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 Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These paired cases arise out of work-related accidents in which a locomotive engineer and a train conductor, employees of a bistate railway authorized by interstate compact, sustained.personal injuries. The courts below — the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit— rejected both complaints on the ground that the Eleventh Amendment sheltered respondent railway from suit in federal court. We granted certiorari to resolve an intercircuit conflict on this issue. 510 U. S. 1190 (1994). Concluding that respondent bistate railway, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH), is not cloaked with the Eleventh Amendment immunity that a State enjoys, we reverse the judgment of the Third Circuit.
I
A
Petitioners Albert Hess and Charles F. Walsh, both railroad workers, were injured in unrelated incidents in the course of their employment by PATH. PATH, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority or Authority), operates a commuter railroad connecting New York City to northern New Jersey. In separate personal injury actions commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, petitioners sought to recover damages for PATH’S alleged negligence; both claimed a right to compensation under the federal law governing injuries to railroad workers, the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq. Hess and Walsh filed their complaints within the 3-year time limit set by the FELA, see 35 Stat. 66, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 56, but neither petitioner met the 1-year limit specified in the States’ statutory consent to sue the Port Authority. See N. J. Stat. Ann. §§32:1-157, 32:1-163 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Laws §§7101, 7107 (McKinney 1979).
PATH moved to dismiss each action, asserting (1) PATH’S qualification as a state agency entitled to the Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court enjoyed by New York and New Jersey, and (2) petitioners’ failure to commence court proceedings within the 1-year limit prescribed by New York and New Jersey. Third Circuit precedent concerning the Port Authority supported PATH’S plea. In Port Authority Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 819 F. 2d 413 (Port Authority PBA), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 953 (1987), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Port Authority is “an agency of the state and is thus entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.” 819 F. 2d, at 418. In reaching this decision, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that “[gjiven the solvency and size of the [Port Authority’s] General Reserve Fund, it is unlikely that the Authority would have to go to the state to get payment for any liabilities issued against it.” Id., at 416. But the Third Circuit considered “crystal clear” the intentions of New York and New Jersey: “[I]f the Authority is ever in need of financial support, the states will be there to provide it.” Ibid.
In line with Port Authority PBA, the District Court held in the Hess and Walsh actions that PATH enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity, and could be sued in federal court only within the 1-year time frame New York and New Jersey allowed. See Walsh, 813 F. Supp. 1095, 1096-1097 (NJ 1993); Hess, 809 F. Supp. 1172, 1178-1182 (NJ 1992). Accordingly, both actions were dismissed.
The District Court in Hess noted an anomaly: Had Hess sued in a New Jersey or New York state court the FELA’s 3-year limitation period, not the States’ 1-year prescription, would have applied. See id., at 1183-1185, and n. 16. This followed from our reaffirmation in Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Comm’n, 502 U. S. 197 (1991), that the entire federal scheme of railroad regulation — including all FELA terms — applies to all railroads, even those wholly owned by one State. Time-bar rejection by a federal court of a federal statutory claim that federal prescription would have rendered timely, had the case been brought in state court, becomes comprehensible, the District Court explained, once it is recognized that “ ‘the Eleventh Amendment does not apply in state courts.’” Hess, 809 F. Supp., at 1183-1184 (quoting Hilton, 502 U. S., at 205); see 809 F. Supp., at 1185, n. 16.
Consolidating Hess and Walsh on appeal, the Third Circuit summarily affirmed the District Court’s judgments. 8 F. 3d 811 (1993) (table).
B
The Port Authority, whose Eleventh Amendment immunity is at issue in these cases, was created in 1921, when Congress, pursuant to the Constitution’s Interstate Compact Clause, consented to a compact between the Authority’s parent States. 42 Stat. 174. Through the bistate compact, New York and New Jersey sought to achieve “a better coordination of the terminal, transportation and other facilities of commerce in, about and through the port of New York.” N. J. Stat. Ann. §32:1-1 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Law § 6401 (McKinney 1979). The compact grants the Port Authority power to
“purchase, construct, lease and/or operate any terminal or transportation facility within [the Port of New York District; and to make charges for the use thereof; and for any of such purposes to own, hold, lease and/or operate real or personal property, to borrow money and secure the same by bonds or by mortgages upon any property held or to be held by it.” N. J. Stat. Ann. § 32:1-7 (West 1990); accord, N. Y. Unconsol. Law § 6407 (McKinney 1979).
The Port Authority’s domain, the Port of New York District, is a defined geographic area that embraces New York Harbor, including parts of New York and New Jersey. See N. J. Stat. Ann. § 32:1-3 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Law § 6403 (McKinney 1979).
“The Port Authority was conceived as a financially independent entity, with funds primarily derived from private investors.” United States Trust Co. of N. Y. v. New Jersey, 431 U. S. 1, 4 (1977). Tolls, fees, and investment income account for the Authority’s secure financial position. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 60a-61a.
Twelve commissioners, six selected by each State, govern the Port Authority. See N. J. Stat. Ann. §§32:1-5, 32:12-3 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Law §6405 (McKinney 1979); 1930 N. Y. Laws, ch. 422, § 6. Each State may remove, for cause, the commissioners it appoints. See N. J. Stat. Ann. §§32:1-5, 32:12-5 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Law §6405 (McKinney 1979); 1930 N. Y. Laws, ch. 422, §4. Consonant with the Authority’s geographic domain, four of New York’s six commissioners must be resident voters of New York City, and four of New Jersey’s must be resident voters of the New Jersey portion of the Port of New York District. See N. J. Stat. Ann. §32:1-5 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Law §6405 (McKinney 1979). The Port Authority’s commissioners also serve as PATH’S directors. See N. J. Stat. Ann. §32:1-35.61 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Law §6612 (McKinney 1979).
The Governor of each State may veto actions of the Port Authority commissioners from that State, including actions taken as PATH directors. See N. J. Stat. Ann. §§32:1-17, 32:1-35.61,32:2-6 to 32:2-9 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Law §§6417, 6612, 7151-7154 (McKinney 1979). Acting jointly, the state legislatures may augment the powers and responsibilities of the Port Authority, see N. J. Stat. Ann. §32:1-8 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Law §6408 (McKinney 1979), and specify the purposes for which the Port Authority’s surplus revenues are used. See N. J. Stat. Ann. §32:1-35.142 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Law §7002 (McKinney 1979).
Debts and other obligations of the Port Authority are not liabilities of the two founding States, and the States do not appropriate funds to the Authority. The compact and its implementing legislation bar the Port Authority from drawing on state tax revenue, pledging the credit of either State, or otherwise imposing any charge on either State. See N. J. Stat. Ann. §§32:1-8, 32:1-33 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Law §§6408, 6459 (McKinney 1979).
The States did agree to appropriate sums to cover the Authority’s “salaries, office and other administrative expenses,” N. J. Stat. Ann. §32:1-16 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Law § 6416 (McKinney 1979), but this undertaking is notably modest. By its terms, it applies only “until the revenues from operations conducted by the [P]ort [Authority are adequate to meet all expenditures.” The promise of support has a low ceiling: $100,000 annually from each State. Thus, the States in no way undertake to cover the bulk of the Authority’s operating and capital expenses. Further, even the limited administrative expense payments for which the States provided are contingent on the advance approval of both Governors, see ibid., and the States’ treasuries may not be tapped until both legislatures have appropriated the necessary funds. See N. J. Stat. Ann. §32:1-18 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Law § 6418 (McKinney 1979). A judgment against PATH, it is thus apparent, would not be enforceable against either New York or New Jersey.
C
The Third Circuit’s assessment of PATH’S qualification for Eleventh Amendment immunity conflicts with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the same matter. See Feeney v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 873 F. 2d 628, 631 (1989), aff’d on other grounds, 495 U. S. 299 (1990). The Second Circuit concluded:
“No provision [of the compact or of state legislation pursuant to the compact] commits the treasuries of the two states to satisfy judgments against the Port Authority ____ We believe that this insulation of state treasuries from the liabilities of the Port Authority outweighs both the methods of appointment and gubernatorial veto so far as the Eleventh Amendment immunity is concerned.” 873 F. 2d, at 631.
We affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment in Feeney, but we bypassed the question whether PATH enjoyed the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U. S. 299 (1990). Assuming, arguendo, that the suit in Feeney was tantamount to a claim against the States, we ruled that New York and New Jersey had effectively consented to the litigation. See id., at 306-309 (relying on N. J. Stat. Ann. §§32:1-157, 32:1-162 (West 1963); N. Y. Unconsol. Laws §§7101, 7106 (McKinney 1979)). Consent is not arguable here, because Hess and Walsh commenced suit too late to meet the 1-year prescription specified by the States. See supra, at 33. Accordingly, we confront directly the sole question petitioners Hess and Walsh present, and we hold that PATH is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.
II
The Eleventh Amendment largely shields States from suit in federal court without their consent, leaving parties with claims against a State to present them, if the State permits, in the State’s own tribunals. Adoption of the Amendment responded most immediately to the States’ fears that “federal courts would force them to pay their Revolutionary War debts, leading to their financial ruin.” Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89, 151 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting); see also Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n, 359 U. S. 275, 276, n. 1 (1959); Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U. S. 18, 27 (1933). More pervasively, current Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence emphasizes the integrity retained by each State in our federal system:
“The Amendment is rooted in a recognition that the States, although a union, maintain certain attributes of sovereignty, including sovereign immunity. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 13 (1890). It thus accords the States the respect owed them as members of the federation.” Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139, 146 (1993).
Bistate entities occupy a significantly different position in our federal system than do the States themselves. The States, as separate sovereigns, are the constituent elements of the Union. Bistate entities, in contrast, typically are creations of three discrete sovereigns: two States and the Federal Government. Their mission is to address “ ‘interests and problems that do not coincide nicely either with the national boundaries or with State lines’ ” — interests that “ ‘may be badly served or not served at all by the ordinary channels of National or State political action.’” V. Thursby, Interstate Cooperation: A Study of the Interstate Compact 5 (1953) (quoting National Resources Committee, Regional Factors in National Planning and Development 34 (1935)); see Grad, Federal-State Compact: A New Experiment in Cooperative Federalism, 63 Colum. L. Rev. 825, 854-855 (1963) (Compact Clause entities formed to deal with “broad, region-wide problems” should not be regarded as “an affirmation of a narrow concept of state sovereignty,” but as “independently functioning parts of a regional polity and of a national union.”).
A compact accorded congressional consent “is more than a supple device for dealing with interests confined within a region.... [I]t is also a means of safeguarding the national interest....” West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U. S. 22, 27 (1951). The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey exemplifies both the need for, and the utility of, Compact Clause entities:
“From the point of view of geography, commerce, and engineering, the Port of New York is an organic whole. Politically, the port is split between the law-making of two States, independent but futile in their respective spheres. The scarcity of land and mounting commerce have concentrated on the New York side of the Hudson River the bulk of the terminal facilities for foreign commerce, while it has made the Jersey side, to a substantial extent, the terminal and breaking-up yards for the east- and west-bound traffic. In addition, both sides of the Hudson are dotted with municipalities, who have sought to satisfy their interest in the general problem through a confusion of local regulations. In addition, the United States has been asserting its guardianship over interstate and foreign commerce. What in fact was one, in law was many. Plainly the situation could not be adequately dealt with except through the coordinated efforts of New York, New Jersey, and the United States. The facts presented a problem for the unified action of the law-making of these three governments, and law heeded facts.” Frankfurter & Landis, The Compact Clause of the Constitution — A Study in Interstate Adjustments, 34 Yale L. J. 685, 697 (1925) (footnote omitted).
Suit in federal court is not an affront to the dignity of a Compact Clause entity, for the federal court, in relation to such an enterprise, is hardly the instrument of a distant, disconnected sovereign; rather, the federal court is ordained by one of the entity’s founders. Nor is the integrity of the compacting States compromised when the Compact Clause entity is sued in federal court. As part of the federal plan prescribed by the Constitution, the States agreed to the power sharing, coordination, and unified action that typify Compact Clause creations. Again, the federal tribunal cannot be regarded as alien in this cooperative, trigovern-mental arrangement. This is all the more apparent here, where the very claims in suit — the FELA claims of Hess and Walsh — arise under federal law. See supra, at 33.
Because Compact Clause entities owe their existence to state and federal sovereigns acting cooperatively, and not to any “one of the United States,” see supra, at 33, n. 2, their political accountability is diffuse; they lack the tight tie to the people of one State that an instrument of a single State has:
“An interstate compact, by its very nature, shifts a part of a state’s authority to another state or states, or to the agency the several states jointly create to run the compact. Such an agency under the control of special interests or gubernatorial^ appointed representatives is two or more steps removed from popular control, or even of control by a local government.” M. Ridgeway, Interstate Compacts: A Question of Federalism 300 (1971).
In sum, within any single State in our representative democracy, voters may exercise their political will to direct state policy; bistate entities created by compact, however, are not subject to the unilateral control of any one of the States that compose the federal system.
Accordingly, there is good reason not to amalgamate Compact Clause entities with agencies of “one of the United States” for Eleventh Amendment purposes. This Court so recognized in Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U. S. 391 (1979), the only case, prior to this one, in which we decided whether a bistate entity qualified for Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Lake Country rejected a plea that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), an agency created by compact to which California and Nevada were parties, acquired the immunity which the Eleventh Amendment accords to each one of TRPA’s parent States. TRPA had argued that if the Amendment shields each State, then surely it must shield an entity “so important that it could not be created by [two] States without a special Act of Congress.” Id., at 400. That “expansive reading,” we said, was not warranted, for the Amendment specifies “the State” as the entity protected:
“By its terms, the protection afforded by [the Eleventh] Amendment is only available to ‘one of the United States.’ It is true, of course, that some agencies exercising state power have been permitted to invoke the Amendment in order to protect the state treasury from liability that would have had essentially the same practical consequences as a judgment against the State itself. But the Court has consistently refused to construe the Amendment to afford protection to political subdivisions such as counties and municipalities, even though such entities exercise a ‘slice of state power.’” Id., at 400-401 (footnotes omitted).
We then set out a general approach: We would presume the Compact Clause agency does not qualify for Eleventh Amendment immunity “[u]nless there is good reason to believe that the States structured the new agency to enable it to enjoy the special constitutional protection of the States themselves, and that Congress concurred in that purpose.” Id., at 401.
The Court in Lake Country found “no justification for reading additional meaning into the limited language of the Amendment.” Indeed, all relevant considerations in that case weighed against TRPA’s plea. The compact called TRPA a “political subdivision,” and required that the majority of the governing members be county and city appointees. Ibid. Obligations of TRPA, the compact directed, “shall not be binding on either State.” TRPA’s prime function, we noted, was regulation of land use, a function traditionally performed by local governments. Further, the agency’s performance of that function gave rise to the litigation. Moreover, rules made by TRPA were “not subject to veto at the state level.” Id., at 402.
This case is more complex. Indicators of immunity or the absence thereof do not, as they did in Lake Country, all point the same way. While 8 of the Port Authority’s 12 commissioners must be resident voters of either New York City or other parts of the Port of New York District, this indicator of local governance is surely offset by the States’ controls. All commissioners are state appointees. Acting alone, each State through its Governor may block Port Authority measures; and acting together, both States, through their legislatures, may enlarge the Port Authority’s powers and add to its responsibilities.
The compact and its implementing legislation do not type the Authority as a state agency; instead they use various terms: “joint or common agency”; “body corporate and politic”; “municipal corporate instrumentality of the two states for the purpose of developing the port and effectuating the pledge of the states in the... compact.” State courts, however, repeatedly have typed the Port Authority an agency of the States rather than a municipal unit or local district. See, e. g., Whalen v. Wagner, 4 N. Y. 2d 575, 581-583, 152 N. E. 2d 54, 56-57 (1958) (legislation authorizing specific Port Authority projects does not pertain to the “property, affairs or government” of a city because “the matters over which the Port Authority has jurisdiction are of State concern”).
Port Authority functions are not readily classified as typically state or unquestionably local. States and municipalities alike own and operate bridges, tunnels, ferries, marine terminals, airports, bus terminals, industrial parks, also commuter railroads. This consideration, therefore, does not advance our Eleventh Amendment inquiry.
Pointing away from Eleventh Amendment immunity, the States lack financial responsibility for the Port Authority. Conceived as a fiscally independent entity financed predominantly by private funds, see United States Trust Co. of N. Y. v. New Jersey, 431 U. S., at 4, the Authority generates its own revenues, and for decades has received no money from the States. See Commissioner v. Shamberg’s Estate, 144 F. 2d 998, 1002 (CA2 1944) (“In the compact... the states agreed to make annual appropriations (not in excess of $100,000 for each state) for expenses of the Authority until [Revenues from its operations were sufficient to meet its expenses. These annual appropriations were discontinued in 1934 because the revenues from the bridges, the Holland Tunnel and Inland Terminal had become sufficient.”), cert. denied, 323 U. S. 792 (1945).
The States, as earlier observed, bear no legal liability for Port Authority debts; they are not responsible for the payment of judgments against the Port Authority or PATH. The Third Circuit, in Port Authority PBA, assumed that, “if the Authority is ever in need,” the States would pay. 819 F. 2d, at 416. But nothing in the compact or the laws of either State supports that assumption. See supra, at 37-38. As the Second Circuit concisely stated:
“The Port Authority is explicitly barred from pledging the credit of either state or from borrowing money in any name but its own. Even the provision for the appropriation of moneys for administrative expenses up to $100,000 per year requires prior approval by the governor of each state and an actual appropriation before obligations for such expenses may be incurred. Moreover, the phrase ‘salaries, office and other administrative expenses’ clearly limits this essentially optional obligation of the two states to a very narrow category of expenses and thus also evidences an intent to insulate the states’ treasuries from the vast bulk of the Port Authority’s operating and capital expenses, including personal injury judgments.” Feeney, 873 F. 2d, at 631.
III
When indicators of immunity point in different directions, the Eleventh Amendment’s twin reasons for being remain our prime guide. See supra, at 39-40. We have already pointed out that federal courts are not alien to a bistate entity Congress participated in creating. Nor is it disrespectful to one State to call upon the Compact Clause entity to answer complaints in federal court. See supra, at 41-43. Seeing no genuine threat to the dignity of New York or New Jersey in allowing Hess and Walsh to pursue FELA claims against PATH in federal court, we ask, as Lake Country instructed, whether there is here “good reason to believe” the States and Congress designed the Port Authority to enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity. 440 U. S., at 401.
PATH urges that we find good reason to classify the Port Authority as a state agency for Eleventh Amendment purposes based on the control New York and New Jersey wield over the Authority. The States appoint and can remove the commissioners, the Governors can veto Port Authority actions, and the States’ legislatures can determine the projects the Port Authority undertakes. See supra, at 36-37. But ultimate control of every state-created entity resides with the State, for the State may destroy or reshape any unit it creates. “[Political subdivisions exist solely at the whim and behest of their State,” Feeney, 495 U. S., at 313 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), yet cities and counties do not enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity. See, e. g., Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 280 (1977); Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529, 530 (1890). Moreover, no one State alone can control the course of a Compact Clause entity. See supra, at 42, and n. 11. Gauging actual control, particularly when an entity has multiple creator-controllers, can be a “perilous inquiry,” “an uncertain and unreliable exercise.” See Note, 92 Colum. L. Rev. 1243, 1284 (1992); see also id., at 1302, and n. 264 (describing “degree to which the state controls the entity” as a criterion neither “[intelligible” nor “judicially manageable”).
Moreover, rendering control dispositive does not home in on the impetus for the Eleventh Amendment: the prevention of federal-court judgments that must be paid out of a State’s treasury. See Fletcher, A Historical Interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment, 35 Stan. L. Rev. 1033, 1129 (1983) (identifying “the award of money judgments against the states” as “the traditional core of eleventh amendment protection”). Accordingly, Courts of Appeals have recognized the vulnerability of the State’s purse as the most salient factor in Eleventh Amendment determinations. See, e. g., Baxter v. Vigo Cty. School Corp., 26 F. 3d 728, 732-733 (CA7 1994) (most significant factor is whether entity has power to raise its own funds); Hutsell v. Sayre, 5 F. 3d 996, 999 (CA6 1993) (“The most important factor... is whether any monetary judgment would be paid out of the state treasury.”), cert. denied, 510 U. S. 1119 (1994); Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, 991 F. 2d 935, 942-943 (CA1 1993) (“First, and most fundamentally, [the entity’s] inability to tap the Commonwealth treasury or pledge the Commonwealth’s credit leaves it unable to exercise the power of the purse. On this basis, [the entity] is ill-deserving of Eleventh Amendment protection.”); Bolden v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Authority, 953 F. 2d 807, 818 (CA3 1991) (in banc) (“[T]he ‘most important’ factor is ‘whether any judgment would be paid from the state treasury.’”) (quoting Fitchik v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 873 F. 2d 655, 659 (CA3) (in banc), cert. denied, 493 U. S. 850 (1989)), cert. denied, 504 U. S. 943 (1992); Bar- ket, Levy & Fine, Inc. v. St. Louis Thermal Energy Corp., 948 F. 2d 1084, 1087 (CA8 1991) (“Because Missouri and Illinois are not liable for judgments against Bi-State, there is no policy reason for extending the states’ sovereign immunity to Bi-State.”); Feeney v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 873 F. 2d, at 631 (“In cases where doubt has existed as to the availability of Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Supreme Court has emphasized the exposure of the state treasury as a critical factor.”), aff’d on other grounds, 495 U. S. 299 (1990); Jacintoport Corp. v. Greater Baton Rouge Port Comm’n, 762 F. 2d 435, 440 (CA5 1985) (“One of the most important goals of the immunity of the Eleventh Amendment is to shield states’ treasuries____The purpose of the immunity therefore largely disappears when a judgment against the entity does not entail a judgment against the state.”), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 1057 (1986). In sum, as New York and New Jersey concede, the “vast majority of Circuits... have concluded that the state treasury factor is the most important factor to be considered... and, in practice, have generally accorded this factor dispositive weight.” Brief for States of New Jersey, New York et al. as Amici Curiae 18-19.
The Port Authority’s anticipated and actual financial independence — its long history of paying its own way, see supra, at 37-38, and n. 7, 45-46— contrasts with the situation of transit facilities that place heavy fiscal tolls on their founding States. In Alaska Cargo Transport, Inc. v. Alaska R. Corp., 5 F. 3d 378 (CA9 1993), for example, Eleventh Amendment immunity was accorded a thinly capitalized railroad that depends for its existence on a state-provided “financial safety net of broad dimension.” Id., at 381. And in Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 781 F. 2d 218 (CADC 1986), Eleventh Amendment immunity was accorded an interstate transit system whose revenue shortfall Congress and the cooperating States anticipated from the start, an enterprise constantly dependent on funds from the participating governments to meet its sizable operating deficits. See id., at 225-227. As the Morris court concluded: “[WJhere an agency is so structured that, as a practical matter, if the agency is to survive, a judgment must expend itself against state treasuries, common sense and the rationale of the eleventh amendment require that sovereign immunity attach to the agency.” Id., at 227. There is no such requirement where the agency is structured, as the Port Authority is, to be self-sustaining. Cf. Royal Caribbean Corp. v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, 973 F. 2d 8, 10-11 (CA1 1992) (Breyer, C. J.) (rejecting Eleventh Amendment immunity plea, despite Commonwealth’s control over agency’s executives, planning, and administration, where agency did not depend on Commonwealth financing for its income and covered its own expenses, including judgments against it).
