not have stretched so far as to cover a firearm that played no detectable role in the crime’s commission. For example, a defendant who stored a gun in a nearby closet for retrieval in case the deal went sour would not have “use[d] a firearm to commit” a crime. This version also shows that “use” and “carry” were employed with distinctly different meanings.
Congress’ 1984 amendment to § 924(c) altered the scope of predicate offenses from “any felony” to “any crime of violence,” removed the “unlawfully” requirement, merged the “uses” and “carries” prongs, substituted “during and in relation to” the predicate crimes for the earlier provisions linking the firearm to the predicate crimes, and raised the minimum sentence to five years. § 1005(a), 98 Stat. 2138-2139. The Government argues that this amendment stripped “uses” and “carries” of the qualifications (“to commit” and “unlawfully during”) that originally gave them distinct meanings, so that the terms should now be understood to overlap. Of course, in Smith we recognized that Congress’ subsequent amendments to § 924(c) employed “use” expansively, to cover both use as a weapon and use as an item of barter. See Smith, 508 U. S., at 236. But there is no evidence to indicate that Congress intended to expand the meaning of “use” so far as to swallow up any significance for “carry.” If Congress had intended to deprive “use” of its active connotations, it could have simply substituted a more appropriate term — “possession”—to cover the conduct it wished to reach.
The Government nonetheless argues that our observation in Smith that “§ 924(c)(l)’s language sweeps broadly,” 508 U. S., at 229, precludes limiting “use” to active employment. But our decision today is not inconsistent with Smith. Although there we declined to limit “use” to the meaning “use as a weapon,” our interpretation of § 924(c)(1) nonetheless adhered to an active meaning of the term. In Smith, it was clear that the defendant had “used” the gun; the question was whether that particular use (bartering) came within the meaning of § 924(c)(1). Smith did not address the question we face today of what evidence is required to permit a jury to find that a firearm had been used at all.
To illustrate the activities that fall within the definition of “use” provided here, we briefly describe some of the activities that fall within “active employment” of a firearm, and those that do not.
The active-employment understanding of “use” certainly includes brandishing, displaying, bartering, striking with, and, most obviously, firing or attempting to fire a firearm. We note that this reading compels the conclusion that even an offender’s reference to a firearm in his possession could satisfy § 924(c)(1). Thus, a reference to a firearm calculated to bring about a change in the circumstances of the predicate offense is a “use,” just as the silent but obvious and forceful presence of a gun on a table can be a “use.”
The example given above — “I use a gun to protect my house, but I’ve never had to use it” — shows that “use” takes on different meanings depending on context. In the first phrase of the example, “use” refers to an ongoing, inactive function fulfilled by a firearm. It is this sense of “use” that underlies the Government’s contention that “placement for protection” — i. e., placement of a firearm to provide a sense of security or to embolden — constitutes a “use.” It follows, according to this argument, that a gun placed in a closet is “used,” because its mere presence emboldens or protects its owner. We disagree. Under this reading, mere possession of a firearm by a drug offender, at or near the site of a drug crime or its proceeds or paraphernalia, is a “use” by the offender, because its availability for intimidation, attack, or defense would always, presumably, embolden or comfort the offender. But the inert presence of a firearm, without more, is not enough to trigger § 924(c)(1). Perhaps the nonactive nature of this asserted “use” is clearer if a synonym is used: storage. A defendant cannot be charged under § 924(c)(1) merely for storing a weapon near drugs or drug proceeds. Storage of a firearm, without its more active employment, is not reasonably distinguishable from possession.
A possibly more difficult question arises where an offender conceals a gun nearby to be at the ready for an imminent confrontation. Cf. 36 P. 3d, at 119 (Wald, J., dissenting) (discussing distinction between firearm’s accessibility to drugs or drug proceeds and its accessibility to defendant). Some might argue that the offender has “actively employed” the gun by hiding it where he can grab and use it if necessary. In our view, “use” cannot extend to encompass this action. If the gun is not disclosed or mentioned by the offender, it is not actively employed, and it is not “used.” To conclude otherwise would distort the language of the statute as well as create an impossible line-drawing problem. How “at the ready” was the firearm? Within arm’s reach? In the room? In the house? How long before the confrontation did he place it there? Five minutes or 24 hours? Placement for later active use does not constitute “use.” An alternative rationale for why “placement at the ready” is a “use”— that such placement is made with the intent to put the firearm to a future active use — also fails. As discussed above, § 924(d)(1) demonstrates that Congress knew how to draft a statute to reach a firearm that was “intended to be used.” In § 924(c)(1), it chose not to include that term, but instead established the 5-year mandatory minimum only for those defendants who actually “use” the firearm.
While it is undeniable that the active-employment reading of “use” restricts the scope of § 924(c)(1), the Government often has other means available to charge offenders who mix guns and drugs. The “carry” prong of § 924(c)(1), for example, brings some offenders who would not satisfy the “use” prong within the reach of the statute. And Sentencing Guidelines §2D1.1(b)(1) provides an enhancement for a person convicted of certain drug-trafficking offenses if a firearm was possessed during the offense. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §2D1.1(b)(1) (Nov. 1994). But the word “use” in § 924(c)(1) cannot support the extended applications that prosecutors have sometimes placed on it, in order to penalize drug-trafficking offenders for firearms possession.
The test set forth by the Court of Appeals renders “use” virtually synonymous with “possession” and makes any role for “carry” superfluous. The language of § 924(c)(1), supported by its history and context, compels the conclusion that Congress intended “use” in the active sense of “to avail oneself of.” To sustain a conviction under the “use” prong of § 924(c)(1), the Government must show that the defendant actively employed the firearm during and in relation to the predicate crime.
Ill
Having determined that “use” denotes active employment, we must conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support either Bailey’s or Robinson’s conviction for “use” under § 924(c)(1).
The police stopped Bailey for a traffic offense and arrested him after finding cocaine in the driver’s compartment of his car. The police then found a firearm inside a bag in the locked car trunk. There was no evidence that Bailey actively employed the firearm in any way. In Robinson’s case, the unloaded, holstered firearm that provided the basis for her § 924(c)(1) conviction was found locked in a footlocker in a bedroom closet. No evidence showed that Robinson had actively employed the firearm. We reverse both judgments.
Bailey and Robinson were each charged under both the “use” and “carry” prongs of § 924(c)(1). Because the Court of Appeals did not consider liability under the “carry” prong of § 924(c)(1) for Bailey or Robinson, we remand for consideration of that basis for upholding the convictions.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.