PATH maintains that the Port Authority’s private funding and financial independence should be assessed differently. Operating profitably, the Port Authority dedicates at least some of its surplus to public projects which the States themselves might otherwise finance. As an example, PATH notes a program under which the Port Authority purchases buses and then leases or transfers them without charge to public and private transportation entities in both States. See N. J. Stat. Ann. §§32:2-23.27 to 32:2-23.42 (West 1990); N. Y. Unconsol. Laws §§7201-7217 (McKinney Supp. 1994); 1993 Annual Financial Report 66. A judgment against the Port Authority, PATH contends, by reducing the Authority’s surplus available to fund such projects, produces an effect equivalent to the impact of a judgment directly against the State. It follows, PATH suggests, that distinguishing the fiscal resources of the Port Authority from the fiscal resources of the States is unrealistic and artificial.
This reasoning misses the mark. A charitable organization may undertake rescue or other good work which, in its absence, we would expect the State to shoulder. But none would conclude, for example, that in times of flood or famine the American Red Cross, to the extent it works for the public, acquires the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. The proper focus is not on the use of profits or surplus, but rather is on losses and debts. If the expenditures of the enterprise exceed receipts, is the State in fact obligated to bear and pay the resulting indebtedness of the enterprise? When the answer is “No” — both legally and practically— then the Eleventh Amendment’s core concern is not implicated.
IV
The conflict between the Second and Third Circuits, it bears emphasis, is no longer over the correct legal theory. Both Circuits, in accord with the prevailing view, see swpm, at 48-49, identify “the ‘state treasury’ criterion — whether any judgment must be satisfied out of the state treasury — as the most important consideration” in resolving an Eleventh Amendment immunity issue. Brief for States of New Jersey, New York et al. as Amici Curiae 2 (acknowledging, but opposing, this widely held view). The intercircuit division thus persists only because the Second and Third Circuits diverge in answering the question: Are the Port Authority’s debts those of its parent States? See ibid.
Two Third Circuit decisions issued after Port Authority PBA, both rejecting Eleventh Amendment pleas by public transit authorities, indicate the narrow compass of the current Circuit split. In Bolden v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Authority, 953 F. 2d 807 (1991) (in banc), cert. denied, 504 U
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 Kagan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA or Board) policy for deciding when resident aliens may apply to the Attorney General for relief from deportation under a now-repealed provision of the immigration laws. We hold that the BIA’s approach is arbitrary and capricious.
The legal background of this case is complex, but the principle guiding our decision is anything but. When an administrative agency sets policy, it must provide a reasoned explanation for its action. That is not a high bar, but it is an unwavering one. Here, the BIA has failed to meet it.
I
A
Federal immigration law governs both the exclusion of aliens from admission to this country and the deportation of aliens previously admitted. Before 1996, these two kinds of action occurred in different procedural settings, with an alien seeking entry (whether for the first time or upon return from a trip abroad) placed in an “exclusion proceeding” and an alien already here channeled to a “deportation proceeding.” See Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U. S. 21, 25-26 (1982) (comparing the two). Since that time, the Government has used a unified procedure, known as a “removal proceeding,” for exclusions and deportations alike. See 8 U. S. C. §§ 1229, 1229a. But the statutory bases for excluding and deporting aliens have always varied. Now, as before, the immigration laws provide two separate lists of substantive grounds, principally involving criminal offenses, for these two actions. One list specifies what kinds of crime render an alien excludable (or in the term the statute now uses, “inadmissible”), see § 1182(a) (2006 ed., Supp. IV), while another — sometimes overlapping and sometimes divergent — list specifies what kinds of crime render an alien deportable from the country, see § 1227(a).
An additional, historic difference between exclusion and deportation cases involved the ability of the Attorney General to grant an alien discretionary relief. Until repealed in 1996, § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 187, 8 U. S. C. § 1182(c) (1994 ed.), authorized the Attorney General to admit certain excludable aliens. See also § 136(p) (1926 ed.) (predecessor provision to § 212(c)). The Attorney General could order this relief when the alien had lawfully resided in the United States for at least seven years before temporarily leaving the country, unless the alien was excludable on one of two specified grounds. See § 1182(c) (1994 ed.). But by its terms, § 212(c) did not apply when an alien was being deported.
This discrepancy threatened to produce an odd result in a case called Matter of L-, 1 I. & N. Dec. 1 (1940), leading to the first-ever grant of discretionary relief in a deportation case. L- was a permanent resident of the United States who had been convicted of larceny. Although L-’s crime made him inadmissible, he traveled abroad and then returned to the United States without any immigration official’s preventing his entry. A few months later, the Government caught up with L- and initiated a deportation action based on his larceny conviction. Had the Government apprehended L- at the border a short while earlier, he would have been placed in an exclusion proceeding where he could have applied for discretionary relief. But because L- was instead in a deportation proceeding, no such relief was available. Responding to this apparent anomaly, Attorney General Robert Jackson (on referral of the case from the BIA) determined that L-could receive a waiver: L-, Jackson said, “should be permitted to make the same appeal to discretion that he could have made if denied admission” when returning from his recent trip. Id., at 6. In accord with this decision, the BIA adopted a policy of allowing aliens in deportation proceedings to apply for discretionary relief under § 212(c) whenever they had left and reentered the country after becoming deportable. See Matter of S-, 6 I. & N. Dec. 392, 394-396 (1954).
But this approach created another peculiar asymmetry: Deportable aliens who had traveled abroad and returned could receive § 212(c) relief, while those who had never left could not. In Francis v. INS, 532 F. 2d 268 (1976), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that this disparity violated equal protection. Id., at 273 (“[A]n alien whose ties with this country are so strong that he has never departed after his initial entry should receive at least as much consideration as an individual who may leave and return from time to time”). The BIA acquiesced in the Second Circuit’s decision, see Matter of Silva, 16 I. & N. Dec. 26 (1976), thus applying § 212(c) in deportation proceedings regardless of an alien’s travel history.
All this might have become academic when Congress repealed § 212(c) in 1996 and substituted a new discretionary-remedy, known as “cancellation of removal,” which is available in a narrow range of circumstances to excludable and deportable aliens alike. See 8 U. S. C. § 1229b. But in INS v. St Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 326 (2001), this Court concluded that the broader relief afforded by § 212(c) must remain available, on the same terms as before, to an alien whose removal is based on a guilty plea entered before §212(c)'s repeal. We reasoned that aliens had agreed to those pleas with the possibility of discretionary relief in mind and that eliminating this prospect would ill comport with “ ‘familiar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations.’” Id., at 323 (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244, 270 (1994)). Accordingly, § 212(c) has had an afterlife for resident aliens with old criminal convictions.
When the BIA is deciding whether to exclude such an alien, applying § 212(c) is an easy matter. The Board first checks the statutory ground that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified as the basis for exclusion; the Board may note, for example, that DHS has charged the alien with previously committing a “crime involving moral turpitude,” see 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Unless the charged ground is one of the pair falling outside §212(c)’s scope, see n. 1, supra, the alien is eligible for discretionary relief. The Board then determines whether to grant that relief based on such factors as “the seriousness of the offense, evidence of either rehabilitation or recidivism, the duration of the alien’s residence, the impact of deportation on the family, the number of citizens in the family, and the character of any service in the Armed Forces.” St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 296, n. 5.
By contrast, when the BIA is deciding whether to deport an alien, applying § 212(c) becomes a tricky business. Recall that § 212(c) applies on its face only to exclusion decisions. So the question arises: How is the BIA to determine when an alien should receive § 212(c) relief in the deportation context?
One approach that the BIA formerly used considered how the alien would fare in an exclusion proceeding. To perform this analysis, the Board would first determine whether the criminal conviction making the alien deportable fell within a statutory ground for exclusion. Almost all convictions did so, largely because the “crime involving moral turpitude” ground encompasses so many offenses. Assuming that threshold inquiry were met, the Board would mimic its approach in exclusion eases — first making sure the statutory ground at issue was not excepted from § 212(e) and then conducting the multi-factor analysis. See Matter of Tanori, 15 I. & N. Dec. 566, 567-568 (1976); In re Manzueta, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ], 2003 WL 23269892 (BIA, Dec. 1, 2003).
A second approach is the one challenged here; definitively adopted in 2005 (after decades of occasional use), it often is called the “comparable-grounds” rule. See, e. g., De la Rosa v. U S. Attorney General, 579 F. 3d 1327, 1332 (CA11 2009). That approach evaluates whether the ground for deportation charged in a case has a close analogue in the statute’s list of exclusion grounds. See In re Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722, 728 (2005); In re Brieva-Perez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 766, 772-773 (2005). If the deportation ground consists of a set of crimes “substantially equivalent” to the set of offenses making up an exclusion ground, then the alien can seek § 212(c) relief. Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec., at 728. But if the deportation ground charged covers significantly different or more or fewer offenses than any exclusion ground, the alien is not eligible for a waiver. Such a divergence makes § 212(c) inapplicable even if the particular offense committed by the alien falls within an exclusion ground.
Two contrasting examples from the BIA’s cases may help to illustrate this approach. Take first an alien convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine, whom DHS seeks to deport on the ground that he has committed an “aggravated felony” involving “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance.” 8 U.S. C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Under the comparable-grounds rule, the immigration judge would look to see if that deportation ground covers substantially the same offenses as an exclusion ground. And according to the BIA in Matter of Meza, 20 I. & N. Dec. 257 (1991), the judge would find an adequate match — the exclusion ground applicable to aliens who have committed offenses “relating to a controlled substance,” 8 U. S. C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) and (a)(2)(C).
Now consider an alien convicted of first-degree sexual abuse of a child, whom DHS wishes to deport on the ground that he has committed an “aggravated felony” involving “sexual abuse of a minor.” §§1101(a)(43)(A), 1227(a)(2) (A)(iii). May this alien seek § 212(c) relief? According to the BIA, he may not do so — not because his crime is too serious (that is irrelevant to the analysis), but instead because no statutory ground of exclusion covers substantially the same offenses. To be sure, the alien’s own offense is a “crime involving moral turpitude,” 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a) (2)(A)(i)(I), and so fits within an exclusion ground. Indeed, that will be true of most or all offenses included in this deportation category. See supra, at 49. But on the BIA’s view, the “moral turpitude” exclusion ground “addresses a distinctly different and much broader category of offenses than the aggravated felony sexual abuse of a minor charge.” Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec., at 728. And the much greater sweep of the exclusion ground prevents the alien from seeking discretionary relief from deportation.
Those mathematically inclined might think of the comparable-grounds approach as employing Venn diagrams. Within one circle are all the criminal offenses composing the particular ground of deportation charged. Within other circles are the offenses composing the various exclusion grounds. When, but only when, the “deportation circle” sufficiently corresponds to one of the “exclusion circles” may an alien apply for § 212(c) relief.
B
Petitioner Joel Judulang is a native of the Philippines who entered the United States in 1974 at the age of eight. Since that time, he has lived continuously in this country as a lawful permanent resident. In 1988, Judulang took part in a fight in which another person shot and killed someone. Ju-dulang was charged as an accessory and eventually pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter. He received a 6-year suspended sentence and was released on probation immediately after his plea.
In 2005, after Judulang pleaded guilty to another criminal offense (this one involving theft), DHS commenced an action to deport him. DHS charged Judulang with having committed an “aggravated felony” involving “a crime of violence,” based on his old manslaughter conviction. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(F), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The Immigration Judge ordered Judulang’s deportation, and the BIA affirmed. As part of its decision, the BIA considered whether Judulang could apply for § 212(c) relief. It held that he could not do so because the “crime of violence” deportation ground is not comparable to any exclusion ground, including the one for crimes involving moral turpitude. App. to Pet. for Cert. 8a. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Judu-lang’s petition for review in reliance on circuit precedent upholding the BIA’s comparable-grounds approach. Judulang v. Gonzales, 249 Fed. Appx. 499, 502 (2007) (citing Abebe v. Gonzales, 493 F. 3d 1092 (2007)).
We granted certiorari, 563 U. S. 935 (2011), to resolve a circuit split on the approach’s validity. We now reverse.
II
This case requires us to decide whether the BIA’s policy for applying § 212(c) in deportation cases is “arbitrary [or] capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A). The scope of our review under this standard is “narrow”; as we have often recognized, “a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn, of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43 (1983); see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 416 (1971). Agencies, the BIA among them, have expertise and experience in administering their statutes that no court can properly ignore. But courts retain a role, and an important one, in ensuring that agencies have engaged in reasoned decisionmaking. When reviewing an agency action, we must assess, among other matters, “‘whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.’” State Farm, 463 U. S., at 43 (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U. S. 281, 285 (1974)). That task involves examining the reasons for agency decisions — or, as the case may be, the absence of such reasons. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U. S. 502, 515 (2009) (noting “the requirement that an agency provide reasoned explanation for its action”).
The BIA has flunked that test here. By hinging a deport-able alien’s eligibility for discretionary relief on the chance correspondence between statutory categories — a matter irrelevant to the alien’s fitness to reside in this country— the BIA has. failed to exercise its discretion in a reasoned manner.
A
The parties here spend much time disputing whether the BIA must make discretionary relief available to deportable and excludable aliens on identical terms. As this case illustrates, the comparable-grounds approach does not do so. If Judulang were seeking entry to this country, he would be eligible for § 212(c) relief; voluntary manslaughter is “a crime involving moral turpitude,” and so his conviction falls within an exclusion ground. But Judulang cannot apply for relief from deportation because the “crime of violence” ground charged in his case does not match any exclusion ground (including the one for “turpitudinous” crimes). See infra, at 57. Judulang argues that this disparity is impermissible because any disparity between excludable and deportable aliens is impermissible: If an alien may seek § 212(c) relief in an exclusion case, he also must be able to seek such relief in a deportation case. See Brief for Petitioner 47-51. But the Government notes that the immigration laws have always drawn distinctions between exclusion and deportation. See Brief for Respondent 51. And the Government presses a policy reason for making § 212(c) relief more readily available in exclusion cases. Doing so, it argues, will provide an incentive for some resident aliens (i. e., those eligible for a waiver from exclusion, but not deportation) to report themselves to immigration officials, by applying for advance permission to exit and reenter the country. In contrast, applying § 212(c) uniformly might lead all aliens to “try to evade immigration officials for as long as possible,” because they could in any event “seek [discretionary] relief if caught.” Id., at 52.
In the end, we think this dispute beside the point, and we do not resolve it. The BIA may well have legitimate reasons for limiting §212(c)’s scope in deportation cases. But still, it must do so in some rational way. If the BIA proposed to narrow the class of deportable aliens eligible to seek § 212(c) relief by flipping a coin — heads an alien may apply for relief, tails he may not — we would reverse the policy in an instant. That is because agency action must be based on non-arbitrary, “‘relevant factors,’” State Farm, 463 U. S., at 43 (quoting Bowman Transp., 419 U. S., at 285), which here means that the BIA’s approach must be tied, even if loosely, to the purposes of the immigration laws or the appropriate operation of the immigration system. A method for disfavoring deportable aliens that bears no relation to these matters — that neither focuses on nor relates to an alien’s fitness to remain in the country — is arbitrary and capricious. And that is true regardless whether the BIA might have acted to limit the class of deportable aliens eligible for § 212(c) relief on other, more rational bases.
The problem with the comparable-grounds policy is that it does not impose such a reasonable limitation. Rather than considering factors that might be thought germane to the deportation decision, that policy hinges § 212(c) eligibility on an irrelevant comparison between statutory provisions. Recall that the BIA asks whether the set of offenses in a particular deportation ground lines up with the set in an exclusion ground. But so what if it does? Does an alien charged with a particular deportation ground become more worthy of relief because that ground happens to match up with another? Or less worthy of relief because the ground does not? The comparison in no way changes the alien’s prior offense or his other attributes and circumstances. So it is difficult to see why that comparison should matter. Each of these statutory grounds contains a slew of offenses. Whether each contains the same slew has nothing to do with whether a deportable alien whose prior conviction falls within both grounds merits the ability to seek a waiver.
This case well illustrates the point. In commencing Judu-lang ⅛ deportation proceeding, the Government charged him with an “aggravated felony” involving a “crime of violence” based on his prior manslaughter conviction. See App. to Pet. for Cert. lla-12a. That made him ineligible for § 212(c) relief because the “crime of violence” deportation ground does not sufficiently overlap with the most similar exclusion ground, for “crimefe] involving moral turpitude.” The problem, according to the BIA, is that the “crime of violence” ground includes a few offenses — simple assault, minor burglary, and unauthorized use of a vehicle — that the “moral turpitude” ground does not. See Brieva-Perez, 23 I. & N. Dec., at 772-773; Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29, 40-41. But this statutory difference in no way relates to Judulang — or to most other aliens charged with committing a “crime of violence.” Perhaps aliens like Judulang should be eligible for § 212(c) relief, or perhaps they should not. But that determination is not sensibly made by establishing that simple assaults and minor burglaries fall outside a ground for exclusion. That fact is as extraneous to the merits of the case as a coin flip would be. It makes Judulang no less deserving of the opportunity to seek discretionary relief — -just as its converse (the inclusion of simple assaults and burglaries in the “moral turpitude” exclusion ground) would make him no more so.
Or consider a different headscratching oddity of the comparable-grounds approach — that it may deny § 212(c) eligibility to aliens whose deportation ground fits entirely inside an exclusion ground. The BIA’s Blake decision, noted earlier, provides an example. See supra, at 50. The deportation ground charged was “aggravated felony” involving “sexual abuse of a minor”; the closest exclusion ground was, once again, a “crime [of] moral turpitude.” 23 I. & N. Dec., at 727. Here, the BIA’s problem was not that the deportation ground covered too many offenses; all or virtually all the crimes within that ground also are crimes of moral turpitude. Rather, the BIA objected that the deportation ground covered too few crimes — or put oppositely, that “the moral turpitude ground of exclusion addresses a... much broader category of offenses.” Id., at 728. But providing relief in exclusion cases to a broad class of aliens hardly justifies denying relief in deportation cases to a subset of that group. (The better argument would surely be the reverse — that giving relief in the one context supports doing so in the other.) Again, we do not say today that the BIA must give all de-portable aliens meeting § 212(c)’s requirements the chance to apply for a waiver. See supra, at 55-56. The point is instead that the BIA cannot make that opportunity turn on the meaningless matching of statutory grounds.
And underneath this layer of arbitrariness lies yet another, because the outcome of the Board’s comparable-grounds analysis itself may rest on the happenstance of an immigration official’s charging decision. This problem arises because an alien’s prior conviction may fall within a number of deportation grounds, only one of which corresponds to an exclusion ground. Consider, for example, an alien who entered the country in 1984 and committed voluntary manslaughter in 1988. That person could be charged (as Judulang was) with an “aggravated felony” involving a “crime of violence,” see 8 U. S. C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(F), 1227(a) (2)(A)(iii). If so, the alien could not seek a waiver because of the absence of a comparable exclusion ground. But the alien also could be charged with “a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years... after the date of admission,” see § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). And if that were the deportation charge, the alien could apply for relief, because the ground corresponds to the “moral turpitude” ground used in exclusion cases. See In re Salmon, 16 I. & N. Dec. 734 (1978). So everything hangs on the charge. And the Government has provided no reason to think that immigration officials must adhere to any set scheme in deciding what charges to bring, or that those officials are exercising their charging discretion with § 212(c) in mind. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 34-36. So at base everything hangs on the fortuity of an individual official’s decision. An alien appearing before one official may suffer deportation; an identically situated alien appearing before another may gain the right to stay in this country.
In a foundational deportation case, this Court recognized the high stakes for an alien who has long resided in this country, and reversed an agency decision that would “make his right to remain here dependent on circumstances so fortuitous and capricious.” Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U. S. 388, 391 (1947). We think the policy before us similarly flawed. The comparable-grounds approach does not rest on any factors relevant to whether an alien (or any group of aliens) should be deported. It instead distinguishes among aliens — decides who should be eligible for discretionary relief and who should not — solely by comparing the metes and bounds of diverse statutory categories into which an alien falls. The resulting Venn diagrams have no connection to the goals of the deportation process or the rational operation of the immigration laws. Judge Learned Hand wrote in another early immigration case that deportation decisions cannot be made a “sport of chance.” See Di Pasquale v. Karnuth, 158 F. 2d 878, 879 (CA2 1947) (quoted in Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449, 455 (1963)). That is what the comparable-grounds rule brings about, and that is what the APA’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard is designed to thwart.
B
The Government makes three arguments in defense of the comparable-grounds rule — the first based on statutory text, the next on history, the last on cost. We find none of them persuasive.
1
The Government initially contends that the comparable-grounds approach is more faithful to “the statute’s language,” Brief for Respondent 21 — or otherwise said, that “lifting that limit ‘would take immigration practice even further from the statutory text,’” id,., at 22 (quoting Matter of Hernandez-Casillas, 20 I. & N. Dec. 262, 287 (1990)). In the Government’s view, § 212(c) is “phrased in terms of waiving statutorily specified grounds of exclusion”; that phrasing, says the Government, counsels a comparative analysis of grounds when applying § 212(c) in the deportation context. Brief for Respondent 21; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 34 (“[T]he reason [the comparable-grounds approach] makes sense is because the statute only provides for relief from grounds of... exclusion”).
The first difficulty with this argument is that it is based on an inaccurate description of the statute. Section 212(c) instructs that certain resident aliens “may be admitted in the discretion of the Attorney General” notwithstanding any of “the provisions of subsection (a)... (other than paragraphs (3) and (9)(C)).” 8 U. S. C. § 1182(c) (1994 ed.). Subsection (a) contains the full list of exclusion grounds; paragraphs (3) and (9)(C) (which deal with national security and international child abduction) are two among these. What § 212(c) actually says, then, is that the Attorney General may admit any excludable alien, except if the alien is charged with two specified grounds. And that means that once the Attorney General determines that the alien is not being excluded for those two reasons, the ground of exclusion no longer matters. At that point, the alien is eligible for relief, and the thing the Attorney General waives is not a particular exclusion ground, but the simple denial of entry. So the premise of the Government’s argument is wrong. And if the premise, so too the conclusion — that is, because § 212(c)’s text is not “phrased in terms of waiving statutorily specified grounds of exclusion,” Brief for Respondent 21, it cannot counsel a search for corresponding grounds of deportation.
More fundamentally, the comparable-grounds approach would not follow from § 212(c) even were the Government right about the section’s phrasing. That is because § 212(c) simply has nothing to do with deportation: The provision was not meant to interact with the statutory grounds for deportation, any more than those grounds were designed to interact with the provision. Rather, § 212(c) refers solely to exclusion decisions; its extension to deportation cases arose from the agency’s extra-textual view that some similar relief should be available in that context to avoid unreasonable distinctions. Cf., e. g., Matter ofL-, 11. & N. Dec., at 5; see also supra, at 47. Accordingly, the text of § 212(c), whether or not phrased in terms of “waiving grounds of exclusion,” cannot support the BIA’s use of the comparable-grounds rule— or, for that matter, any other method for extending discretionary relief to deportation cases. We well understand the difficulties of operating in such a text-free zone; indeed, we appreciate the Government’s yearning for a textual anchor. But § 212(c), no matter how many times read or parsed, does not provide one.
2
In disputing Judulang’s contentions, the Government also emphasizes the comparable-grounds rule’s vintage. See Brief for Respondent 22-23, 30-43. As an initial matter, we think this a slender reed to support a significant government policy. Arbitrary agency action becomes no less so by simple dint of repetition. (To use a prior analogy, flipping coins to determine § 212(c) eligibility would remain as arbitrary on the thousandth try as on the first.) And longstanding capriciousness receives no special exemption from the APA. In any event, we cannot detect the consistency that the BIA claims has marked its approach to this issue. To the contrary, the BIA has repeatedly vacillated in its method for applying § 212(c) to deportable aliens.
Prior to 1984, the BIA endorsed a variety of approaches. In Matter of T, 5 I. & N. Dec. 389, 390 (1953), for example, the BIA held that an alien was not eligible for § 212(c) relief because her “ground of deportation” did not appear in the exclusion statute. That decision anticipated the comparable-grounds approach that the BIA today uses. But in Tanori, the BIA pronounced that a deportable alien could apply for a waiver because “the same facts” — in that case, a marijuana conviction — would have allowed him to seek § 212(c) relief in an exclusion proceeding. 15 I. & N. Dec., at 568. That approach is more nearly similar to the one Judu-lang urges here. And then, in Matter of Granados, 16 I. & N. Dec. 726,728 (1979), the BIA tried to have it both ways: It denied § 212(c) eligibility both because the deportation ground charged did not correspond to, and because the alien’s prior conviction did not fall within, a waivable ground of exclusion. In short, the BIA’s eases were all over the map.
The Government insists that the BIA imposed order in Matter of Wadud, 19 I. & N. Dec. 182, 185-186 (1984), when it held that a deportable alien could not seek § 212(c) relief unless the deportation ground charged had an “analogous ground of inadmissibility.” See Brief for Respondent 40-41. But the BIA’s settlement, if any, was fleeting. Just seven years later, the BIA adopted a new policy entirely, extending § 212(c) eligibility to “aliens deportable under any ground of deportability except those where there is a comparable ground of exclusion which has been specifically excepted from section 212(c).” Hernandez-Casillas, 20 I. & N. Dec., at 266. That new rule turned the comparable-grounds approach inside-out, allowing aliens to seek § 212(c) relief in deportation cases except when the ground charged corresponded to an exclusion ground that could not be waived. To be sure, the Attorney General (on referral of the case from the BIA), disavowed this position in favor of the more standard version of the comparable-grounds rule. Id., at 287. But even while doing so, the Attorney General stated that “an alien subject to deportation must have the same opportunity to seek discretionary relief as an alien... subject to exclusion.” Ibid. That assertion is exactly the one Judu-lang makes in this case; it is consonant not with the comparable-grounds rule the BIA here defends, but instead with an inquiry into whether an alien’s prior conviction falls within an exclusion ground.
Given these mixed signals, it is perhaps not surprising that the BIA continued to alternate between approaches in the years that followed. Immediately after the Attorney General’s opinion in Hernandez-Casillas, the BIA endorsed the comparable-grounds approach on several occasions. See Meza, 20 I. & N. Dec., at 259; Matter of Montenegro, 20 I. & N. Dec. 603, 604-605 (1992); Matter of Gabryelsky, 20 I. & N. Dec. 750, 753-754 (1993); In re Esposito, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1, 6-7 (1995); In re Jimenez-Santillano, 211. & N. Dec. 567, 571-572 (1996). But just a few years later, the BIA issued a series of unpublished opinions that asked only whether a deportable alien’s prior conviction fell within an exclusion ground. See, e. g., In re Manzueta, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ], 2003 WL 23269892 (Dec. 1, 2003). Not until the BIA’s decisions in Blake and Brieva-Perez did the pendulum stop swinging. That history hardly supports the Government’s view of a consistent agency practice.
3
The Government finally argues that the comparable-grounds rule saves time and money. The Government claims that comparing deportation grounds to exclusion grounds can be accomplished in just a few “precedential decision[s],” which then can govern broad swaths of cases. See Brief for Respondent 46. By contrast, the Government argues, Judulang’s approach would force it to determine whether each and every crime of conviction falls within an exclusion ground. Further, the Government contends that Judulang’s approach would grant eligibility to a greater number of deportable aliens, which in turn would force the Government to make additional individualized assessments of whether to actually grant relief. Id., at 47.
Once again, the Government’s rationale comes up short. Cost is an important factor for agencies to consider in many contexts. But cheapness alone cannot save an arbitrary agency policy. (If it could, flipping coins would be a valid way to determine an alien’s eligibility for a waiver.) And in any event, we suspect the Government exaggerates the cost savings associated with the comparable-grounds rule. Judu-lang’s proposed approach asks immigration officials only to do what they have done for years in exclusion cases; that means, for one thing, that officials can make use of substantial existing precedent governing whether a crime falls within a ground of exclusion. And Judulang’s proposal may not be the only alternative to the comparable-grounds rule. See supra, at 55-56. In rejecting that rule, we do not preclude the BIA from trying to devise another, equally economical policy respecting eligibility for § 212(c) relief, so long as it comports with everything held in both this
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 petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed. Fribourg Navigation Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ante, p. 272.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice White dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice White in Fribourg Navigation Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra.
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.
Mr. Justice Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners were indicted for a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act-. Before the case was set for trial, each petitioner filed a motion under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for an order requiring the
United States to produce for inspection all books, papers, documents, or objects obtained from petitioners and obtained by seizure or process from others. An agreed order was entered by the court and the Government fully complied therewith. The validity of this order is not in question.
Petitioners also moved under Rule 17 (c) for an order directing the Government at a time and place to be specified therein to produce for inspection certain other books, papers, documents and objects obtained by the Government by means other than seizure or process. Petitioners filed and served on the Government attorneys a subpoena duces tecum, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:
“all documents, books, papers and objects (except memoranda prepared by Government counsel, and documents or papers solicited by or volunteered to Government counsel which consist of narrative statements of persons or memoranda of interviews), obtained by Government counsel, in any manner other than by seizure or process, (a) in the course of the investigation by Grand Jury No. 8949 which resulted in the return of the indictment herein, and (b) in the course of the Government’s preparation for the trial of this cause, if such books, papers, documents and objects, (a) have been presented to the Grand Jury; or (b) are to be offered as evidence on the trial of the defendants, or any of them, under said indictment; or (c) are relevant to the allegations or charges contained in said indictment, whether or not they might constitute evidence with respect to the guilt or innocence of any of the defendants . . . .”
A hearing was held and the court entered an order directing the Government to produce for petitioners’ inspection the materials designated in the subpoena.
Thereafter the Government moved to quash the subpoena and to set aside the order, contending that the access of a defendant in a criminal proceeding to materials in custody of Government attorneys is limited to rights granted by Rule 16 and that the District Court had erred in ordering production of the subpoenaed materials. This motion was denied. Respondent Hotchkiss, one of the Government attorneys to whom the subpoena was addressed, had possession of the materials called for, but refused to produce any of them. After a hearing, the District Court held him in contempt. The Court of Appeals reversed, 185 F. 2d 159. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the scope of Rule 17 (c) in federal practice. 340 U. S. 919.
During the hearing on petitioners’ motions for an order under Rule 17 (c), respondent Hotchkiss, acting for the Government, had offered to produce, and to enter into a stipulation therefor, all documents of evidentiary character, in the custody of the Government obtained other than by seizure or process, i. e., documents other than the work product of the Government, solicited and volunteered narrative statements, and memoranda of interviews. However, this offer did not include documents furnished the Government by voluntary and confidential informants.
The subpoena was broad enough to include any documents and other materials that had been furnished the Government by voluntary informants and which did not “consist of narrative statements of persons or memoranda of interviews.” The Government’s chief objection to the subpoena, as stated to the court by respondent Hotchkiss, was as follows:
“Mr. Hotchkiss: There is only one objection — basic objection which I would make to the form which is proposed: This language in this subpoena or proposed subpoena, as I construe it does not protect those confidential informants who have provided the Government with confidential material which the Government feels on the basis of very well established principles followed by the courts are normally protected from the view of litigants.”
It appears from respondent’s colloquy with the court that the confidential material which he would except from the subpoena consisted of “documents furnished the Government without process or seizure by voluntary informants.”
It was intended by the rules to give some measure of discovery. Rule 16 was adopted for that purpose. It gave discovery as to documents and other materials otherwise beyond the reach of the defendant which, as in the instant case, might be numerous and difficult to identify. The rule was to apply not only to documents and other materials belonging to the defendant, but also to those belonging to others which had been obtained by seizure or process. This was a departure from what had theretofore been allowed in criminal cases.
Rule 16 deals with documents and other materials that are in the possession of the Government and provides how they may be made available to the defendant for his information. In the interest of orderly procedure in the handling of books, papers, documents and objects in the custody of the Government accumulated in the course of an investigation and subpoenaed for use before the grand jury and on the trial, it was provided by Rule 16 that the court could order such materials made available to the defendant for inspection and copying or photographing. In that way, the control and possession of the Government is not disturbed. Rule 16 provides the only way the defendant can reach such materials so as to inform himself.
But if such materials or any part of them are not put in evidence by the Government, the defendant may subpoena them under Rule 17 (c) and use them himself. It would be strange indeed if the defendant discovered some evidence by the use of Rule 16 which the Government was not going to introduce and yet could not require its production by Rule 17 (c). There may be documents and other materials in the possession of the Government not subject to Rule 16. No good reason appears to us why they may not be reached by subpoena under Rule 17 (c) as long as they are evidentiary. That is not to say that the materials thus subpoenaed must actually be used in evidence. It is only required that a good-faith effort be made to obtain evidence. The court may control the use of Rule 17 (c) to that end by its power to rule on motions to quash or modify.
It was not intended by Rule 16 to give a limited right of discovery, and then by Rule 17 to give a right of discovery in the broadest terms. Rule 17 provided for the usual subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum, which may be issued by the clerk, with the provision that the court may direct the materials designated in the subpoena duces tecum to be produced at a specified time and place for inspection by the defendant. Rule 17 (c) was not intended to provide an additional means of discovery. Its chief innovation was to expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of the subpoenaed materials. United States v. Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Assn., 9 F. R. D. 509. However, the plain words of the Rule are not to be ignored. They must be given their ordinary meaning to carry out the purpose of establishing a more liberal policy for the production, inspection and use of materials at the trial. There was no intention to exclude from the reach of process of the defendant any material that had been used before the grand jury or could be used at the trial. In short, any document or other materials, admissible as evidence, obtained by the Government by solicitation or voluntarily from third persons is subject to subpoena. It was material of this character which the Government was unwilling to stipulate to produce or to produce in obedience to the subpoena. Such materials were subject to the subpoena. Where the court concludes that such materials ought to be produced, it should, of course, be solicitous to protect against disclosures of the identity of informants, and the method, manner and circumstances of the Government’s acquisition of the materials.
Clause (c), which is the last clause in the subpoena, reads as follows:
“are relevant to the allegations or charges contained in said indictment, whether or not they might constitute evidence with respect to the guilt or innocence of any of the defendants . . . .”
This is a catch-all provision, not intended to produce evidentiary materials but is merely a fishing expedition to see what may turn up. The clause is therefore invalid.
The subpoena calls for materials which the Government is bound to produce and for materials it is not bound to produce. The District Court said: “Give us all.” The Government replied: “We will give you nothing.” Both were wrong. The Government should produce the evi-dentiary materials called for by the subpoena. It need not produce anything under clause (c).
One should not be held in contempt under a subpoena that is part good and part bad. The burden is on the court to see that the subpoena is good in its entirety and it is not upon the person who faces punishment to cull the good from the bad.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mk. Justice Black would affirm the District Court.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. § 1.
“Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection.
“Upon motion of a defendant at any time after the filing of the indictment or information, the court may order the attorney for the government to permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph designated books, papers, documents or tangible objects, obtained from or belonging to the defendant or obtained from others by seizure or by process, upon a showing that the items sought may be material to the preparation of his defense and that the request is reasonable. The order shall specify the time, place and manner of making the inspection and of taking the copies or photographs and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.”
“Rule 17. SubpoeNA.
“(a) For Attendance op Witnesses; Form; Issuance. A subpoena shall be issued by the clerk . . . and shall command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony at the time and place specified therein. The clerk shall issue a subpoena, signed and sealed but otherwise in blank to a party requesting it, who shall fill in the blanks before it is served.
“(c) For Production op Documentary Evidence and op Objects. A subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce the books, papers, documents or other objects designated therein. The court on motion made promptly may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. The court may direct that books, papers, documents or objects designated in the subpoena be produced before the court at a time prior to the trial or prior to the time when they are to be offered in evidence and may upon their production permit the books, papers, documents or objects or portions thereof to be inspected by the parties and their attorneys.”
See Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 16, 18 U. S. C., p. 1969.
“We also find in the same rule, under (c), a provision for the production of documentary evidence or objects — the familiar subpoena duces tecum — and if the person upon whom the subpoena is served thinks it is broad or unreasonable or oppressive he may apply to the court to quash the subpoena. Furthermore, while normally under a subpoena the books and other things called for would merely be brought into court at the time of the trial, let us say immediately before they are to be offered in evidence, there is a provision in this rule that the court may, in the proper case, direct that they be brought into court in advance of the time that they are offered in evidence, so that they may then be inspected in advance, for the purpose of course of enabling the party to see whether he can use it or whether he wants to use it.” Statement of Mr. G. Aaron Youngquist, Member of Advisory Committee, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Proceedings of the Institute on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (New York University School of Law, Institute Proceedings, Vol. VI, 1946), pp. 167-168.
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.
In Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202 (1985), this Court held that “when resolution of a state-law claim is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between the parties in a labor contract,” the plaintiff’s claim is pre-empted by §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. §185. 471 U. S., at 220. The question presented by this case is whether a state-law tort claim that a union has breached its duty of care to provide a union member with a safe workplace is sufficiently independent of the collective-bargaining agreement to withstand the pre-emptive force of §301.
I
At all times relevant to this case, plaintiff-respondent Sally Hechler was employed by Florida Power and Light Company (Florida Power) as an electrical apprentice. Petitioners, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and its Local 759 (collectively referred to as the Union), are the exclusive bargaining representatives for the bargaining unit in which respondent was employed. On January 11, 1982, Florida Power assigned respondent to a job in an electrical substation that required her to perform tasks she alleges were beyond the scope of her training and experience. Shortly after commencing her new assignment, respondent was injured when she came into contact with highly energized components at the substation.
Two years later, respondent sued the Union in state court in Broward County, Fla. In her complaint, she alleged that “pursuant to contracts and agreements entered into by and between” the Union and Florida Power, and “pursuant to the relationship by and between” the Union and respondent, the Union had a duty to ensure that respondent “was provided safety in her work place and a safe work place,” and to ensure that respondent “would not be required or allowed to take undue risks in the performance of her duties which were not commensurate with her training and experience.” App. 4. The Union, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1441, removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on the grounds that the “alleged duty arises solely from the alleged collective bargaining agreement between [the Union] and Florida Power,” and therefore that any breach of this duty was actionable under §301. 1 Record 3. Respondent at that time raised no objection to the removal.
In federal court, the Union moved to dismiss the complaint. It argued that respondent’s claim arose solely under federal labor law and was untimely under the applicable federal statute of limitations. Id., at 66-70. Respondent conceded: “The nature and scope of the duty of care owed [her] is determined by reference to the collective bargaining agreement.” Id., at 98. She argued, however, that the basic nature of her action was a state common-law “suit in tort” for the Union’s negligence in failing to provide her á safe workplace. Id., at 100-102. Respondent prayed that the case be remanded to the state court.
The District Court granted the Union’s motion to dismiss. The court observed that the gravamen of the complaint was that the Union had breached a duty of care to respondent to provide her a safe workplace. “Significantly, the duty allegedly owed to [Hechler] flows from the collective bargaining agreement, which imposes a duty on the [Union] to monitor the safety and training of its members.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a. The court concluded that because respondent had failed “to demonstrate that the [Union’s] allegedly negligent activity was unrelated to the collective bargaining agreement or beyond the scope of the employee-union fiduciary relationship,” her claim was pre-empted by federal labor law. Id., at 4a. Having found that respondent’s suit was governed by federal law, the court then held that the 6-month statute of limitations adopted in DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151 (1983), applied to Hechler’s case, and dismissed the suit as untimely.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. 772 F. 2d 788 (1985). It ruled that the complaint “on its face states a common law negligence claim that may be cognizable in state court and is not preempted by the federal labor laws.” Id., at 790-791. The court concluded: “Though the [collective-bargaining] contract may be of use in defining the scope of the duty owed, liability will turn on basic negligence principles as developed by state law.” Id., at 794. Finding that “federal labor law was not invoked in plaintiff’s complaint,” id., at 799, the court directed that the District Court remand the case to the state court for adjudication on the merits.
Because the Eleventh Circuit’s decision appeared to conflict with the decision of the Sixth Circuit in Michigan Mutual Ins. Co. v. Steelworkers, 774 F. 2d 104 (1985), we granted certiorari. 476 U. S. 1113 (1986).
1 H-i
A
In Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202 (1985), we reviewed the pre-emptive scope of §301. We think it useful, at the outset, to repeat briefly the background outlined in the opinion in Allis-Chalmers. In Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448 (1957), the Court held that § 301 does more than simply confer jurisdiction on federal courts to hear suits charging violations of collective-bargaining agreements. Id., at 450-451. The Court concluded that Congress, through § 301, had authorized federal courts to create a body of federal law for the enforcement of collective-bargaining agreements — law “which the courts must fashion from the policy of our national labor laws. ” Id., at 456. It was explained in Allis-Chalmers, 471 U. S., at 209, that the Court in Lincoln Mills “understood § 301 as a congressional mandate to the federal courts to fashion a body of federal common law to be used to address disputes arising out of labor contracts.”
Not long after Lincoln Mills was decided, the Court held that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over §301 claims. Charles Dowd, Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502 (1962). Although the Court in Dowd proceeded upon the hypothesis that state courts would apply federal law when they exercised jurisdiction over §301 claims, it was in another case that same Term, Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95 (1962), that the Court expressly held that federal law, and not state law, must be used in adjudicating §301 claims. There the Court observed: “The dimensions of § 301 require the conclusion that substantive principles of federal labor law must be paramount in the area covered by the statute.” 369 U. S., at 103. The need for this uniformity was clearly explained:
“The possibility that individual contract terms might have different meanings under state and federal law would inevitably exert a disruptive influence upon both the negotiation and administration of collective agreements. Because neither party could be certain of the rights which it had obtained or conceded, the process of negotiating an agreement would be made immeasurably more difficult by the necessity of trying to formulate contract provisions in such a way as to contain the same meaning under two or more systems of law which might someday be invoked in enforcing the contract. Once the collective bargain was made, the possibility of conflicting substantive interpretation under competing legal sys-terns would tend to stimulate and prolong disputes as to its interpretation.” Id., at 103-104.
The Court thus concluded that “in enacting § 301 Congress intended doctrines of federal labor law uniformly to prevail over inconsistent local rules.” Id., at 104.
While the Court in Lucas Flour observed that federal law was paramount in “the area covered by” §301, 369 U. S., at 103, in Allis-Chalmers the Court defined the range of claims that should be considered as coming within that coverage. The ordinary § 301 case is a contract claim in which a party to the collective-bargaining agreement expressly asserts that a provision of the agreement has been violated. See, e. g., Lucas Flour, 369 U. S., at 104 (claim by employer that strike by union violated provision of collective-bargaining agreement). In Allis-Chalmers, however, the Court considered an employee’s state-law tort action against his employer for bad-faith handling of disability-benefit payments due under a collective-bargaining agreement, and concluded that the interests supporting the uniform interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements under federal common law apply equally in the context of certain state-law tort claims. The Court set forth this basic principle:
“The interests in interpretive uniformity and predictability that require that labor-contract disputes be resolved by reference to federal law also require that the meaning given a contract phrase or term be subject to uniform federal interpretation. Thus, questions relating to what the parties to a labor agreement agreed, and what legal consequences were intended to flow from breaches of that agreement, must be resolved by reference to uniform federal law, whether such questions arise in the context of a suit for breach of contract or in a suit alleging liability in tort. Any other result would elevate form over substance and allow parties to evade the requirements of § 301 by relabeling their contract claims as claims for tortious breach of contract.” 471 U. S., at 211.
The Court pointed out that if state law, in the context of a tort action, were allowed to determine the meaning of particular contract phrases or terms in a collective-bargaining agreement, “all the evils addressed in Lucas Flour would recur”; the “parties would be uncertain as to what they were binding themselves to” in a collective-bargaining agreement, and, as a result, “it would be more difficult to reach agreement, and disputes as to the nature of the agreement would proliferate.” Ibid.
In Allis-Chalmers, the Court applied the rule that a tort claim “inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract” is pre-empted under §301, 471 U. S., at 213, and concluded that the claim in Allis-Chalmers fell within that category. The employee’s allegation there was that his employer and its insurance company intentionally had failed to make required disability payments under a plan negotiated in a collective-bargaining agreement, and that, in so doing, they had breached a state-law insurance duty to act “in good faith” in’paying disability benefits. Id., at 206. The Court observed that any attempt to assess liability on the part of the employer would inevitably involve interpretation of the underlying collective-bargaining contract. First, the disability plan adopted in the collective-bargaining agreement might itself have included an implied requirement of good faith that the employer breached by its conduct. The Court explained: “[I]t is a question of federal contract interpretation whether there was an obligation under this labor contract to provide the payments in a timely manner, and, if so, whether Allis-Chalmers’ conduct breached that implied contract provision. ” Id., at 215. Second, under the relevant state law, the duty of “good faith” on which the plaintiff relied “intrinsically relate[d] to the nature and existence of the contract.” Id., at 216. The concept of “good faith” meant ‘“being faithful to one’s duty or obligation/” ibid., quoting Hilker v. Western Automobile Ins. Co., 204 Wis. 1, 13, 235 N. W. 413, 414 (1931), and, under state law, that duty was determined primarily by analyzing the responsibilities agreed to by the insurer in the written contract. The Court reasoned: “Because the right asserted not only derives from the contract, but is defined by the contractual obligation of good faith, any attempt to assess liability here inevitably will involve contract interpretation.” 471 U. S., at 218. Inasmuch as federal law must control the uniform meaning given to contract terms in a collective-bargaining agreement, however, an employee’s state-law tort action that necessarily rests on an interpretation of those terms is pre-empted by § 301. Id., at 218-219.
B
Under the principle set forth in Allis-Chalmers, we must determine if respondent’s claim is sufficiently independent of the collective-bargaining agreement to withstand the preemptive force of § 301. Respondent’s state-law tort claim is based on her allegation that the Union owed a duty of care to provide her with a safe workplace and to monitor her work assignments to ensure that they were commensurate with her skills and experience. Under the common law, however, it is the employer, not a labor union, that owes employees a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing a safe workplace. See, e. g., W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts 569 (5th ed. 1984); White v. Consolidated Freight Lines, 192 Wash. 146, 148, 73 P. 2d 358, 359 (1937). Under Florida case law, as under the general common law, the employer “owes a duty to his employees to furnish a reasonably safe place to work, and must use ordinary care and diligence to keep it safe.” 2 Fla. Jur. 2d, Agency and Employment § 154, p. 343 (1977) (footnote omitted); see, e. g., Putnam Lumber Co. v. Berry, 146 Fla. 595, 604-607, 2 So. 2d 133, 137-138 (1941). See also Fla. Stat. §440.56(1) (1981) (“Every employer . . . shall furnish employment which shall be safe for the employees therein, furnish and use safety devices and safeguards . . . and do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, and safety of such employees”).
Another party, such as a labor union, of course, may assume a responsibility towards employees by accepting a duty of care through a contractual arrangement. If a party breaches a contractual duty, the settled rule under Florida law is that the aggrieved party may bring either an action for breach of contract or a tort action for the injuries suffered as a result of the contractual breach. See, e. g., Banfield v. Addington, 104 Fla. 661, 669-670, 140 So. 893, 897 (1932); Parrish v. Clark, 107 Fla. 598, 603, 145 So. 848, 850 (1933) (“[A]n action may arise for the breach of the contract, or for the positive tort committed by the violation of a duty arising out of the assumption of the contractual relation”); Safeco Title Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 452 So. 2d 45, 48 (Fla. App. 1984) (it is a “long-established general principle that injuries caused by the allegedly negligent performance of a contractual duty may be redressed through a tort action”). The threshold inquiry for determining if a cause of action exists is an examination of the contract to ascertain what duties were accepted by each of the parties and the scope of those duties. See 38 Fla. Jur. 2d, Negligence § 17, p. 29 (1982); Vorndran v. Wright, 367 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. App. 1979) (architect’s contract did not include a duty to ensure compliance with safety regulations and thus employee injured on the job had no cause of action against the architect); Schauer v. Blair Construction Co., 374 So. 2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. App. 1979) (summary judgment in favor of architect improperly granted when genuine issue of material fact existed regarding architect’s alleged contractual obligation to supervise construction).
In her complaint, respondent alleges precisely this type of tortious breach-of-contract claim. She asserts that “pursuant to contracts and agreements” between the Union and Florida Power, “to which contracts and agreements the Plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary,” the Union owed respondent a duty of care to ensure her a safe working environment. App. 4. Having assumed this duty under the collective-bargaining agreement, the Union — according to the complaint — was then negligent “by allowing [Hechler] to be assigned to work in ... a dangerous location and environment and by failing to provide her with or ascertaining that she had the necessary training, experience, background, and education to work in such a dangerous environment,” and was further negligent in failing to “provid[e] and/or enforc[e] safety rules, regulations and requirements which would preclude such persons with inadequate and insufficient background, training, education, and experience, such as the Plaintiff,. . . from being placed in such an inherently dangerous working environment.” Id., at 5.
Respondent’s allegations of negligence assume significance if — and only if — the Union, in fact, had assumed the duty of care that the complaint alleges the Union breached. The collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and Florida Power, and ancillary agreements between those parties, contain provisions on safety and working requirements for electrical apprentices on which Hechler could try to base an argument that the Union assumed an implied duty of care. In order to determine the Union’s tort liability, however, a court would have to ascertain, first, whether the collective-bargaining agreement in fact placed an implied duty of care on the Union to ensure that Hechler was provided a safe workplace, and, second, the nature and scope of that duty, that is, whether, and to what extent, the Union’s duty extended to the particular responsibilities alleged by respondent in her complaint. Thus, in this case, as in Allis-Chalmers, it is clear that “questions of contract interpretation . . . underlie any finding of tort liability.” 471 U. S., at 218. The need for federal uniformity in the interpretation of contract terms therefore mandates that here, as in AUis-Chalmers, respondent is precluded from evading the preemptive force of § 301 by casting her claim as a state-law tort action.
l — I HH y — i
If respondent’s suit is treated as a § SOI claim, a court must determine whether her claim is time barred by the applicable statute of limitations under federal law. The Union argues that respondent’s claim can be characterized only as a “duty of fair representation” claim against the Union for failing properly to represent Hechler’s interests before the employer, and that her claim must therefore be governed by the 6-month period of limitations prescribed by DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151 (1983). Respondent argues, however, that her suit is not a “duty of fair representation” claim, but is simply a § 301 claim, on the basis of her status as a third-party beneficiary of the collective-bargaining agreement and the Union’s breach of duties assumed under that agreement.
The Court of Appeals did not review the District Court’s holding that the 6-month period of limitations adopted in DelCostello governs Hechler’s suit, because it concluded that respondent’s claim was not pre-empted under federal labor law. We believe it appropriate for the Court of Appeals to consider, in the first instance, whether the period of limitations adopted in DelCostello is applicable to Hechler’s claim.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit therefore is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA) states:
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.” 29 U. S. C. § 185(a).
See Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, 102 (1962), discussing Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502 (1962). In Dowd, the Court impliedly referred to state courts as working with the federal courts “as there evolves in this field of labor management relations that body of federal common law of which Lincoln Mills spoke.” Id., at 514.
The Court took care in Allis-Chalmers to define the precise limits of its holding. The rule there set forth is that, when a state-law claim is substantially dependent on analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement, a plaintiff may not evade the pre-emptive force of § 301 of the LMRA by casting the suit as a state-law claim. 471 U. S., at 220. The Court emphasized, however: “In extending the pre-emptive effect of § 301 beyond suits for breach of contract, it would be inconsistent with congressional intent under that section to pre-empt state rules that proscribe conduct, or establish rights and obligations, independent of a labor contract.” Id., at 212.
The provision on “Safety” in the collective-bargaining agreement reads:
“The safety of the employees is a matter of paramount importance, shall receive first consideration, and no employee shall be allowed or required to take any undue risk in the performance of his duties which he or his Foreman or Supervisor consider unsafe to himself or to his fellow workers. Supervisors and Foreman will be held strictly responsible for the enforcement of safe working rules.” App. 13-14.
The provision also establishes a labor-management “Joint Safety Committee” which is “responsible for developing and recommending an effective safety program for all employees covered by this Agreement, including changes or additions to present safety rules, conducting investigations of accidents when deemed necessary.” Id., at 14.
A second provision, present in a side agreement entitled “The Manner An Electrical Apprentice Will Work” states:
“It is recognized that an Electrical Apprentice is in training under Journeymen to become a qualified Journeyman. It is also recognized that as he progresses in his apprenticeship, he becomes qualified to perform productive work, and will be expected to perform all the duties of a Journeyman which he has become qualified to do. It is not the intention of the Company to use an Apprentice on any type of work which the Apprentice has not become qualified to perform through experience and training. In this regard, the Company will not require an Apprentice to work on, climb through or work above energized conductors carrying more than 500 volts during his first year of apprenticeship.” Id., at 17.
In her brief to this Court, respondent argues, for the first time, that her claim is not dependent on an interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement, because the Union’s duty of care to her may arise through independent state-law responsibilities placed upon the Union simply by virtue of its relationship with its members, rather than as a result of the collective-bargaining agreement. Brief for Respondent 15-19. Respondent points out that she alleged that the Union owed her a duty of care “pursuant to contracts and agreements” entered into between the Union and Florida Power “and pursuant to the relationship by and between” the Union and Hechler. App. 4 (emphasis added).
Even assuming that respondent’s pleadings may be construed liberally as stating that various, unenumerated Florida laws place a duty of care on a union to provide a safe workplace for its members, respondent effectively abandoned that theory in the lower courts and we decline to consider the argument here. Hechler argued below simply that, the Union’s duty of care arose from and was determined by the collective-bargaining agreement to which she was a third-party beneficiary. In opposing the Union’s motion to dismiss in the District Court, Hechler conceded: “The nature and scope of the duty of care owed Plaintiff is determined by reference to the collective bargaining agreement.” 1 Record 98. She made no reference to an alternative theory that the “nature and scope” of the Union’s duty of care also may be determined by reference to state law operating independently of the collective-bargaining agreement. Although she repeated her statement that the duty of care owed her by the Union arose “by virtue of the parties [sic] relationship and the collective bargaining agreement,” ibid., she never suggested that the “relationship” between the parties gave rise to a duty of care distinct from the duty created by the collective-bargaining agreement. Not surprisingly, the District Court, relying on Hechler’s formulation of her claim, observed: “Significantly, the duty allegedly owed to plaintiff flows from the collective bargaining agreement.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Hechler continued to characterize the Union’s duty of care as grounded in the collective-bargaining agreement. She described the issue presented as “whether the federal labor laws preempt a worker’s state common-law action against her union for negligence in breaching its duty — created by the union's contract with the employer— to insure that the plaintiff was properly trained for her work assignment.” Brief for Appellant in No. 84-5799 (CA11), p. ii (emphasis added).' See also id., at 1, 45, n. 47. Again, there was no mention by Hechler of the existence of other state law that might form an alternative source of the Union’s duty. The Court of Appeals accepted the proposition that the Union’s duty of care would arise from the collective-bargaining agreement, but agreed with Heehler that, “[t]hough the contract may be of use in defining the scope of the duty owed,” the suit essentially remained a state-law claim of negligence. 772 F. 2d 788, 794 (1985).
Respondent repeated the theory adopted by the Court of Appeals in her opposition to the Union’s certiorari petition in this Court. Brief in Opposition 4, 8-9. In her brief on the merits to this Court, she argued for the first time that the Union possibly was subject to an independent state-law duty of care, unconnected to the collective-bargaining agreement, and arising simply from the relationship of a union to its members. Even if such a state-law obligation, which would directly regulate the responsibility of a union in a workplace, could survive the pre-emptive power of federal labor law, we conclude that it is too late in the day for respondent to present to the Court this newfound legal theory. We decline to rule on the impact of hypothetical state law when the relevance of such law was neither presented to or passed on by the courts below, nor presented to us in the response to the petition for certiorari.
In DelCostello, the Court concluded that a hybrid suit, consisting of a §301 claim against an employer and a duty-of-fair-representation claim against a union, is similar to an unfair labor practices charge, and that federal courts should therefore borrow the 6-month limitations period established in § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 160(b), for such charges. A duty-of-fair-representation claim arises when a union that represents an employee in a grievance or arbitration procedure acts in a “discriminatory, dishonest, arbitrary, or perfunctory” fashion. 462 U. S., at 164. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171 (1967); Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S. 554 (1976). The Court in DelCostello expressly distinguished the hybrid § 301/duty-of-fair-representation claim before it from “a straightforward breach-of-contract suit under §301.” 462 U. S., at 165.
An individual employee may bring a §801 claim against an employer for violation of the collective-bargaining agreement between the union and the employer. Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195 (1962). Although employees usually bring duty-of-fair-representation claims against their union rather than § 301 claims, see, e. g., Vaca v. Sipes, supra, third-party beneficiaries to a contract ordinarily have the right to bring a claim based on the contract. The Union has not contested respondent’s right to bring a § 301 claim against it based on her status as a third-party beneficiary to the collective-bargaining agreement, although it has attempted to recast her suit as a duty-of-fair-representation claim.
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 Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This petition joins two separate suits, each challenging a different regulation issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in administering the alien legalization program created by Title II of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. In each instance, a District Court struck down the regulation challenged and issued a remedial order directing the INS to accept legalization applications beyond the statutory deadline; the Court of Appeals consolidated the INS’s appeals from these orders, and affirmed the District Courts’ judgments. We are now asked to consider whether the District Courts had jurisdiction to hear the challenges, and whether their remedial orders were permitted by law. We find the record insufficient to decide all jurisdictional issues and accordingly vacate and remand for new jurisdictional determinations and, if appropriate, remedial orders limited in accordance with the views expressed here.
I
On November 6, 1986, the President signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, Title II of which established a scheme under which certain aliens unlawfully present in the United States could apply, first, for the status of a temporary resident and then, after a 1-year wait, for permission to reside permanently. An applicant for temporary resident status must have resided continuously in the United States in an unlawful status since at least January 1, 1982, 8 U. S. C. § 1255a(a)(2)(A); must have been physically present in the United States continuously since November 6,1986, the date the Reform Act was enacted, § 1255a(a)(3)(A); and must have been otherwise admissible as an immigrant, § 1255a(a)(4). The applicant must also have applied during the 12-month period beginning on May 5, 1987. § 1255a(a)(l).
The two separate suits joined before us challenge regulations addressing, respectively, the first two of these four requirements. The first, Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc. (CSS), et al., focuses on an INS interpretation of 8 U. S. C. § 1255a(a)(3), the Reform Act’s requirement that applicants for temporary residence prove “continuous physical presence” in the United States since November 6,1986. To mitigate this requirement, the Reform Act provides that “brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States” will not break the required continuity. § 1255a(a)(3)(B). In a telex sent to its regional offices on November 14, 1986, however, the INS treated the exception narrowly, stating that it would consider an absence “brief, casual, and innocent” only if the alien had obtained INS permission, known as “advance parole,” before leaving the United States; aliens who left without it would be “ineligible for legalization.” App. 186. The INS later softened this limitation somewhat by regulations issued on May 1, 1987, forgiving a failure to get advance parole for absences between November 6, 1986, and May 1, 1987. But the later regulation confirmed that any absences without advance parole on or after May 1, 1987, would not be considered “brief, casual, and innocent” and would therefore be taken to have broken the required continuity. See 8 CFR §245a.l(g) (1992) (“Brief, casual, and innocent means a departure authorized by [the INS] (advance parole) subsequent to May 1, 1987 of not more than thirty (30) days for legitimate emergency or humanitarian purposes”).
The CSS plaintiffs challenged the advance parole regulation as an impermissible construction of the Reform Act. After certifying the case as a class action, the District Court eventually defined a class comprising “persons prima facie eligible for legalization under [8 U. S. C. § 1255a] who departed and reentered the United States without INS authorization (i. e. ‘advance parole’) after the enactment of the [Reform Act] following what they assert to have been a brief, casual and innocent absence from the United States.” No. Civ. S-86-1343 LKK (ED Cal., May 3, 1988) (App. 50). On April 22, 1988, 12 days before the end of the legalization program’s 12-month application period, the District Court granted partial summary judgment invalidating the regulation and declaring that “brief, casual, and innocent” absences did not require prior INS approval. No. Civ. S-86-1343 LKK (ED Cal., Apr. 22, 1988) (Record, Doc. No. 161); see Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. Meese, 685 F. Supp. 1149 (ED Cal. 1988) (explaining the basis of the April 22 order). No appeal was taken by the INS (by which initials we will refer to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Attorney General collectively), and after further briefing on remedial issues the District Court issued an order on June 10, 1988, requiring the INS to extend the application period to November 30, 1988 for class members who “knew of [the INS’s] unlawful regulation and thereby concluded that they were ineligible for legalization and by reason of that conclusion did not file an application.” No. Civ. S-86-1343 LKK (ED Cal., June 10, 1988) (App. to Pet. for Cert. 25a). Two further remedial orders issued on August 11,1988, provided, respectively, an alternative remedy if the extension of the application period should be invalidated on appeal, and further specific relief for any class members who had been detained or apprehended by the INS or who were in deportation proceedings. No. Civ. S-86-1343 LKK (ED Cal.) (Record, Doc. Nos. 187,189). The INS appealed all three of the remedial orders.
The second of the two lawsuits, styled INS v. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) et al., goes to the INS’s interpretation of 8 U. S. C. § 1255a(a)(2)(A), the Reform Act’s “continuous unlawful residence” requirement. The Act provides that certain brief trips abroad will not break an alien’s continuous unlawful residence (just as certain brief absences from the United States would not violate the “continuous physical presence” requirement). See § 1255a(g)(2)(A). Under an INS regulation, however, an alien would fail the “continuous unlawful residence” requirement if he had gone abroad and reentered the United States by presenting “facially valid” documentation to immigration authorities. 8 CFR § 245a.2(b)(8) (1992). On the INS’s reasoning, an alien’s use of such documentation made his subsequent presence “lawful” for purposes of § 1255a(a)(2)(A), thereby breaking the continuity of his unlawful residence. Thus, an alien who had originally entered the United States under a valid nonimmigrant visa, but had become an unlawful resident by violating the terms of that visa in a way known to the Government before January 1,1982, was eligible for relief under the Reform Act. If, however, the same alien left the United States briefly and then used the same visa to get back in (a facially valid visa that had in fact become invalid after his earlier violation of its terms), he rendered himself ineligible.
In July 1987, the LULAC plaintiffs brought suit challenging the reentry regulation as inconsistent both with the Act and the equal protection limitation derived from Fifth Amendment due process. With this suit still pending, on November 17, 1987, some seven months into the Reform Act’s 12-month application period, the INS modified its reentry policy by issuing two new regulations. The first, codified at 8 CFR § 245a.2(b)(9) (1992), specifically acknowledged the eligibility of an alien who “reentered the United States as a nonimmigrant... in order to return to an unrelinquished unlawful residence,” so long as he “would be otherwise eligible for legalization and... was present in the United States in an unlawful status prior to January 1,1982.” 52 Fed. Reg. 43845 (1987). The second, codified at 8 CFR §245a.2(b)(10) (1992), qualified this expansion of eligibility by obliging such an alien to obtain a waiver of a statutory provision requiring exclusion of aliens who enter the United States by fraud. Ibid.
Although the LULAC plaintiffs then amended their complaint, they pressed their claim that 8 CFR § 245a.2(b)(8) (1992), the reentry regulation originally challenged, had been invalid prior to its modification. As to that claim, the District Court certified the case as a class action, with a class including
“all persons who qualify for legalization but who were deemed ineligible for legalization under the original [reentry] policy, who learned of their ineligibility following promulgation of the policy and who, relying upon information that they were ineligible, did not apply for legalization before the May 4,1988 deadline.” No. 87-4757-WDK (JRx) (CD Cal., July 15, 1988) (App. 216).
On July 15, 1988, 10 weeks after the end of the 12-month application period, the District Court held the regulation invalid, while reserving the question of remedy. Ibid. (App. 224-225). Again, the INS took no appeal. The LULAC plaintiffs then sought a remedial order extending the application period for class members to November 30, 1988, and compelling the INS to publicize the modified policy and the extended application period. They argued that the INS had effectively truncated the 12-month application period by enforcing the invalid regulation, by publicizing the regulation so as to dissuade potential applicants, and by failing to give sufficient publicity to its change in policy. On August 12, 1988, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. No. 87-4757-WDK (JRx) (CD Cal., Aug. 12, 1988) (App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a). The INS appealed this remedial order.
In its appeals in both CSS and LULAC, the INS raised two challenges to the orders of the respective District Courts. First, it argued that the restrictive judicial review provisions of the Reform Act barred district court jurisdiction over the claim in each case. It contended, second, that each District Court erred in ordering an extension of the 12-month application period, the 12-month limit being, it maintained, a substantive statutory restriction on relief beyond the power of a court to alter.
The Ninth Circuit eventually consolidated the two appeals. After holding them pending this Court’s disposition of McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U. S. 479 (1991), it rendered a decision in February 1992, affirming the District Courts. Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 956 F. 2d 914 (1992). We were prompted to grant certiorari, 505 U. S. 1203 (1992), by the importance of the issues, and by a conflict between Circuits on the jurisdictional issue, see Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 292 U. S. App. D. C. 150, 156-162, 948 F. 2d 742, 748-754 (1991) (holding that the Reform Act precluded district court jurisdiction over a claim that INS regulations were inconsistent with the Act), cert, pending, No. 91-1924. We now vacate and remand.
II
The Reform Act not only sets the qualifications for obtaining temporary resident status, but also provides an exclusive scheme for administrative and judicial review of “determination[s] respecting... application^] for adjustment of status” under the Title II legalization program. 8 U. S. C. § 1255a(f)(l). Section 1255a(f)(3)(A) directs the Attorney General to “establish an appellate authority to provide for a single level of administrative appellate review” of such deter-initiations. Section 1255a(f)(4)(A) provides that a denial of adjustment of status is subject to review by a court “only in the judicial review of an order of deportation under [8 U. S. C. § 1105a]”; under § 1105a, this review takes place in the courts of appeals. Section 1255a(f)(l) closes the circle by explicitly rendering the scheme exclusive: “There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a determination respecting an application for adjustment of status under this section except in accordance with this subsection.”
Under this scheme, an alien denied adjustment of status by the INS in the first instance may appeal to the Associate Commissioner for Examinations, the “appellate authority” designated by the Attorney General pursuant to § 1255a(f)(3)(A). See 8 CFR §§ 103.1(f)(l)(xxvii), 245a.2(p) (1992). Although the Associate Commissioner’s decision is the final agency action on the application, an adverse decision does not trigger deportation proceedings. On the contrary, because the Reform Act generally allows the INS to use information in a legalization application only to make a determination on the application, see 8 U. S. C. § 1255a(c)(5), an alien whose appeal has been rejected by the Associate Commissioner stands (except for a latent right to judicial review of that rejection) in the same position he did before he applied: he is residing in the United States in an unlawful status, but the Government has not found out about him yet. We call the right to judicial review “latent” because § 1255a(f)(4)(A) allows judicial review of a denial of adjustment of status only on appeal of “an order of deportation.” Hence, the alien must first either surrender to the INS for deportation or wait for the INS to catch him and commence a deportation proceeding, and then suffer a final adverse decision in that proceeding, before having an opportunity to challenge the INS’s denial of his application in court.
The INS takes these provisions to preclude the District Courts from exercising jurisdiction over the claims in both the CSS and LULAC cases, reasoning that the regulations it adopted to elaborate the qualifications for temporary resident status are “determination^] respecting an application for adjustment of status” within the meaning of § 1255a(f)(1); because the claims in CSS and LULAC attack the validity of those regulations, they are subject to the limitations contained in § 1255a(f), foreclosing all jurisdiction in the district courts, and granting it to the courts of appeals only on review of a deportation order. The INS recognizes, however, that this reasoning is out of line with our decision in McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., supra, where we construed a virtually identical set of provisions governing judicial review within a separate legalization program for agricultural workers created by Title III of the Reform Act. There, as here, the critical language was “a determination respecting an application for adjustment of status.” We said that “the reference to ‘a determination’ describes a single act rather than a group of decisions or a practice or procedure employed in making decisions.” Id., at 492. We noted that the provision permitting judicial review only in the context of a deportation proceeding also defined its scope by reference to a single act: “‘judicial review of such a denial.’” Ibid. (emphasis in original) (quoting 8 U. S. C. § 1160(e)(3)); see § 1255a(f)(4)(A) (using identical language). We therefore decided that the language setting the limits of the jurisdictional bar “describes the denial of an individual application,” 498 U. S., at 492, and thus “applies only to review of denials of individual... applications.” Id., at 494. The INS gives us no reason to reverse course, and we reject its argument that § 1255a(f)(1) precludes district court jurisdiction over an action challenging the legality of a regulation without referring to or relying on the denial of any individual application.
Section 1255a(f)(l), however, is not the only jurisdictional hurdle in the way of the CSS and LULAC plaintiffs, whose claims still must satisfy the jurisdictional and justiciability requirements that apply in the absence of a specific congressional directive. To be sure, a statutory source of jurisdiction is not lacking, since 28 U. S. C. § 1331, generally granting federal-question jurisdiction, “confer[s] jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U. S. 99, 105 (1977). Neither is it fatal that the Reform Act is silent about the type of judicial review those plaintiffs seek. We customarily refuse to treat such silence “as a denial of authority to [an] aggrieved person to seek appropriate relief in the federal courts,” Stark v. Wickard, 321 U. S. 288, 309 (1944), and this custom has been “reinforced by the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act, which embodies the basic presumption of judicial review to one ‘suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.’ ” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140 (1967) (quoting 5 U. S. C. § 702).
As we said in Abbott Laboratories, however, the presumption of available judicial review is subject to an implicit limitation: “injunctive and declaratory judgment remedies,” what the respondents seek here, “are discretionary, and courts traditionally have been reluctant to apply them to administrative determinations unless these arise in the context of a controversy ‘ripe’ for judicial resolution,” 387 U. S., at 148, that is to say, unless the effects of the administrative action challenged have been “felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties,” id., at 148-149. In some cases, the promulgation of a regulation will itself affect parties concretely enough to satisfy this requirement, as it did in Abbott Laboratories itself. There, for example, as well as in Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn., Inc., 387 U. S. 167 (1967), the promulgation of the challenged regulations presented plaintiffs with the immediate dilemma to choose between complying with newly imposed, disadvantageous restrictions and risking serious penalties for violation. Abbott Laboratories, supra, at 152-153; Gardner, supra, at 171-172. But that will not be so in every case. In Toilet Goods Assn., Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 158 (1967), for example, we held that a challenge to another regulation, the impact of which could not “be said to be felt immediately by those subject to it in conducting their day-to-day affairs,” id., at 164, would not be ripe before the regulation’s application to the plaintiffs in some more acute fashion, since “no irremediably] adverse consequences flow[ed] from requiring a later challenge,” ibid. See Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U. S. 871, 891 (1990) (a controversy concerning a regulation is not ordinarily ripe for review under the Administrative Procedure Act until the regulation has been applied to the claimant’s situation by some concrete action).
The regulations challenged here fall on the latter side of the line. They impose no penalties for violating any newly imposed restriction, but limit access to a benefit created by the Reform Act but not automatically bestowed on eligible aliens. Rather, the Act requires each alien desiring the benefit to take further affirmative steps, and to satisfy criteria beyond those addressed by the disputed regulations. It delegates to the INS the task of determining on a case-by-case basis whether each applicant has met all of the Act’s conditions, not merely those interpreted by the regulations in question. In these circumstances, the promulgation of the challenged regulations did not itself give each CSS and LTJLAC class member a ripe claim; a class member’s claim would ripen only once he took the affirmative steps that he could take before the INS blocked his path by applying the regulation to him.
Ordinarily, of course, that barrier would appear when the INS formally denied the alien’s application on the ground that the regulation rendered him ineligible for legalization. A plaintiff who sought to rely on the denial of his application to satisfy the ripeness requirement, however, would then still find himself at least temporarily barred by the Reform Act’s exclusive review provisions, since he would be seeking “judicial review of a determination respecting an application.” 8 U. S. C. § 1255a(f)(l). The ripeness doctrine and the Reform Act’s jurisdictional provisions would thus dovetail neatly, and not necessarily by mere coincidence. Congress may well have assumed that, in the ordinary case, the courts would not hear a challenge to regulations specifying limits to eligibility before those regulations were actually applied to an individual, whose challenge to the denial of an individual application would proceed within the Reform Act’s limited scheme. The CSS and LULAC plaintiffs do not argue that this limited scheme would afford them inadequate review of a determination based on the regulations they challenge, presumably because they would be able to obtain such review on appeal from a deportation order, if they become subject to such an order; their situation is thus different from that of the “17 unsuccessful individual SAW applicants” in McNary, 498 U. S., at 487, whose procedural objections, we concluded, could receive no practical judicial review within the scheme established by 8 U. S. C. § 1160(e), id., at 496-497.
This is not the end of the matter, however, because the plaintiffs have called our attention to an INS policy that may well have placed some of them outside the scope of § 1255a(f)(l). The INS has issued a manual detailing procedures for its offices to follow in implementing the Reform Act’s legalization programs and instructing INS employees called “Legalization Assistants” to review certain applications in the presence of the applicants before accepting them for filing. See Procedures Manual for the Legalization and Special Agricultural Worker Programs of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Legalization Manual or Manual). According to the Manual, “[mjinor correctable deficiencies such as incomplete responses or typographical errors may be corrected by the [Legalization Assistant].” Id., at IV-6. “[I]f the applicant is statutorily ineligible,” however, the Manual provides that “the application will be rejected by the [Legalization Assistant].” Ibid, (emphasis added). Because this prefiling rejection of applications occurs at the front desk of an INS office, it has come to be called “front-desking. ” While the regulations challenged in CSS and LULAC were in force, Legalization Assistants who applied both the regulations and the Manual’s instructions may well have “front-desked” the applications of class members who disclosed the circumstances of their trips outside the United States, and affidavits on file in the LULAC case represent that they did exactly that. See n. 26, infra.
As respondents argue, see Brief for Respondents 17, n. 23, a class member whose application was “front-desked” would have felt the effects of the “advance parole” or “facially valid document” regulation in a particularly concrete manner, for his application for legalization would have been blocked then and there; his challenge to the regulation should not fail for lack of ripeness. Front-desking would also have a further, and untoward, consequence for jurisdictional purposes, for it would effectively exclude an applicant from access even to the limited administrative and judicial review procedures established by the Reform Act. He would have no formal denial to appeal to the Associate Commissioner for Examinations, nor would he have an opportunity to build an administrative record on which judicial review might be based. Hence, to construe §1255a(f)(l) to bar district court jurisdiction over his challenge, we would have to impute to Congress an intent to preclude judicial review of the legality of INS action entirely under those circumstances. As we stated recently in McNary, however, there is a “well-settled presumption favoring interpretations of statutes that allow judicial review of administrative action,” 498 U. S., at 496; and we will accordingly find an intent to preclude such review only if presented with “‘clear and convincing evidence/ ” Abbott Laboratories, 387 U. S., at 141 (quoting Rusk v. Cort, 369 U. S. 367, 379-380 (1962)). See generally Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U. S. 667, 670-673 (1986) (discussing the presumption in favor of judicial review).
There is no such clear and convincing evidence in the statute before us. Although the phrase “a determination respecting an application for adjustment of status” could conceivably encompass a Legalization Assistant’s refusal to accept the application for filing at the front desk of a Legalization Office, nothing in the statute suggests, let alone demonstrates, that Congress was using “determination” in such an extended and informal sense. Indeed, at least one related statutory provision suggests just the opposite. Section 1255a(f)(3)(B) limits administrative appellate review to “the administrative record established at the time of the determination on the application”; because there obviously can be no administrative record in the case of a front-desked application, the term “determination” is best read to exclude front-desking. Thus, just as we avoided an interpretation of 8 U. S. C. § 1160(e) in McNary that would have amounted to “the practical equivalent of a total denial of judicial review of generic constitutional and statutory claims,” McNary, supra, at 497, so here we avoid an interpretation of §1255a(f)(1) that would bar front-desked applicants from ever obtaining judicial review of the regulations that rendered them ineligible for legalization.
Unfortunately, however, neither the CSS record nor the LULAC record contains evidence that particular class members were actually subjected to front-desking. None of the named individual plaintiffs in either case alleges that he or she was front-desked, and while a number of affidavits in the LULAC record contain the testimony of immigration attorneys and employees of interested organizations that the INS has “refused,” “rejected,” or “den[ied] individuals the right to file” applications, the testimony is limited to such general assertions; none of the affiants refers to any specific incident that we can identify as an instance of frontdesking.
This lack of evidence precludes us from resolving the jurisdictional issue here, because, on the facts before us, the front-desking of a particular class member is not only sufficient to make his legal claims ripe, but necessary to do so. As the case has been presented to us, there seems to be no reliable way of determining whether a particular class member, had he applied at all (which, we assume, he did not), would have applied in a manner that would have subjected him to front-desking. As of October 16, 1987, the INS had certified 977 Qualified Designated Entities which could have aided class members in preparing applications that would not have been front-desked, see 52 Fed. Reg. 44812 (1987); n. 21, swpra, and there is no prior history of application behavior on the basis of which we could predict who would have applied without Qualified Designated Entity assistance and therefore been front-desked. Hence, we cannot say that the mere existence of a front-desking policy involved a “concrete application” of the invalid regulations to those class members who were not actually front-desked. Because only those class members (if any) who were front-desked have ripe claims over which the District Courts should exercise jurisdiction, we must vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand with directions to remand to the respective District Courts for proceedings to determine which class members were front-desked.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 amended the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq. Section 201(a)(1) of the Reform Act created the alien legalization program at issue in this case by adding §245A to the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U. S. C. § 1255a. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the sections of the Act as they have been codified.
The Reform Act requires the 12-month period to “begi[n] on a date (not later than 180 days after November 6, 1986) designated by the Attorney General.” 8 U. S. C. § 1255a(a)(l)(A). The Attorney General set the period to begin on May 5, 1987, the latest date the Reform Act authorized him to designate. See 8 CFR § 245a.2(a)(l) (1992). A separate provision of the Act requires “[a]n alien who, at any time during the first 11 months of the 12-month period..., is the subject of an order to show cause [why he should not be deported]” to “make application... not later than the end of the 30-day period beginning either on the first day of such 12-month period or on the date of the issuance of such order, whichever day is later.” § 1255a(a)(l)(B); see § 1255a(e)(l) (providing further relief for certain aliens “apprehended before the beginning of the application period”).
The CSS lawsuit originally challenged various aspects of the INS’s administration of both the legalization program created by Title II of the Reform Act and the "Special Agricultural Workers” (SAW) legalization program created by Part A of Title III of the Reform Act (codified at 8 U. S. C. § 1160). The challenge to the SAW program eventually took its own procedural course, and was resolved by a district court order that neither party appealed. No. Civ. S-86-1343 LKK (ED Cal., Aug. 11,1988) (App. 3, Record, Doc. No. 188). With respect to the Title II challenge, the District Court originally certified a broad class comprising all persons believed by the Government to be deportable aliens who could establish a prima facie claim for adjustment of status to temporary resident under 8 U. S. C. § 1255a. No. Civ. S-86-1343 LKK (ED Cal., Nov. 24, 1986) (App. 15). After further proceedings, the District Court narrowed the class definition to that set out in the text.
The District Court chose November 30,1988, to coincide with the deadline for legalization applications under the Reform Act’s SAW program. See No. Civ. S-86-1343 LKK (ED Cal., June 10, 1988) (App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a).
The order also required the INS to identify all class members whose applications had been denied or recommended for denial on the basis of the advance parole regulation, and to “rescind such denials... and readjudicate such applications in a manner consistent with the court’s order.” No. Civ. S-86-1343 LKK (ED Cal., June 10, 1988) (App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a). The INS did not appeal this part of the order. See Brief for Petitioners 11, n. 11.
The latter order required the INS to provide apprehended and detained aliens, and those in deportation proceedings, with “a reasonable opportunity, of not less than thirty (30) days, to submit an application [for legalization].” See n. 2, supra (describing the Act’s provisions regarding such aliens); n. 12, infra (describing the LULAC court’s relief for such aliens in INS v. League of United Latin American Citizens).
The CSS plaintiffs cross-appealed, challenging the District Court’s denial of their request for an injunction ordering the INS to permit class members outside the United States to enter the United States so that they could file applications for adjustment of status. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s denial, see Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 956 F. 2d 914, 923 (CA9 1992), and the plaintiffs did not petition this Court for review of the Court of Appeals’ judgment; thus, the issues presented by the cross-appeal are not before us.
This regulation expresses the INS policy in signally cryptic form, stating that an alien’s eligibility “shall not be affected by entries to the United States subsequent to January 1, 1982 that were not documented on Service Form 1-94, Arrival-Departure Record.” By negative implication, an alien would be rendered ineligible by an entry that was documented on an 1-94 form. An entry is documented on an 1-94 form when it occurs through a normal, official port of entry, at which an alien must present some valid-looking document (for example, a nonimmigrant visa) to get into the United States. See 8 CFR § 235.1(f) (1992). Under the INS policy, an alien who reentered by presenting such a “facially valid” document broke the continuity of his unlawful residence, whereas an alien who reentered the United States by crossing a desolate portion of the border, thus avoiding inspection altogether, maintained that continuity.
The INS first announced its intention to modify its policy in a statement issued by then-INS Commissioner Alan Nelson on October 8, 1987, see Record, Addendum to Doc. No. 8; however, it did not issue the new regulations until November 17 following.
The LULAC plaintiffs also challenged the modified policy, claiming that aliens should not have to comply with the requirement of 8 CFR § 245a.2(b)(10) (1992) to obtain a waiver of excludability for having fraudulently procured entry into the United States. With respect to this challenge, the District Court certified a second class comprising persons adversely affected by the modified policy. See No. 87-4757-WDK (JRx) (CD Cal., July 15, 1988) (App. 216). However, the District Court ultimately rejected the challenge to the modified policy, see ibid. (App. 234), and the LULAC plaintiffs did not appeal the grant of summary judgment to the INS on this issue.
As in the CSS case, this date was chosen to coincide with the deadline for legalization applications under the Reform Act’s SAW program. No. 87-4757-WDK (JRx) (CD Cal., Aug. 12, 1988) (App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a); see n. 5, supra.
The order also required the INS to give those illegal aliens apprehended by INS enforcement officials “adequate time” to apply for legalization. App. to Pet. for Cert. 60a; see n. 2, supra (describing the Act’s provisions regarding such aliens); n. 6, supra (describing the CSS court’s relief for such aliens).
While the appeals were pending in the Ninth Circuit, the orders of the District Courts were each subject to a stay order. Under the terms 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: | 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.
This case presents questions similar to those involved in United States v. Western Pacific R. Co., ante, p. 59, decided today.
In 1941 and 1942 the Government shipped from Pontiac, Michigan, to Newport News, Virginia, over the respondent's lines, various military supplies destined for China, via the port of Rangoon, Burma. This intended exportation was frustrated by the fall of Rangoon to Japanese military forces on March 8, 1942. The Government therefore took possession of the shipments at Newport News, reshipped them about three months later to storage centers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and more than a year later again reshipped some of the goods to various points on the Pacific Coast, whence they were exported to Calcutta, India. Had the original purpose of a shipment to China been accomplished, the export rate provided in Item 23030 of Tariff No. 218-M would have applied to the transportation between Pontiac and Newport News. However, when that shipment was frustrated, the respondent billed the Government at the higher domestic rate. The Government paid these bills as rendered, but subsequently, on post-audit by the General Accounting Office, readjusted the charges to the lower export rate, deducting the difference from subsequent bills of the carrier for other transportation services. Thereafter the respondent sued the United States in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under the Tucker Act to recover the amount of these deductions. The District Court gave judgment for the respondent, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and we granted certiorari.
The Court of Appeals, following its earlier decision in United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 215 F. 2d 213, held “that the intention to export to China was abandoned and that the movement which began at Pontiac, Michigan, as an export was converted by the shipper into a domestic shipment”; hence the domestic rate applied. It further held that the District Court had properly denied the Government's request for a referral to the Interstate Commerce Commission of the question whether the domestic rate, if applied to these shipments, would be reasonable. As to this the Court of Appeals said that the “question was not the reasonableness of rates, which everyone conceded to be reasonable, but which rate was applicable to the shipment under the circumstances of the case, a question which the court was competent to decide.” Therefore, it concluded that there were no “administrative questions” for the Commission to determine. Further, without questioning the timeliness of the respondent’s suit under the Tucker Act, the Court of Appeals held that in any event referral to the Commission of the question of the reasonableness of the domestic tariff as applied to these shipments was barred by the two-year statute of limitations of the Interstate Commerce Act.
Unlike the Court of Claims in United States v. Western Pacific R. Co., supra, the Court of Appeals, correctly we think, regarded the questions of whether the domestic tariff applied to these shipments, and whether it was reasonable if so applied, as simply two ways of stating the same underlying problem. Hence we face the same question as the one we have dealt with in the Western Pacific case, supra, namely: does the issue of tariff construction, which the Court of Appeals regarded as one for the court, involve such acquaintance with rate-making and transportation factors as to make the issue initially one for the Interstate Commerce Commission, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction? In this instance we cannot say positively whether or not there should have been a referral to the Commission. The Government, treating the issues of “construction” and “reasonableness” as separable, did not question the Court of Appeals’ holding that the domestic tariff applied, but argued only that the tariff was unreasonable- as applied to these shipments. The parties, therefore, have not briefed or argued the factors making for or against the application of the domestic rather than the export tariff. Consequently, we do not know what kinds of factors are involved, and we therefore cannot say on this record whether the issue of tariff construction should have been referred to the Commission. We think this question should be determined by the Court of Appeals upon a full record, which would no doubt include consideration of the factors shown by the record in the earlier case which it followed here, and which is not before us. For the reasons given in our opinion in the Western Pacific case, supra, we hold that referral to the Commission would not be barred by the § 16 (3) statute of limitations.
We shall therefore reverse the judgment below and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion and with our opinion in United States v. Western Pacific R. Co., supra, decided this day.
It is so ordered.
“APPLICATION OF EXPORT RATES TO NORTH ATLANTIC SEABOARD PORTS OF EXPORT
“The rates named in this tariff, or as same may be amended, and designated as ‘Export Rates’ will apply only on traffic which does not leave the possession of the carrier, delivered by the Atlantic Port Terminal carriers direct to the steamer or steamer’s dock upon arrival at the port or after storage or transit has been accorded by the port carrier at the port under tariffs which permit the application of the export rates, and also on traffic delivered to the party entitled to receive it at the carrier’s seaboard stations to which export rates apply, which traffic is handled direct from carriers’ stations to steamship docks and on which required proof of exportation is given. (C. F. A. Inf. 8179, 13607)"
Central Freight Association, Freight Tariff No. 490-A.
This procedure was authorized by § 322 of the Transportation Act of September 18, 1940, 54 Stat. 955, 49 U. S. C. § 66.
28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(2).
The District Court filed no written opinion. It rendered a short oral opinion which appears at pages 40-41 of the record.
224 F. 2d 443.
350 U. S. 953.
The respondent’s cause of action accrued no later than the summer of 1946, when the Government deducted the difference between the domestic rate and the export rate. The respondent filed its suit on March 10, 1952. On the assumption that the Tucker Act applies (see our opinion in the Western Pacific case, ante, p. 59, at pp. 70-71), the suit was timely brought.
24 Stat. 384, as amended, 49 U. S.'C. § 16 (3).
215 F. 2d 213.
The Government suggests that in comparable situations the Commission has decided that the export rate should apply. See C. B. Fox Co. v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio R. Co., 246 I. C. C. 561; River Petroleum Corp. v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 258 I. C. C. 1; Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 258 I. C. C. 422; Products-From-Sweden, Inc. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 263 I. C. C. 760. Respondent, in turn, cites California Texas Oil Co. v. Bessemer & Lake Erie R. Co., 264 I. C. C. 147; Pacific Chemical & Fertilizer Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 268 I. C. C. 468; and War Materials Reparations Cases, 294 I. C. C. 5. We express no opinion as to the effect of these decisions, for we think their relevancy to the situation at hand should be left to the Court of Appeals in the first instance. See our opinion in the Western Pacific case, ante, p. 59.
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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant is an unincorporated association which the California District Court of Appeal analogizes to a mutual insurance corporation. The details of its organization and operation are not important here. It is supervised by the Insurance Commissioner of California, like other insurance companies doing a liability insurance business. It was formed to write automobile insurance to a select group of members at a lower cost than the then prevailing rate. A California law requiring proof of financial responsibility from certain people before issuing them a license to drive a car, provides that a person who does not pay a judgment of $100 or more arising out of an automobile accident has his driver’s license suspended, and the suspension can be lifted only by paying the judgment and establishing his ability to pay claims arising from future accidents. That ability to pay may be established by proof that the person is insured, by posting a surety bond, or by deposit of $11,000 in cash. Cal. Vehicle Code, 1943, §§ 410, 414. Another law requires operators of trucks for hire to supply such evidence of financial responsibility before they may get permits to operate trucks. Cal. Stat. 1935, c. 312.
One result of these laws was to make it impossible for a large number of drivers — classified as poor risks by the insurance companies and not possessing enough resources to get a surety bond or to make the cash deposit — to receive drivers’ licenses to operate motor vehicles. Some of these people were poor risks, others were not. Many hardship cases developed among people who were dependent on the use of the highways for a living. There was a proposal that California go into the insurance business and insure these and other risks. The insurance companies countered by adopting a voluntary assigned risk plan under which all automobile insurance companies doing business in California undertook to insure some, though not all, of the groups unable to obtain insurance. This plan, approved by California’s Insurance Department, provided for the allocation of applicants to the subscribing insurers in proportion to the amount of automobile insurance written by each in the preceding year.
The voluntary plan did not reach all applicants. Moreover, appellant withdrew from it, causing the other insurers to be reluctant to continue it. Thereupon the legislature enacted the Compulsory Assigned Risk Law. Cal. Stat. 1947, c. 39, p. 525, as amended, c. 1205. It provides that the Insurance Commissioner shall approve “a reasonable plan for the equitable apportionment” among insurers of applicants for automobile insurance “who are in good faith entitled to but are unable to procure such insurance through ordinary methods.” Cal. Ins. Code, 1947, § 11620. It is mandatory on all insurers to subscribe to the plan. Id. §§ 11625,11626.
The plan approved by the Commissioner was objectionable to appellant, who refused to subscribe to it. The Commissioner, acting pursuant to authority granted him, suspended appellant’s permit to transact automobile liability insurance in California. Appellant contested the suspension in the California courts. The District Court of Appeal sustained the act against the claim that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 96 Cal. App. 2d 876, 216 P. 2d 882. A petition for hearing was denied by the Supreme Court. The case is here on appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2).
Appellant assails the constitutionality of the Act under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the following grounds: it commands insurers to enter into contracts and to incur liabilities against their will; it forces on insurers contracts that have abnormal risks and from which financial loss may be expected; it requires appellant to alter its type of business from a cooperative with a select membership to a venture insuring members of the general public.
Appellant in support of its contentions presses Michigan Commission v. Duke, 266 U. S. 570, and Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 271 U. S. 583, on us. Those cases held that private carriers by motor vehicle could not consistently with Due Process be converted into public carriers by legislative fiat nor be allowed to use the public highways only on condition that they become common carriers. We put those cases to one side. To be sure, appellant is required to insure members of a different group than the select one it voluntarily undertook to serve. But there are important restrictions on the financial commitments incident to the broadened undertaking. We were advised on the argument that the premiums chargeable can be commensurate with the greater risks of the new business. Confiscation is therefore not a factor in the case. Moreover, the California statute provides for an equitable apportionment of the assigned risks among all insurers, not that appellant serve all comers. Furthermore, uninsurable risks are eliminated from the plan; and policies issued may provide limited coverage of $5,000-110,000.
The case in its broadest reach is one in which the state requires in the public interest each member of a business to assume a pro rata share of a burden which modern conditions have made incident to the business. It is therefore not unlike Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, which sustained a state law assessing each state bank for the creation of a depositors’ guaranty fund. What was there said about the police power — that it “extends to all the great public needs” and may be utilized in aid of what the legislative judgment deems necessary to the public welfare (p. Ill) — is peculiarly apt when the business of insurance is involved — a business to which the government has long had a “special relation.” See Os born v. Ozlin, 310 U. S. 53, 65, 66. Here, as in the banking field, the power of the state is broad enough to take over the whole business, leaving no part for private enterprise. Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219; Osborn v. Ozlin, supra, p. 66. The state may therefore hold its hand on condition that local needs be serviced by the business. Osborn v. Ozlin, supra, was such a case; it sustained on that theory Virginia’s law requiring Virginia residents to have a share in writing casualty and surety risks in Virginia. The principle of Osborn v. Ozlin now presses for recognition in a situation as acute as any with which the states have had to deal. Highway accidents with their train of property and personal injuries are notoriously important problems in every community. Clearing the highways of irresponsible drivers, devising ways and means for making sure that compensation is awarded the innocent victims, and yet managing a scheme which leaves the highways open for the livelihood of the deserving are problems that have taxed the ingenuity of law makers and administrators.
Whether California’s program is wise or unwise is not our concern. See Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U. S. 236; Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co., 335 U. S. 525. The problem is a local one on which views will vary. We cannot say California went beyond permissible limits when it made the liability insurance business accept insurable risks which circumstances barred from insurance and hence from the highways. Appellant’s business may of course be less prosperous as a result of the regulation. That diminution in value, however, has never mounted to the dignity of a taking in the constitutional sense. See Noble State Bank v. Haskell, supra, p. 110; Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135, 155.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black would dismiss the appeal on the ground that the constitutional questions are frivolous.
Under the plan approved by the Commissioner, Cal. Administrative Code, 1947, Tit. 10, §§ 2400-2498, there are several categories of people excluded. Those excluded cover a wide range. The following are illustrative: those convicted more than once, within three years of application, of manslaughter or negligent homicide resulting from operation of the vehicle; those convicted more than twice, in the same three-year period, of driving while intoxicated or under the influence of liquor; those addicted to use of drugs. § 2431.
State regulation of the insurance business has been upheld in a wide variety of circumstances against the claim that the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: See Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, requirement of license and bond; Orient Insurance Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557, fixing recovery at insured value; Nutting v. Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 553, license and deposit of security; Carroll v. Greenwich Insurance Co., 199 U. S. 401, prohibition of combinations or agreements between companies; Northwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 203 U. S. 243, limitation of defenses; Whitfield v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 205 U. S. 489, same; German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Hale, 219 U. S. 307, statutory penalty against rate-fixing combinations; German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U. S. 389, rate regulations; Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219, workmen’s compensation act; La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U. S. 465; licensing of brokers; National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Wanberg, 260 U. S. 71, limiting the time for rejection of hail insurance policies; Merchants Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Smart, 267 U. S. 126, regulation of liability under indemnity policies; Aetna Insurance Co. v. Hyde, 275 U. S. 440, rate regulations; O’Gorman & Young v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 282 U. S. 251, regulation of agents’ commissions; Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Glidden Co., 284 U. S. 151, prescribing compulsory arbitration provisions; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. McCray, 291 U. S. 566, additional recovery for failure to pay on demand; Osborn v. Ozlin, 310 U. S. 53, requiring participation by resident agents; Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U. S. 313, regulation of reciprocal insurance associations; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Duel, 324 U. S. 154, reserve requirements; Robertson v. California, 328 U. S. 440, licensing of brokers; Daniel v. Family Security Life Ins. Co., 336 U. S. 220, separation of life insurance and undertaking businesses.
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 Stewakt
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case, as in No. 70-130, United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education, post, p. 484, to consider the circumstances under which a federal court may enjoin state or local officials from carving out a new school district from an existing district that has not yet completed the process of dismantling a system of enforced racial segregation. We did not address ourselves-to this rather narrow question in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1, and its companion cases decided last Term, but the problem has confronted other federal courts in one form or another on numerous occasions in recent years. Here, as in Scotland Neck, the Court of Appeals, reversed a district court decision, enjoining the. creation of a new schpol district. 442 F. 2d 570. We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of the legal principles applicable ini cases such as these, and that the District Court’s order was proper in the circumstances of this case.
I
- The City of Emporia lies near the center of Greens-ville County, Virginia, a largely rural area located on the North Carolina border. Until 1967, Emporia was a “town” under Virginia law, which meant that it was a part of .the surrounding county for practically all purposes, including the purpose of providing public education for children residing in the county.
In 1967, Emporia, apparently dissatisfied with the county’s allocation of revenues from the newly enacted state sales tax, successfully sought designation as a “city of the second class.” As such, it became politically independent from, the surrounding county, and undertook a separate obligation under state law to provide free public schooling to children residing within its borders. To fulfill this responsibility, Emporia at first sought the county’s agreement to continue operating the school system on virtually the same basis as before, with Emporia sharing in the administration as well as the financing of the schools. When the county officials refused to enter into an arrangement of- this kind, Em-poria agréed to a contract whereby the county , would continue to educate students residing in. the city in exchange for Emporia’s payment of a specified- share of the total cost of the system. Under this agreement, signed in April 1968, Emporia had a formal voice in the administration of the schools only through its participation in the selection of a superintendent. . The city and county were designated as a single school “division” by the State Board of Education, and this arrangement was still in effect at the time of the District Court’s order challenged in this case.
This lawsuit began in 1965, when a complaint was filed on behalf of Negro children seeking an end to state-enforced racial segregation in the Greensville County school system. Prior to 1965, the elementary and high. schools located in Emporia served all white children in the county, while Negro children throughout the county were assigned to a single high school or one of four elementary schools, all but one of which were located outside the Emporia town boundary. In January 1966, the District Court approved a so-called “freedom of choice” plan that had been adopted by the county in April of the previous year. Wright v. School Board of Greensville County, 252 F. Supp. 378. No white students ever attended the Negro schools under this plan, and in the 1968-1969 school year only 98 of the county’s 2,510 Negro students attended white schools. The school faculties remained completely segregated.
Following our decision in Green v. County School Board, 391 U. S. 430, holding that a freedom-of-choice plan was an unacceptable method of desegregation where it failed “to provide meaningful. assurance of prompt and effective disestablishment of a dual system,” id., at 438, the petitioners filed a motion for further relief. The District Court ordered the county to demonstrate its compliance with the holding in Green, or to submit a plan designed to bring the schools into compliance. After various delays, during which the freedom-of-choice sys-tern remained in effect, the county submitted two alternative plans. The first would have preserved the existing system with slight modifications, arid the second would have assigned students to schools on the basis of curricular choices or standardized test, scores. The District Court promptly rejected the first of these proposals, and took the second under advisement. Meanwhile, the petitioners submitted their own proposal, under which all children enrolled in a particular grade level would be as- , signed to the same school, thus eliminating any possibility ■ of racial bias in pupil assignments. Following an eviden-tiary hearing on June 23, Í969, the District Court rejected the county’s alternative, plan, finding that it would “substitute . . . one segregated school system for another segregated school system.” . By an order dated June 25, the court ordered the county to implement the plan submitted by the petitioners, referred to by the parties as the “pairing” plan, as of the start of the 1969-^-1970 school year.
' Two weeks after the District Court entered its decree, the Emporia City Council sent a letter to the county Board of Supervisors announcing the city’s intention to operate a separate school system beginning in September. The letter stated that an “in-depth study and analysis of the directed school arrangement reflects a totally .unacceptable situation to the Citizens and City Council of the City of Emporia.” It asked that thé 1968 city-county agreement be terminated by mutual consent, and that title to school property located within Emporia be transferred tó' the city. The letter further advised that children residing in the county would be permitted to enroll in the city schools on a tuition . basis. At no time during this period did the city officials meet with the County council or school board ..to discuss the implementation of the pairing decree, nor did they inform the District Court of their intentions with respect to the separate school system.
The county school board refused either to terminate the existing agreement or to transfer school buildings, to Emporia, citing its belief that Emporia’s proposed action was “not in the best interest of the children in Greensville County.” The City Council and the City School Board nevertheless continued to take steps toward implementing the separate system throughout the month of July. Notices were circulated inviting parents to register their children in the city system, and a-request was made to the State Board of Education to certify Emporia as a separate school division. This request was tabled, by the State Board- at its August meeting, “in light of matters pending in the federal court.”
According to figures later supplied to the District Court, there were 3,759 children enrolled, in the unitary system contemplated by the desegregation decree, of whom 66% were Negro and 34% were white. Had Emporia established a separate school system, 1^123 of these stüdents would have attended the city schools, of whom 48% were white. It is undisputed that the city proposed to operate its own schools on a unitary basis, with all children enrolled in any particular gradé attending: the same school.
On August 1, 1969, the petitioners filed a supplemental complaint naming the members of the Emporia City Council and the City School Board as additional parties defendant, and seeking to enjoin them from withdrawing Emporia children from the county schools. At the conclusion of a hearing on August 8, the District Court found that the. establishment of a separate school - system by the city would constitute “an impermissible interference, with and frustration of” its order of June 25, and preliminarily enjoined the respondents from taking “any.action which would interfere in any manner whatsoever with the implementation of the Court’s order heretofore entered. ...”
The schools opened in September under the páiring order, while Emporia continued to work' out detailed plans and budget estimates for a separate, school system in the hope that the District Court would allow its implementation during the following school year. At a further hearing in December, the ■ respondents presented an expert witness to testify as to the educational advantages of the proposed city system, and asked that the preliminary injunction be dissolved. On March 2, 1970, the District Court entered a. memorandum opinion and order denying the respondents’ motion and making the injunction permanent. 309 F. Supp. 671. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, 442 F. 2d 570, but stayed its marídate pending action by this Court on a petition for certiorari, which we granted. 404 U. S. 82Ó. . o
II
Emporia takes the position’that since it is a separate political jurisdiction entitled under state law to establish a school system independent of the county, its action may be enjoined only upon a finding either that the state law under which it acted is invalid, that the boundaries of the . city are drawn so as to exclude Negroes, or that thé disparity of the racial balance of the city and county schools of itself violates the Constitution. As we read its opinion, the District. Court made no such findings; nor do we.
. The constitutional violation that formed the predicate for the District Court’s action was the enforcement until 1969 of racial segregation in a public school system of which Emporia had always been a part. That finding has not been challenged, nor has Emporia questioned the propriety of the “pairing” order of June 25, 1969, which was designed to remedy the condition that offended the Constitution. Both before and after it became a city, Emporia educated its children in the county schools. Only when it became clear — 15 years after our decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 — that segregation in the county system was finally to be abolished, did Emporia attempt to take its children out of the county system. Under these circumstances, the power of the District Court to enjoin Emporia’s withdrawal from that system need not rest, upon an independent constitutional violation. The court’s remedial power was invoked on the basis of a finding that the dual school system violated the Constitution, and since the city and the county constituted but one unit for the purpose of student assignments during the entire time that the dual system was maintained, they were properly treated as a single unit for the purpose of dismantling that system.
In Green v. County School Board, 391 U. S. 430, the issue was whether the school board’s adoption of a “freedom of choice” plan constituted adequate compliance with the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (Brown II). We did not hold that a freedom-of-choice plan is of itself unconstitutional. Rather, we decided that any plan is “unacceptable” where it “fails to provide meaningful assurance of prompt and effective disestablishment of a dual system. . . .” 391 U. S., at 438. In Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U. S. 450, we applied the same principle in rejecting a “free transfer” plan adopted by the school board as a method of desegregation:
“We do not hold that ‘free transfer’ can have no place in a desegregation plan. But like ‘freedom of choice,’ if it cannot be shown that such a plan will further rather than delay conversion to a unitary, nonracial, nondiscriminatory school system, it must be held unacceptable.” Id., at 459.
The effect of Emporia’s proposal was to erect new boundary lines for the purpose of school attendance in a district where no such lines had previously existed, and where a dual school system had long flourished. Under the principles of Green and Monroe, such a proposal must be judged according to whether it hinders or furthers the process of school desegregation. If the proposal would impede the dismantling of the dual system, then a district court, in the exercise of its remedial discretion, may enjoin it from being carried out.
The Court of Appeals apparently did not believe this case to be governed by the principles of Green and Monroe, It held that the question whether new school district boundaries should be permitted in areas with a history of state-enforced racial segregation is to be resolved in terms of the “dominant purpose of [the] boundary realignment.”
“If the creation of a new school district is designed . to further the aim of providing quality education and is attended secondarily by a modification of the racial balance, short of resegregation, the federal courts should not interfere. If, however, the primary purpose for creating a new school district is to retain as much of separation of the races as possible, the state has violated its affirmative constitutional duty to end state supported school segregation.” 442 F. 2d, at 572.
Although the District Court had found that “in a sense, race was a factor in the city’s decision to secede,” 309 F. Supp., at 680, the Court of Appeals found that the primary purpose of Emporia’s action was “benign,” and was not “merely a cover-up” for racial discrimination. 442 F. 2d, at 574.
This “dominant purpose” test finds no precedent in our decisions. It is true that where an action by school authorities is motivated by a demonstrated discriminatory purpose, the existence of that purpose may add to the discriminatory effect of the action by intensify^ ing the stigma of implied racial inferiority. And where a school board offers nonracial justifications for a plan that is less effective than other alternatives for dismantling a dual school system, a demonstrated racial purpose may be taken into consideration in determining the weight to be given to the proffered justification. Cf. Green, supra, at 439. But as we said in Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217, 225, it “is difficult or impossible for any court to determine.the ‘sole’ or ‘dominant’ motivation behind the choices of a group of legislators,” and the same, may be said of the choices of a school board. In addition, an inquiry into the “dominant” motivation of school authorities is as irrelevant as it is fruitless. The mandate of Brown II was to desegregate schools, and we have said that “[t]he measure of any desegregation plan is its effectiveness.” Davis v. School Commissioners of Mobile County, 402 U. S. 33, 37. Thus, we have focused upon the effect — not the purposé or motivation — of a school board’s action in determining whether it is a permissible method of dismantling a dual system. The existence of a permissible purpose cannot süstain an action that has an impermissible effect.
The reasoning of the Court of Appeals in this case is at odds with that of other federal courts that have held that splinter school districts may not be created “where the effect — to say nothing of the purpose: — of-the secession has a substantial adverse effect on desegregation of the county school district.” Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F. 2d 746, 752. See also Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 448 F. 2d 403, 404; Haney v. County Board of Education, 410 F. 2d 920, 924; Burleson v. County Board of Election Commissioners, 308 F. Supp. 352, 356,. aff’d, 432 F. 2d 1356; Aytch v. Mitchell, 320 F. Supp. 1372, 1377. Though the purpose of- the new school districts was .found to be discriminatory in many of these cases, the courts’ holdings rested not on motivation or purpose, but on- the effect of the action upon the dismantling of the dual school, systems involved. That was the focus of the District Court in this case, and we hold that its approach was proper.
in
The basis for the District Court’s ruling was its conclusion that if Emporia were allowed to establish an independent system, Negroes remaining in the county schools would be deprived of what Brown II promised them: a school system in which all vestiges of enforced racial segregation have been eliminated. The District Court noted that the effect of-. Emporia’s withdrawal would be a “substantial increase in the proportion of whites in the schools attended by city residents, and a concomitant decrease in the county schools.” 309 F. Supp., at 680. In addition, the court found that the departure of the city’s students, its leadership, and its financial support, together with the possible loss of teachers to the new system, would diminish the chances that transition to unitary schools in the county would prove “successful.”
Certainly, desegregation is, not achieved by splitting a single school system operating “white schools” and “Negro schools” into two new systems, each opérating unitary schools within its borders, where one of the two new systems is, in fact, “white” and the other is, in fact, “Negro.” Nor does a court supervising the process of desegregation exercise its remedial discretion responsibly where it approves a plan that, in the hope of providing better “quality education” to , some children, has a substantial adverse effect upon the quality of education available to others. In some cases, it may be readily perceived that a proposed subdivision of a school district will produce one or both of these results. In other cases, the likelihood of such results may be less apparent. ’ This case is of the latter kind, but an examination of the record shows that the District Court’s conclusions were adequately supported by the evidence. Data submitted lo the District Court at its December hearing showed that the school system in operation under the “pairing” plan, including both Emporia and the county, had a racial composition of 34% white and 66% Negro. If Emporia had established its own system, and if total enrollment had remained the same, the city's schools would have been 48% white and 52% Negro, while the county's schools would have been 28% white and 72% Negro.
We need not and do not hold that this disparity in the racial composition of the two systems would be a sufficient reason, standing alone, to enjoin the creation of the separate school district. The fact that a school board's desegregation plan leaves some disparity in racial balance among various schools in the system does not ' alone make that plan unacceptable. We observed in Swann,, supra, that “[t] he. constitutional command to desegregate schools does not mean that every school in every community must always reflect the racial composition of the.school system as a whole.” 402 U. S., at' 24.
But there is more to this case, than the disparity in racial percentages reflected by the figures supplied by the school board. In the first place, the District Court found that if Emporia were allowed to withdraw from the existing system, it “may be anticipated that the proportion of whites in- county schools may drop as those who can register in private academies,” 309 F. Supp., at 680, while some whites might return to the city schools from the private schools in which they had previously enrolled. Thus, in the judgment of the District Court, the statistical breakdown of the 1969-1970 enrollment figures between city residents and county residénts did not reflect what the situation would have been had Emporia established its own school system.
Sécond, the significance of any racial disparity in this case is enhanced by the fact that the two formerly all-white schools are located within Emporia, while all the schools located in the-surrounding county were formerly all-Negro. The record further reflects, that the school buildings in Emporia are better equipped and are located on better sites than are those in the county. We noted in Swann that factors such as these may in themselves indicate that enforced racial segregation has been perpetuated:
“Independent of student assignment, where it is possible to identify a ‘white ■ school’ or a ‘Negro school’ simply by reference to the racial composition of teachers and staff, the quality of school buildings and equipment, or the organization of sports activities, a prima facie case of violation of substantive constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause is shown.” 402 U. S., at 18.
Just as racial balance is not required. in remedying a dual system, neither are racial ratios the sole consideration to be taken into account in devising a workable remedy.
The timing of Emporia’s action is a third factor that was properly taken into account by the District Court in assessing the effect of the action upon children remaining in the county schools. While Emporia had long had the right under state law to establish a separate school system, its decision to do so came only upon the basis of — and, as the city officials conceded, in reaction to — a court order that prevented the county system from maintaining any longer the segregated system that had lingered for 15 years after Brown I. In the words of Judge Winter,, dissenting in the Court of Appeals, “[i]f the establishment of an Emporia school district is riot enjoined, the black students in the county will watch as nearly one-half the total number of white students in the county abandon the. county schools for a substantially whiter system.” 442 F. 2d, at 590; The message of this action, coming when it did, cannot have escaped the Negro children in the county. As we noted in Brown I: “To separate [Negro school children] from others of • similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” 347 U. S., at 494. We think that, under the circumstances, the District Court could rationally have concluded that the same adverse psychological effect was likely to result from Emporia’s withdrawal Of .its children from the Greensville County system.
The weighing of these factors to determine their effect upon the process of desegregation is a delicate task that is aided by a. sensitivity to local conditions, and the judgment is primarily the responsibility of the district judge. See Brown II, supra, at 299. ' Given the totality of the circumstances, we hold that the District Court was justified in its conclusion that Emporia’s establishment of a separate system would actually impede the process of dismantling the existing dual system.
IV
Against these considerations,.Emporia advances arguments that a separate system is- necessary to achieve “quality education” - for city residents, and that it is unfair in any event to force the city to continue to send its children to schools over which the city, because of the character of its arrangement with the -county, has very little control. These arguments are entitled to consideration by a court exercising its equitable discretion where they are directed to the feasibility or practicality of the proposed remedy. See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, supra, at 31. But, as we said in .Green v. County School Board, supra, the availability of “more promising courses of action” to dismantle a dual system “at the least . . . places a heavy burden upon the board to explain its preference for an apparently less effective method.” 391 U. S., at 439.
In evaluating Emporia’s claims, it must be remembered that the city represents the interests of less than one-third of the students in the system being desegregated. Only the city officials argue that their plan is preferable to the “pairing” plan encompassing the whole of the city-county system. Although the county school board took no position in the District Court either for or against Emporia’s action, it had previously adopted a resolution stating its belief that the city’s action was not in the best interests of the county children.- In terms of Green, it was only the respondents — -not the county school board — who expressed a “preference for an apparently less effective method” of desegregation.
At the final hearing in the District Court, the respondents presented detailed budgetary proposals and other evidence demonstrating that they contemplated a more diverse and more expensive educational program than that to which the city children had been accustomed in the Greensville County schools. These plans for the city system were developed after the preliminary injunction was issued in this case. In'. August 1969, one month before classes were scheduled to open, the city officials were intent Upon operating a- separate system despite the fact that the city had no buildings under lease, no teachers under contract, and no specific plans for the operation of the schools. Thus, the persuasiveness of the “quality education”, rationale was open to question. More important, however, any increased quality of education provided to city students would, under the circumstances found by the District Court, have been purchased only at the price of a substantial adverse effect upon the viability of the county system. Tfye District Court, with its responsibility to provide an effective remedy for segregation in the entire cffy-county system, could not properly allow the city to make its part of that system more attractive where such a result would be accomplished at the expense of the children remaining in the county.
A moré weighty consideration put forth by Emporia is its lack of formal control over' the school system under the terms of its contract with the county. This argument is properly addressed to the practicality of the District Court’s action. As we said in Davis v. School Commissioners of Mobile County, 402 U. S., at 37:
“Having once found a violation, the- district judge or school authorities should make every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual de- . segregation, taking into account the practicalities of the situation.”
And in Swann, supra, we noted that a desegregation plan cannot be regarded as a proper exercise of a district .court’s discretion where it is not “reasonable, fea- . sible and workable.” 402 U. S., at 31.
We do not underestimate the deficiencies, from Em-poria’s standpoint, in the arrangement by which it undertook in 1968 to provide for the education of its children. Direct control over decisions vitally affecting the education of one’s children- is a need that is strongly felt in our society, and since 1967 the citizens of Em-poria have hacl little of that control. But Emporia did find its'arrangement with the county both feasible and practical up until the time of the desegregation decree issued in the summer of 1969. While city officials testified that they were dissatisfied with the terms of the contract prior to that time, they did not attempt to change it. -They argued that the arrangement became intolerable when the “pairing” decree was entered, because the county officials who would control the budget of the unitary system lacked the desire to make the unitary system work. The District Court did not accept, the contention that a lack of enthusiasm on the part of county leaders would, if Emporia children, remained in the system, block a successful transition to unitary schools. The court felt that the “desire of the city leaders, coupled with their obvious leadership ability,” would make itself felt despite the absence, of any formal control by the city over the system’s budget and operation, and that the city’s leadership would be “an important facet in the successful operation of any court-ordered plan.” 309 F. Supp., at 679. Under these, circumstances, we cannot say that the enforced continuation of the single city-county system was not “reasonable, feasible and workable.”
The District Court explicitly noted in its opinion that its injunction does not have the effect of locking Em-poria into its present circumstances for all time. As already noted, oür holding today does not rest upon a conclusion that the disparity in racial balance between the city and county schools resulting from separate systems would, absent any other considerations, be unacceptable. The city’s creation of a separate school system was enjoined because of the effect it would have had at the time upon the' effectiveness of the remedy ordered to dismantle the dual system that had long existed in the area. Once the unitary system has been established and accepted, it may be that Emporia, if .it still desires to do so, may establish an independent system without such an adverse effect upon the students remaining in the county, or it may be able to work out a more satisfactory arrangement with the county for joint operation of the existing system. We hold only that a new school district may not be created where its effect would be to impede the process of dismantling a dual system. And in making that essentially factual determination in any particular case, “we must of necessity rely to a large extent, as this Court has for .more thán 16 years, on the informed judgment of the district courts in the first instance and on courts of appeals.” Swann, supra, at 28. In this case, we believe that the District Court did not. abuse its discretion. For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Together with No. 70-187, Cotton v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education.
The companion cases were Davis v. Board of School Commissioners, 402 U. S. 33; McDaniel v. Barresi, 402 U. S. 39; Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U. S. 43; and Moore v. Board of Education, 402 U. S. 47.
On the same day that it reversed the District Court orders in ’ this case and in the Scotland Neck cases, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed an order enjoining the creation of a new school district in another county of North Carolina. Turner v. Littleton-Lake Gaston School District, 442 F. 2d 584. Other cases dealing with attempts to split school districts in the process of desegregation are Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F. 2d 746; Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 448 F. 2d 403; Haney v. County Board of Education, 410 F. 2d 920; United States v. Texas, 321 F. Supp. 1043, 1052, aff'd, with modifications, 447 F. 2d 441; Burleson v. County Board of Election Commissioners, 308 F. Supp. 352, aff’d, 432 F. 2d 1356; Aytch v. Mitchell, 320 F. Supp. 1372.
Va. Code Ann. § 15.1-982.
See Va. Code Ann. §22-93; Colonial Heights v. County of Chesterfield, 196 Va. 155, 82 S. E. 2d 566 (1954).
Emporia was entitled under state law to establish an independent school system when it became a city in 1967. V ’ ’.it chose not to do so because, according to the testimony of the chairman of the city school board, a separate system did not seem practical at the time. In a letter to the County Board of Supervisors in July 1969, the Emporia City Council stated that it had authorized a combined system in 1968 because it believed that “the educational interest of Emporia citizens, their children and those of the citizens and children of Greensville County, could best be served by continuing a combined City-County school division, thus giving students from both political subdivisions full benefits of a larger school system.”
Under Virginia law as it stood in 1969, the school “division” was the basic unit for the purpose of school administration. See Va. Code Ann. §§ 22-30, 22-34, 22-100.1.
The plan was later modified in certain respects at the request of the county school board, and as modified it has been in operation since September 1969. Because the four schools located outside Emporia’s city limits are all-in close proximity to the city, the “pairing” plan apparently involved little- additional transportation of students.
The District Court took special note of . this transfer arrangement in its memorandum accompanying the preliminary injunction issued in August 1969. At the time of the final hearing, however, the respondents assured' the court that if allowed to operate a separate system, they would not permit transfers from the county without prior permission of the court.
Because the county school board had ultimate responsibility for the administration of the schools under the combined system, the members of the Emporia school board were not originally parties to the lawsuit. But the District Court’s desegregation decree bound both county officials “and their successors,” and the District Court treated the Emporia school board members, insofar as they intended to replace the county board as administrators of part of the system under court order, as “successors” to the members of the county board.
The decision of the Court of Appeals was rendered less than a month prior to our decision in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1.
The court order that we approved in Swann, supra, itself provided for student bodies ranging from 9% Negro to 38% Negro.
“Full implementation, of these constitutional principles may require solution- of varied local school problems. School authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving these problems; courts will have to consider whether the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles. Because of their proximity to local conditions and the possible need for further hearings, the courts which originally heard these cases can best perform this judicial appraisal.” 349 U. S., at 299.
City officials testified that one of the primary objections to the court’s “pairing” decree was that it required a student to attend six schools in the space of 12 years. Dr. Tracey, the expert witness for the respondents, expressed the view that this aspect of the decree had undesirable effects from an educator’s point of view. This argument, however, was never made to the District Court either before or at the time it adopted the “pairing” plan. Indeed, the city officials never even met with the county, school board or participated .in the hearings that' preceded the decree. After the June 25 order was entered, the District Court modified it at the request of the county board, and at the hearing on a preliminary injunction against Emporia’s withdrawal from the system, the court noted that it would be “delighted to entertain motions for amendment of the [pairing] plan at any time.” App. 185a.
The record shows that the pupil-teacher ratio in the county schools is less than 25 to' 1. Assuming some rough correspondence between this ratio and the size of classes, a 6% racial shift would represent a change in the racial identity of 1.5 students per class on the average.
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 Court is advised that the petitioner died in Springfield, Missouri, on November 16, 1998. The Court’s order granting the writ of certiorari, see 523 U. S. 1019 (1998), therefore is vacated, and the petition for certiorari is dismissed. See United States v. Green, 507 U. S. 545 (1993) (per curiam).
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.
Per Curiam.
Prior to commencement of petitioner’s trial for assault and battery upon state police officers, he served upon the local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation a subpoena duces tecum calling for the production of “[statements of all witnesses, diagrams, sketches and photographs taken in connection with” the FBI’s investigation of the incident which formed the basis for the criminal prosecution. The FBI had made the investigation in response to a complaint filed by petitioner with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, charging a deprivation of his civil rights by the actions of the police officers whom he allegedly assaulted. An Assistant United States Attorney appeared on the day set for trial and moved to quash the subpoena, claiming that the file contained confidential material subject to a federal privilege of nondisclosure. The subpoena was quashed by the trial court for that reason and for noncompliance with local rules of practice.
Petitioner formally requested the court, both before and after they testified, to issue a subpoena duces tecum for statements taken by the FBI from two witnesses for the prosecution, stating that the statements were needed for purposes of impeachment. The trial court denied the requests because it felt that petitioner would receive the same information from material which the state authorities had promised to make available. Following petitioner’s conviction, the trial court denied his motion for a new trial which was based in part on the failure to issue the requested subpoena, stating that the Federal Government had already indicated that it would not honor such a subpoena. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (412 Pa. 1, 192 A. 2d 671), the court stating, inter alia, that the FBI, not the Commonwealth, had denied petitioner access to the information in question.
In response to an inquiry from this Court, the Solicitor General has indicated that the claim of confidential privilege was concerned solely with the initial broad-based demand for virtually the entire FBI file on the matter and that the Department of Justice was not informed of, and did not refuse to comply with, the subsequent specific requests for statements given by the two witnesses.
We grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and remand the case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, for reconsideration of petitioner’s requests in light of the representations of the Solicitor General.
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 Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves a securities-fraud complaint filed by Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (Connecticut Retirement) against biotechnology company Amgen Inc. and several of its officers (collectively, Amgen). Seeking class-action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Connecticut Retirement invoked the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption endorsed by this Court in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U. S. 224 (1988), and recognized most recently in Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U. S. 804 (2011). The fraud-on-the-market premise is that the price of a security traded in an efficient market will reflect all publicly available information about a company; accordingly, a buyer of the security may be presumed to have relied on that information in purchasing the security.
Amgen has conceded the efficiency of the market for the securities at issue and has not contested the public character of the allegedly fraudulent statements on which Connecticut Retirement’s complaint is based. Nor does Amgen here dispute that Connecticut Retirement meets all of the class-action prerequisites stated in Rule 23(a): (1) the alleged class “is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable”; (2) “there are questions of law or fact common to the class”; (3) Connecticut Retirement’s claims are “typical of the claims... of the class”; and (4) Connecticut Retirement will “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”
The issue presented concerns the requirement stated in Rule 23(b)(3) that “the questions of.law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Amgen contends that to meet the predominance requirement, Connecticut Retirement must do more than plausibly plead that Amgen’s alleged misrepresentations and misleading omissions materially affected Amgen’s stock price. According to Amgen, certification must be denied unless Connecticut Retirement proves materiality, for immaterial misrepresentations or omissions, by definition, would have no impact on Amgen’s stock price in an efficient market.
While Connecticut Retirement certainly must prove materiality to prevail on the merits, we hold that such proof is not a prerequisite to class certification. Rule 23(b)(3) requires a showing that questions common to the class predominate, not that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class. Because materiality is judged according to an objective standard, the materiality of Amgen’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions is a question common to all members of the class Connecticut Retirement would represent. The alleged misrepresentations and omissions, whether material or immaterial, would be so equally for all investors composing the class. As vital, the plaintiff class’s inability to prove materiality would not result in individual questions predominating. Instead, a failure of proof on the issue of materiality would end the case, given that materiality is an essential element of the class members’ securities-fraud claims. As to materiality, therefore, the class is entirely cohesive: It will prevail or fail in unison. In no- event will the individual circumstances of particular class members bear on the inquiry.
Essentially, Amgen, also the dissenters from today’s decision, would have us put the cart before the horse. To gain certification under Rule 23(b)(3), Amgen and the dissenters urge, Connecticut Retirement must first establish that it will win the fray. But the office of a Rule 23(b)(3) certification ruling is not to adjudicate the case; rather, it is to select the “metho[d]” best suited to adjudication of the controversy “fairly and efficiently.”
I
A
This case involves the interaction between federal securities-fraud laws and Rule 23’s requirements for class certification. To obtain certification of a class action for money damages under Rule 23(b)(3), a plaintiff must satisfy Rule 23(a)’s above-mentioned prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, see swpra, at 459, and must also establish that “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” To recover damages in a private securities-fraud action under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78j(b) (2006 ed., Supp. V), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (2011), a plaintiff must prove “(1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation.” Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U. S. 27, 37-38 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Reliance,” we have explained, “is an essential element of the § 10(b) private cause of action” because “proof of reliance ensures that there is a proper connection between a defendant’s misrepresentation and a plaintiff’s injury.” Halliburton, 563 U. S., at 810 (internal quotation marks omitted). “The traditional (and most direct) way” for a plaintiff to demonstrate reliance “is by showing that he was aware of a company’s statement and engaged in a relevant transaction... based on that specific misrepresentation.” Ibid. We have recognized, however, that requiring proof of direct reliance “would place an unnecessarily unrealistic evidentiary burden on [a] plaintiff who has traded on an impersonal market.” Basic, 485 U. S., at 245. Accordingly, in Basic the Court endorsed the “fraud-on-the-market” theory, which permits certain Rule 10b-5 plaintiffs to invoke a rebuttable presumption of reliance on material misrepresentations aired to the general public. Id., at 241-249.
The fraud-on-the-market theory rests on the premise that certain well developed markets are efficient processors of public information. In such markets, the “market price of shares” will “reflec[t] all publicly available information.” Id., at 246. Few investors in such markets, if any, can consistently achieve above-market returns by trading based on publicly available information alone, for if such above-market returns were readily attainable, it would mean that market prices were not efficiently incorporating the full supply of public information. See R. Brealey, S. Myers, & F. Allen, Principles of Corporate Finance 330 (10th ed. 2011) (“[I]n an efficient market, there is no way for most investors to achieve consistently superior rates of return.”).
In Basic, we held that if a market is shown to be efficient, courts may presume that investors who traded securities in that market relied on public, material misrepresentations regarding those securities. See 485 U. S., at 245-247. This presumption springs from the very concept of market efficiency. If a market is generally efficient in incorporating publicly available information into a security’s market price, it is reasonable to presume that a particular public, material misrepresentation will be reflected in the security’s price. Furthermore, it is reasonable to presume that most investors—knowing that they have little hope of outperforming the market in the long run based solely on their analysis of publicly available information—will rely on the security’s market price as an unbiased assessment of the security’s value in light of all public information. Thus, courts may presume that investors trading in efficient markets indirectly rely on public, material misrepresentations through their “reliance on the integrity of the price set by the market.” Id., at 245. “[T]he presumption,” however, is “just that, and [can] be rebutted by appropriate evidence.” Halliburton, 563 U. S., at 811. See also Basic, 485 U. S., at 248-249 (providing examples of showings that would rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption).
Although fraud on the market is a substantive doctrine of federal securities-fraud law that can be invoked by any Rule 10b-5 plaintiff, see, e. g., Black v. Finantra Capital, Inc., 418 F. 3d 203, 209 (CA2 2005); Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F. 2d 891, 908 (CA9 1975), the doctrine has particular significance in securities-fraud class actions. Absent the fraud-on-the-market theory, the requirement that Rule 10b-5 plaintiffs establish reliance would ordinarily preclude certification of a class action seeking money damages because individual reliance issues would overwhelm questions common to the class. See Basic, 485 U. S., at 242. The fraud-on-the-market theory, however, facilitates class certification by recognizing a rebuttable presumption of classwide reliance on public, material misrepresentations when shares are traded in an efficient market. Ibid.
B
In its complaint, Connecticut Retirement alleges that Amgen violated § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 through certain misrepresentations and misleading omissions regarding the safety, efficacy, and marketing of two of its flagship drugs. According to Connecticut Retirement, these misrepresentations and omissions artificially inflated the price of Amgen’s stock at the time Connecticut Retirement and numerous other securities buyers purchased- the stock. When the truth came to light, Connecticut Retirement asserts, Am-gen’s stock price declined, resulting in financial losses to those who purchased the stock at the inflated price. In its answer to Connecticut Retirement’s complaint, Amgen conceded that “[a]t all relevant times, the market for [its] securities,” which are traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange, “was an efficient market”; thus, “the market for Amgen’s securities promptly digested current information regarding Amgen from all publicly available sources and reflected such information in Amgen’s stock price.” Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ¶¶ 199-200 in No. CV-07-2536 (CD Cal.); Answer ¶¶199-200.
The District Court granted Connecticut Retirement’s motion to certify a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of all investors who purchased Amgen stock between the date of the first alleged misrepresentation and the date of the last alleged corrective disclosure. After granting Amgen’s request to take an interlocutory appeal from the District Court’s class-certification order, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(f), the Court of Appeals affirmed. 660 F. 3d 1170 (CA9 2011).
Amgen raised two arguments on appeal. First, Amgen contended that the District Court erred by certifying the proposed class without first requiring Connecticut Retirement to prove that Amgen’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions were material. Second, Amgen argued that the District Court erred by refusing to consider certain rebuttal evidence that Amgen had proffered in opposition to Connecticut Retirement’s class-certification motion. This evidence, in Amgen’s view, demonstrated that the market was well aware of the truth regarding its alleged misrepresentations and omissions at the time the class members purchased their shares.
The Court of Appeals rejected both contentions. Am-gen’s first argument, the Court of Appeals noted, made the uncontroversial point that immaterial misrepresentations and omissions “by definition [do] not affect... stock price[s] in an efficient market.” Id., at 1175. Thus, where misrepresentations and omissions are not material, there is no basis for presuming classwide reliance on those misrepresentations and omissions through the information-processing mechanism of the market price. “The problem with that argument,” the Court of Appeals observed, is evident: “[Because materiality is an element of the merits of their securities fraud claim, the plaintiffs cannot both fail to prove materiality yet still have a viable claim for which they would need to prove reliance individually.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals thus concluded that “proof of materiality is not necessary” to ensure compliance with Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirement that common questions predominate. Id., at 1177.
With respect to Amgen’s second argument, the Court of Appeals determined that Amgen’s ■ proffered rebuttal evidence was merely “a method of refuting [the] materiality” of the misrepresentations and omissions alleged in Connecticut Retirement’s complaint. Ibid. Having already concluded that a securities-fraud plaintiff does not need to prove materiality before class certification, the court similarly held that “the district court correctly refused to consider” Amgen’s rebuttal evidence “at the class certification stage.” Ibid.
We granted Amgen’s petition for certiorari, 567 U. S. 905 (2012), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals over whether district courts must require plaintiffs to prove, and must allow defendants to present evidence rebutting, the element of materiality before certifying a class action under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Compare 660 F. 3d 1170 (case below) and Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F. 3d 679, 687 (CA7 2010) (materiality need not be proved at the class-certification stage), with In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation, 544 F. 3d 474, 484-485, 486, n. 9 (CA2 2008) (plaintiff must prove, and defendant may present evidence rebutting, materiality before class certification). See also In re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, 639 F. 3d 623, 631-632, 637-638 (CA3 2011) (plaintiff need not prove materiality before class certification, but defendant may present rebuttal evidence on the issue).
II
A
The only issue before us in this case is whether Connecticut Retirement has satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirement that “questions of law or fact common to class mémbers predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Although we have cautioned that a court’s class-certification analysis must be “rigorous” and may “entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim,” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U. S. 338, 351 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted), Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage. Merits questions may be considered to the extent— but only to the extent—that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied. See id., at 351, n. 6 (a district court has no “ ‘authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit’ ” at class certification unless it is necessary “to determine the propriety of certification” (quoting Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U. S. 156, 177 (1974))); Advisory Committee’s 2003 Note on subd. (c)(1) of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 144 (“[A]n evaluation of the probable outcome on the merits is not properly part of the certification decision.”).
Bearing firmly in mind that the focus of Rule 23(b)(3) is on the predominance of common questions, we turn to Amgen’s contention that the courts below erred by failing to require Connecticut Retirement to prove the materiality of Amgen’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions before certifying Connecticut Retirement’s proposed class. As Amgen notes, materiality is not only an element of the Rule 10b-5 cause of action; it is also an essential predicate of the fraud-on-the-market theory. See Basic, 485 U. S., at 247 (“[W]here materially misleading statements have been disseminated into an impersonal, well-developed market for securities, the reliance of individual plaintiffs on the integrity of the market price may be presumed.” (emphasis added)). That theory, Amgen correctly observes, is premised on the understanding that in an efficient market, all publicly available information is rapidly incorporated into, and thus transmitted to investors through, the market price. See id., at 246-247. Because immaterial information, by definition, does not affect market price, it cannot be relied upon indirectly by investors who, as the fraud-on-the-market theory presumes, rely on the market price’s integrity. Therefore, the fraud-on-the-market theory cannot apply absent a material misrepresentation or omission. And without the fraud-on-the-market theory, the element of reliance cannot be proved on a class-wide basis through evidence common to the class. See id., at 242. It thus follows, Amgen contends, that materiality must be proved before a securities-fraud class action can be certified.
Contrary to Amgen’s argument, the key question in this case is not whether materiality is an essential predicate of the fraud-on-the-market theory; indisputably it is. Instead, the pivotal inquiry is whether proof of materiality is needed to ensure that the questions of law or fact common to the class will “predominate over any questions affecting only individual members” as the litigation progresses. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(b)(3). For two reasons, the answer to this question is clearly “no.”
First, because “[t]he question of materiality... is an objective one, involving the significance of an omitted or misrepresented fact to a reasonable investor,” materiality can be proved through evidence common to the class. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U. S. 438, 445 (1976). Consequently, materiality is a “common questio[n]” for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3). Basic, 485 U. S., at 242 (listing “materiality” as one of the questions common to the Basic class members).
Second, there is no risk whatever that a failure of proof on the common question of materiality will result in individual questions predominating. Because materiality is an essential element of a Rule 10b-5 claim, see Matrixx Initiatives, 563 U. S., at 37, Connecticut Retirement’s failure to present sufficient evidence of materiality to defeat a summary-judgment motion or to prevail at trial would not cause individual reliance questions to overwhelm the questions common to the class. Instead, the failure of proof on the element of materiality would end the case for one and for all; no claim would remain in which individual reliance issues could potentially predominate.
Totally misapprehending our essential point, Justice Thomas’ dissent asserts that our “entire argument is based on the assumption that the fraud-on-the-market presumption need not be shown at certification because it will be proved later on the merits.” Post, at 495, n. 9. Our position is not so based. We rest, instead, entirely on the text of Rule 23(b)(3), which provides for class certification if “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” A failure of proof on the common question of materiality ends the litigation and thus will never cause individual questions of reliance or anything else to overwhelm questions common to the class. Therefore, under the plain language of Rule 23(b)(3), plaintiffs are not required to prove materiality at the class-certification stage. In other words, they need not, at that threshold, prove that the predominating question will be answered in their favor.
Justice Thomas urges that a plaintiff seeking class certification “must show that the elements of [her] claim are susceptible to elasswide proof.” Post, at 491. See also post, at 496 (criticizing the Court for failing to focus its analysis on “whether the element of reliance is susceptible to classwide proof”). From this premise, Justice Thomas concludes that Rule 10b-5 plaintiffs must prove materiality before class certification because (1) “materiality is a necessary component of fraud on the market,” and (2) without fraud on the market, the Rule 10b-5 element of reliance is not “susceptible of a classwide answer.” Post, at 491, 495. See also post, at 496 (“[I]f a plaintiff wishes to use Basic’s presumption to prove that reliance is a common question, he must establish the entire presumption, including materiality, at the class certification stage.”).
Rule 23(b)(3), however, does not require a plaintiff seeking class certification to prove that each “elemen[t] of [her] claim [is] susceptible to classwide proof.” Post, at 491. What the Rule does require is that common questions “predominate over any questions affecting only individual [class] members.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(b)(3) (emphasis added). Nowhere does Justice Thomas explain how, in an action invoking the Basic presumption, a plaintiff class’s failure to prove an essential element of its claim for relief will result in individual questions predominating over common ones. Absent proof of materiality, the claim of the Rule 10b-5 class will fail in its entirety; there will be no remaining individual questions to adjudicate.
Consequently, proof of materiality is not required to establish that a proposed class is “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation”—the focus of the predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3). Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U. S. 591, 623 (1997). No doubt a clever mind could conjure up fantastic scenarios in which an individual investor might rely on immaterial information (think of the superstitious investor who sells her securities based on a CEO’s statement that a black cat crossed the CEO’s path that morning). But such objectively unreasonable reliance does not give rise to a Rule 10b-5 claim. See TSC Industries, 426 U. S., at 445 (materiality is judged by an objective standard). Thus, “the individualized questions of reliance,” post, at 494, n. 8, that hypothetically might arise when a failure of proof on the issue of materiality dooms the.fraud-on-the-market class are far more imaginative than real. Such “individualized questions” do not undermine class cohesion and thus cannot be said to “predominate” for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3).
Because the question of materiality is common to the class, and because a failure of proof on that issue would not result in questions “affecting only individual members” predominating, Rule 23(b)(3), Connecticut Retirement was not required to prove the materiality of Amgen’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions at the class-certification stage. This is not a case in which the asserted problem—i. e., that the plaintiff class cannot prove materiality—“exhibits some fatal dissimilarity” among class members that would make use of the class-action device inefficient or unfair. Nagar-eda, Class Certification in the Age of Aggregate Proof, 84 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 97,107 (2009). Instead, what Amgen alleges is “a fatal similarity—[an alleged] failure of proof as to an element of the plaintiffs’ cause of action.” Ibid. Such a contention is properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion. The allegation should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class. Ibid. See also Schleicher, 618 F. 3d, at 687 (“[WJhether a statement is materially false is a question common to all class members and therefore may be resolved on a class-wide basis after certification.”).
B
Insisting that materiality must be proved at the class-certification stage, Amgen relies chiefly on two arguments, neither of which we find persuasive.
1
Amgen points first to our statement in Halliburton that “securities fraud plaintiffs must prove certain things in order to invoke Basic’s rebuttable presumption of reliance,” including “that the alleged misrepresentations were publicly known..., that the stock traded in an efficient market, and that the relevant transaction took place ‘between the time the misrepresentations were made and the time the truth was revealed.’ ” 563 U. S., at 811 (quoting Basic, 485 U. S., at 248, n. 27). See also Dukes, 564 U. S., at 351, n. 6 (“[P]laintiffs seeking 23(b)(3) certification [of a securities-fraud class action] must prove that their shares were traded on an efficient market.”). If these fraud-on-the-market predicates must be proved before class certification, Amgen contends, materiality—another fraud-on-the-market predicate—should be treated no differently.
We disagree. As an initial matter, the requirement that a putative class representative establish that it executed trades “between the time the misrepresentations were made and the time the truth was revealed” relates primarily to the Rule 23(a)(3) and (a)(4) inquiries into typicality and adequacy of representation, not to the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry. Basic, 485 U. S., at 248, n. 27. A security’s market price cannot be affected by a misrepresentation not yet made, and in an efficient market, a misrepresentation’s impact on market price is quickly nullified once the truth comes to light. Thus, a plaintiff whose relevant transactions were not executed between the time the misrepresentation was made and the time the truth was revealed cannot be said to have indirectly relied on the misrepresentation through its reliance on the integrity of the market price. Such a plaintiff’s claims, therefore, would not be “typical” of the claims of investors who did trade during the window between misrepresentation and truth revelation. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(a)(3). Nor could a court confidently conclude that such a plaintiff would “fairly and adequately protect the interests” of investors who traded during the relevant window. Rule 23(a)(4). The requirement that the fraud-on-the-market theory’s trade-timing predicate be established before class certification thus sheds little light on the question whether materiality must also be proved at the class-certification stage.
Amgen is not aided by Halliburton’s statement that market efficiency and the public nature of the alleged misrepresentations must be proved before a securities-fraud class action can be certified. As Amgen notes, market efficiency, publicity, and materiality can all be proved on a classwide basis. Furthermore, they are all essential predicates of the fraud-on-the-market theory. Unless those predicates are established, there is no basis for presuming that the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations were reflected in the security’s market price, and hence no grounding for any contention that investors indirectly relied on those misrepresentations through their reliance on the integrity of the market price. But unlike materiality, market efficiency and publicity are not indispensable elements of a Rule 10b-5 claim. See Matrixx Initiatives, 563 U. S., at 37-38 (listing elements of a Rule 10b-5 claim). Thus, where the market for a security is inefficient or the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations were not aired publicly, a plaintiff cannot invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption. She can, however, attempt to establish reliance through the “traditional” mode of demonstrating that she was personally “aware of [the defendant’s] statement and engaged in a relevant transaction... based on that specific misrepresentation.” Halliburton, 563 U. S., at 810. Individualized reliance issues would predominate in such a lawsuit. See Basic, 485 U. S., at 242. The litigation, therefore, could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) as a class action, but the initiating plaintiff’s claim would remain live; it would not be “dead on arrival.” 660 F. 3d, at 1175.
A failure of proof on the issue of materiality, in contrast, not only precludes a plaintiff from invoking the fraud-on-the-market presumption of classwide reliance; it also establishes as a matter of law that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the merits of her Rule 10b-5 claim. Materiality thus differs from the market-efficiency and publicity predicates in this critical respect: While the failure of common, classwide proof on the issues of market efficiency and publicity leaves open the prospect of individualized proof of reliance, the failure of common proof on the issue of materiality ends the case for the class and for all individuals alleged to compose the class. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20 (“Unless the failure of common proof gives rise to a need for individualized proof, it does not cast doubt on the propriety of class certification.”). In short, there can be no actionable reliance, individually or collectively, on immaterial information. Because a failure of proof on the issue of materiality, unlike the issues of market efficiency and publicity, does not give rise to any prospect of individual questions overwhelming common ones, materiality need not be proved prior to Rule 23(b)(3) class certification.
2
Amgen also contends that certain “policy considerations” militate in favor of requiring precertification proof of materiality. Brief for Petitioners 28. An order granting class certification, Amgen observes, can exert substantial pressure on a defendant “to settle rather than incur the costs of defending a class action and run the risk of potentially ruinous liability.” Advisory Committee’s 1998 Note on subd. (f) of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 143. See also AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 333, 350 (2011) (class actions can entail a “risk of ‘in terrorem’ settlements”). Absent a requirement to evaluate materiality at the class-certification stage, Amgen contends, the issue may never be addressed by a court, for the defendant will surrender and settle soon after a class is certified. Insistence on proof of materiality before certifying a securities-fraud class action, Amgen thus urges, ensures that the issue will be adjudicated and not forgone. See also post, at 485-486 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (expressing the same concerns).
In this regard, however, materiality does not differ from other essential elements of a Rule 10b-5 claim, notably, the requirements that the statements or omissions on which the plaintiff’s claims are based were false or misleading and that the alleged statements or omissions caused the plaintiff to suffer economic loss. See Matrixx Initiatives, 563 U. S., at 37-38. Settlement pressure exerted by class certification may prevent judicial resolution of these issues. Yet this Court has held that loss causation and the falsity or misleading nature of the defendant’s alleged statements or omissions are common questions that need not be adjudicated before a class is certified. See Halliburton, 563 U. S., at 809 (loss causation need not be proved at the class-certification stage); Basic, 485 U. S., at 242 (“the falsity or misleading nature of the... public statements” allegedly made by the defendant is a “common questio[n]”). See also Schleicher, 618 F. 3d, at 685 (falsity of alleged misstatements need not be proved before certification of a securities-fraud class action).
Congress, we count it significant, has addressed the settlement pressures associated with securities-fraud class actions through means other than requiring proof of materiality at the class-certification stage. In enacting the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 109 Stat. 737, Congress recognized that although private securities-fraud litigation furthers important public-policy interests, prime among them, deterring wrongdoing and providing restitution to defrauded investors, such lawsuits have also been subject to abuse, including the “extraction]” of “extortionate ‘settlements’ ” of frivolous claims. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-369, pp. 31-32 (1995). The PSLRA’s response to the perceived abuses was, inter alia, to “impos[e] heightened pleading requirements” for seeurities-fraud actions, “limit recoverable damages and attorney’s fees, provide a'safe harbor’ for forward-looking statements, impose new restrictions on the selection of (and compensation awarded to) lead plaintiffs, mandate imposition of sanctions for frivolous litigation, and authorize a stay of discovery pending resolution of any motion to dismiss.” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U. S. 71, 81-82 (2006). See also 15 U. S. C. § 78u-4 (2006 ed. and Supp. V). Congress later fortified the PSLRA by enacting the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, 112 Stat. 3227, which curtailed plaintiffs’ ability to evade the PSLRA’s limitations on federal seeurities-fraud litigation by bringing class-action suits under state rather than federal law. See 15 U. S. C. §78bb(f)(1) (2006 ed.).
While taking these steps to curb abusive seeurities-fraud lawsuits, Congress rejected calls to undo the fraud-on-the-market presumption of classwide reliance endorsed in Basic. See Langevoort, Basic at Twenty: Rethinking Fraud on the Market, 2009 Wis. L. Rev. 151, 153, and n. 8 (noting that the initial version of H. R. 10, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995), an unenacted bill that, like the PSLRA, was designed to curtail abuses in private securities litigation, “would have undone Basic”). See also Common Sense Legal Reform Act: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the House Committee on Commerce, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., 92, 236-237, 251-252, 272 (1995) (witnesses criticized the fraud-on-the-market presumption and expressed support for H. R. 10’s requirement that seeurities-fraud plaintiffs prove direct reliance). Nor did Congress decree that seeurities-fraud plaintiffs prove each element of their claim before obtaining class certification. Because Congress has homed in on the precise policy concerns raised in Am-gen’s brief, “[w]e do not think it appropriate for the judiciary to make its own further adjustments by reinterpreting Rule 23 to make likely success on the merits essential to class certification in seeurities-fraud suits.” Schleicher, 618 F. 3d, at 686; cf. Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U. S. 299, 317-318 (2011) (“Congress’s decision to address the relitigation concerns associated with class actions through the mechanism of removal provides yet another reason for federal courts to adhere in this context to longstanding principles of preclusion.”).
In addition to seeking our aid in warding off “in terrorem” settlements, Amgen also argues that requiring proof of materiality before class certification would conserve judicial resources by sparing judges the task of overseeing large class proceedings in which the essential element of reliance cannot be proved on a classwide basis. In reality, however, it is Amgen’s position, not the judgments of the lower courts in this case, that would waste judicial resources. Amgen’s argument, if embraced, would necessitate a minitrial on the issue of materiality at the class-certification stage. Such preliminary adjudications would entail considerable expenditures of judicial time and resources, costs scarcely anticipated
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 is an appeal from a judgment entered May 22, 1975, by a three-judge court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The judgment is reversed. The District Court erred in holding that House Bill No. 1290 and Senate Bill No. 2976, Mississippi Laws, 1975, Regular Session, are not legislative enactments required to be submitted pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 84 Stat. 315, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526 (1973). Those Acts are not now and will not be effective as laws until and unless cleared pursuant to § 5. The District Court accordingly also erred in deciding the constitutional challenges to the Acts based upon claims of racial discrimination. Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 (1971); Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544 (1969).
This reversal is, however, without prejudice to the authority of the District Court, if it should become appropriate, to entertain a proceeding to require the conduct of the 1975 elections pursuant to a court-ordered reapportionment plan that complies with this Court’s decisions in Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S. 315 (1973); Connor v. Williams, 404 U. S. 549 (1972); and Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1 (1975).
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: | 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 KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 48 Stat. 992, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 78a, et seq., grants federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction "of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by [the Exchange Act] or the rules or regulations thereunder." § 78aa(a). We hold today that the jurisdictional test established by that provision is the same as the one used to decide if a case "arises under" a federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
I
Respondent Greg Manning held more than two million shares of stock in Escala Group, Inc., a company traded on the NASDAQ. Between 2006 and 2007, Escala's share price plummeted and Manning lost most of his investment. Manning blames petitioners, Merrill Lynch and several other financial institutions (collectively, Merrill Lynch), for devaluing Escala during that period through "naked short sales" of its stock.
A typical short sale of a security is one made by a borrower, rather than an owner, of stock. In such a transaction, a person borrows stock from a broker, sells it to a buyer on the open market, and later purchases the same number of shares to return to the broker. The short seller's hope is that the stock price will decline between the time he sells the borrowed shares and the time he buys replacements to pay back his loan. If that happens, the seller gets to pocket the difference (minus associated transaction costs).
In a "naked" short sale, by contrast, the seller has not borrowed (or otherwise obtained) the stock he puts on the market, and so never delivers the promised shares to the buyer. See " Naked" Short Selling Antifraud Rule, Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) Release No. 34-58774, 73 Fed.Reg. 61667 (2008). That practice (beyond its effect on individual purchasers) can serve "as a tool to drive down a company's stock price"-which, of course, injures shareholders like Manning. Id., at 61670. The SEC regulates such short sales at the federal level: The Commission's Regulation SHO, issued under the Exchange Act, prohibits short sellers from intentionally failing to deliver securities and thereby curbs market manipulation. See 17 CFR §§ 242.203 -242.204 (2015).
In this lawsuit, Manning (joined by six other former Escala shareholders) alleges that Merrill Lynch facilitated and engaged in naked short sales of Escala stock, in violation of New Jersey law. His complaint asserts that Merrill Lynch participated in "short sales at times when [it] neither possessed, nor had any intention of obtaining[,] sufficient stock" to deliver to buyers. App. to Pet. for Cert. 57a, Amended Complaint ¶ 39. That conduct, Manning charges, contravened provisions of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), New Jersey Criminal Code, and New Jersey Uniform Securities Law; it also, he adds, ran afoul of the New Jersey common law of negligence, unjust enrichment, and interference with contractual relations. See id., at 82a-101a, ¶¶ 88-161. Manning chose not to bring any claims under federal securities laws or rules. His complaint, however, referred explicitly to Regulation SHO, both describing the purposes of that rule and cataloguing past accusations against Merrill Lynch for flouting its requirements. See id., at 51a-54a, ¶¶ 28-30;
75a-82a, ¶¶ 81-87. And the complaint couched its description of the short selling at issue here in terms suggesting that Merrill Lynch had again violated that regulation, in addition to infringing New Jersey law. See id., at 57a-59a, ¶¶ 39-43.
Manning brought his complaint in New Jersey state court, but Merrill Lynch removed the case to Federal District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (allowing removal of any civil action of which federal district courts have original jurisdiction). Merrill Lynch asserted federal jurisdiction on two grounds. First, it invoked the general federal question statute, § 1331, which grants district courts jurisdiction of "all civil actions arising under" federal law. Second, it maintained that the suit belonged in federal court by virtue of § 27 of the Exchange Act. That provision, in relevant part, grants district courts exclusive jurisdiction of "all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by [the Exchange Act] or the rules and regulations thereunder." 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a). Manning moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that neither statute gave the federal court authority to adjudicate his collection of state-law claims. The District Court denied his motion. See No. 12-4466 (D NJ, Mar. 18, 2013), App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a-38a.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, ordering a remand of the case to state court. See 772 F.3d 158 (2014). The Third Circuit first decided that the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, did not confer jurisdiction of the suit, because all Manning's claims were "brought under state law" and none "necessarily raised" a federal issue. 772 F.3d, at 161, 163. Nor, the court held, did § 27 of the Exchange Act make the district court the appropriate forum. Relying on this Court's construction of a nearly identical jurisdictional provision, the Court of Appeals found that § 27 covers only those cases involving the Exchange Act that would satisfy the "arising under" test of the federal question statute. See id., at 166-167 (citing Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court of Del. for New Castle Cty., 366 U.S. 656, 81 S.Ct. 1303, 6 L.Ed.2d 584 (1961) ). Because the District Court lacked jurisdiction of Manning's suit under § 1331, so too it was not the exclusive forum under § 27.
Merrill Lynch sought this Court's review solely as to whether § 27 commits Manning's case to federal court. See Pet. for Cert. i. Because of a Circuit split about that provision's meaning, we granted certiorari. 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2938, 192 L.Ed.2d 975 (2015). We now affirm.
II
Like the Third Circuit, we read § 27 as conferring exclusive federal jurisdiction of the same suits as "aris[e] under" the Exchange Act pursuant to the general federal question statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The text of § 27 more readily supports that meaning than it does either of the parties' two alternatives. This Court's precedents interpreting identical statutory language positively compel that conclusion. And the construction fits with our practice of reading jurisdictional laws, so long as consistent with their language, to respect the traditional role of state courts in our federal system and to establish clear and administrable rules.
A
Section 27, as noted earlier, provides federal district courts with exclusive jurisdiction "of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by [the Exchange Act] or the rules and regulations thereunder." 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a) ; see supra, at 1567. Much the same wording appears in nine other federal jurisdictional provisions-mostly enacted, like § 27, as part of New Deal-era regulatory statutes.
Merrill Lynch argues that the "plain, unambiguous language" of § 27 requires an expansive understanding of its scope. Brief for Petitioners 23. Whenever (says Merrill Lynch) a plaintiff's complaint either explicitly or implicitly "assert[s]" that "the defendant breached an Exchange Act duty," then the suit is "brought to enforce" that duty and a federal court has exclusive jurisdiction. Id., at 22; Reply Brief 10-11; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 7-8 (confirming that such allegations need not be express). That is so, Merrill Lynch contends, even if the plaintiff, as in this case, brings only state-law claims in his complaint-that is, seeks relief solely under state law. See Reply Brief 3-6. And it is so, Merrill Lynch continues, even if the plaintiff can prevail on those claims without proving that the alleged breach of an Exchange Act duty-here, the violation of Regulation SHO-actually occurred. See id., at 7-13; Tr. of Oral Arg. 3 ("[T]he words 'brought to enforce' [do not focus] on what the court would necessarily have to decide").
But a natural reading of § 27's text does not extend so far. "Brought" in this context means "commenced," Black's Law Dictionary 254 (3d ed. 1933); " to" is a word "expressing purpose [or] consequence," The Concise Oxford Dictionary 1288 (1931); and "enforce" means "give force [or] effect to," 1 Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language 725 (1927). So § 27 confers federal jurisdiction when an action is commenced in order to give effect to an Exchange Act requirement. That language, in emphasizing what the suit is designed to accomplish, stops short of embracing any complaint that happens to mention a duty established by the Exchange Act. Consider, for example, a simple state-law action for breach of contract, in which the plaintiff alleges, for atmospheric reasons, that the defendant's conduct also violated the Exchange Act-or still less, that the defendant is a bad actor who infringed that statute on another occasion. On Merrill Lynch's view, § 27 would cover that suit; indeed, Merrill Lynch points to just such incidental assertions as the basis for federal jurisdiction here. See Brief for Petitioners 20-21; supra, at 1567. But that hypothetical suit is "brought to enforce" state contract law, not the Exchange Act-because the plaintiff can get all the relief he seeks just by showing the breach of an agreement, without proving any violation of federal securities law. The suit, that is, can achieve all it is supposed to even if issues involving the Exchange Act never come up.
Critiquing Merrill Lynch's position on similar grounds, Manning proposes a far more restrictive interpretation of § 27's language-one going beyond what he needs to prevail. See Brief for Respondents 27-33. According to Manning, a suit is "brought to enforce" the Exchange Act's duties or liabilities only if it is brought directly under that statute-that is, only if the claims it asserts (and not just the duties it means to vindicate) are created by the Exchange Act. On that view, everything depends (as Justice Holmes famously said in another jurisdictional context) on which law "creates the cause of action." American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260, 36 S.Ct. 585, 60 L.Ed. 987 (1916). If a complaint asserts a right of action deriving from the Exchange Act (or an associated regulation), the suit must proceed in federal court. But if, as here, the complaint brings only state-created claims, then the case belongs in a state forum. And that is so, Manning claims, even if-contrary to what the Third Circuit held below-the success of the state claim necessarily hinges on proving that the defendant breached an Exchange Act duty. See Brief for Respondents 31.
Manning's view of the text's requirements, although better than Merrill Lynch's, veers too far in the opposite direction. There is no doubt, as Manning says, that a suit asserting an Exchange Act cause of action fits within § 27's scope: Bringing such a suit is the prototypical way of enforcing an Exchange Act duty. But it is not the only way. On rare occasions, as just suggested, a suit raising a state-law claim rises or falls on the plaintiff's ability to prove the violation of a federal duty. See, e.g., Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314-315, 125 S.Ct. 2363, 162 L.Ed.2d 257 (2005) ; Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 201, 41 S.Ct. 243, 65 L.Ed. 577 (1921). If in that manner, a state-law action necessarily depends on a showing that the defendant breached the Exchange Act, then that suit could also fall within § 27's compass. Suppose, for example, that a state statute simply makes illegal "any violation of the Exchange Act involving naked short selling." A plaintiff seeking relief under that state law must undertake to prove, as the cornerstone of his suit, that the defendant infringed a requirement of the federal statute. (Indeed, in this hypothetical, that is the plaintiff's only project.) Accordingly, his suit, even though asserting a state-created claim, is also "brought to enforce" a duty created by the Exchange Act.
An existing jurisdictional test well captures both classes of suits "brought to enforce" such a duty. As noted earlier, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides federal jurisdiction of all civil actions "arising under" federal law. See supra, at 1567. This Court has found that statutory term satisfied in either of two circumstances. Most directly, and most often, federal jurisdiction attaches when federal law creates the cause of action asserted. That set of cases is what Manning highlights in offering his view of § 27. But even when "a claim finds its origins" in state law, there is "a special and small category of cases in which arising under jurisdiction still lies."
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1064, 185 L.Ed.2d 72 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). As this Court has explained, a federal court has jurisdiction of a state-law claim if it "necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance" of federal and state power. Grable, 545 U.S., at 314, 125 S.Ct. 2363 ; see Gunn, 568 U.S., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1064-1065 (framing the same standard as a four-part test). That description typically fits cases, like those described just above, in which a state-law cause of action is "brought to enforce" a duty created by the Exchange Act because the claim's very success depends on giving effect to a federal requirement. Accordingly, we agree with the court below that § 27's jurisdictional test matches the one we have formulated for § 1331, as applied to cases involving the Exchange Act. If (but only if) such a case meets the "arising under" standard, § 27 commands that it go to federal court.
Merrill Lynch objects that our rule construes "completely different language"-i.e., the phrases "arising under" and "brought to enforce" in § 1331 and § 27, respectively-"to mean exactly the same thing." Reply Brief 7. We cannot deny that point. But we think it far less odd than Merrill Lynch does. After all, the test for § 1331 jurisdiction is not grounded in that provision's particular phrasing. This Court has long read the words "arising under" in Article III to extend quite broadly, "to all cases in which a federal question is 'an ingredient' of the action." Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 807, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 823, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824) ). In the statutory context, however, we opted to give those same words a narrower scope "in the light of [§ 1331's] history[,] the demands of reason and coherence, and the dictates of sound judicial policy." Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 379, 79 S.Ct. 468, 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959). Because the resulting test does not turn on § 1331's text, there is nothing remarkable in its fitting as, or even more, neatly a differently worded statutory provision.
Nor can Merrill Lynch claim that Congress's use of the new "brought to enforce" language in § 27 shows an intent to depart from a settled (even if linguistically ungrounded) test for statutory "arising under" jurisdiction. That is because no such well-defined test then existed. As we recently noted, our caselaw construing § 1331 was for many decades-including when the Exchange Act passed-highly "unruly." Gunn, 568 U.S., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1065 (referring to the "canvas" of our old opinions as "look[ing] like one that Jackson Pollock got to first"). Against that muddled backdrop, it is impossible to infer that Congress, in enacting § 27, wished to depart from what we now understand as the "arising under" standard.
B
This Court has reached the same conclusion before. In two unrelated decisions, we addressed the "brought to enforce" language at issue here. See Pan American, 366 U.S. 656, 81 S.Ct. 1303, 6 L.Ed.2d 584 ; Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 116 S.Ct. 873, 134 L.Ed.2d 6 (1996). Each time, we viewed that phrase as coextensive with our construction of "arising under."
Pan American involved § 22 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. § 717u -an exclusive jurisdiction provision containing language materially indistinguishable from § 27's. The case began in state court when a natural gas purchaser sued a producer for breach of a contract setting sale prices. Prior to the alleged breach, the producer had filed those contractual rates with the Federal Power Commission, as the NGA required. Relying on that submission (which the complaint did not mention), the producer claimed that the buyer's suit was "brought to enforce" a liability deriving from the NGA-i.e., a filed rate-and so must proceed in federal court. See 366 U.S., at 662, 81 S.Ct. 1303. This Court rejected the argument.
Our decision explained that § 22's use of the term "brought to enforce," rather than "arising under," made no difference to the jurisdictional analysis. The inquiry, we wrote, was "not affected by want" of the language contained in the federal question statute. Id., at 665, n. 2, 81 S.Ct. 1303. The "limitation[s]" associated with "arising under" jurisdiction, we continued, were "clearly implied" in § 22's alternative phrasing. Ibid. In short, the linguistic distinction between the two jurisdictional provisions did not extend to their meaning.
Pan American thus went on to analyze the jurisdictional issue in the manner set out in our "arising under" precedents. Federal question jurisdiction lies, the Court wrote, only if "it appears from the face of the complaint that determination of the suit depends upon a question of federal law." Id., at 663, 81 S.Ct. 1303. That inquiry focuses on "the particular claims a suitor makes" in his complaint-meaning, whether the plaintiff seeks relief under state or federal law. Id., at 662, 81 S.Ct. 1303. In addition, the Court suggested, a federal court could adjudicate a suit stating only a state-law claim if it included as "an element, and an essential one," the violation of a federal right. Id., at 663, 81 S.Ct. 1303 (quoting Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 112, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936) ). With those principles of "arising under" jurisdiction laid out, the Court held that § 22 did not enable a federal court to resolve the buyer's case, because he could prevail merely by proving breach of the contract. See 366 U.S., at 663-665, 81 S.Ct. 1303. Pan American establishes, then, that an action "brought to enforce" a duty or liability created by a federal statute is nothing more (and nothing less) than an action "arising under" that law.
Merrill Lynch reads Pan American more narrowly, as holding only that § 22 does not confer federal jurisdiction when a complaint (unlike Manning's) fails to reference federal law at all. See Brief for Petitioners 32-33, 38. But that argument ignores Pan American's express statement of equivalence between § 27's language and the federal question statute's: "Brought to enforce" has the same "limitation[s]" (meaning, the same scope) as "arising under." 366 U.S., at 665, n. 2, 81 S.Ct. 1303. And just as important, Merrill Lynch disregards Pan American's analytical structure: The decision proceeds by reviewing this Court's "arising under" precedents, articulating the principles animating that caselaw, and then applying those tenets to the dispute at hand. Id., at 662-665, 81 S.Ct. 1303. The Court thus showed (as well as told) that "brought to enforce" jurisdiction mirrors that of "arising under."
As a fallback, Merrill Lynch claims that Pan American is irrelevant here because it relied on legislative history distinct to the NGA in finding § 22's "brought to enforce" language coterminous with "arising under." See Brief for Petitioners 38-39. The premise of that argument is true enough: In support of its holding, the Court quoted a Committee Report describing § 22 as conferring federal jurisdiction "over cases arising under the act." 366 U.S., at 665, n. 2, 81 S.Ct. 1303. But we cannot accept the conclusion Merrill Lynch draws from that statement: that courts should give two identically worded statutory provisions, passed less than five years apart, markedly different meanings. Indeed, the result of Merrill Lynch's approach is still odder, for what of the eight other jurisdictional provisions containing "brought to enforce" language? See n. 3, supra. Presumably, Merrill Lynch would have courts inspect each of their legislative histories to decide whether to read those statutes as reproducing the "arising under" standard, adopting Merrill Lynch's alternative view, or demanding yet another jurisdictional test. We are hard pressed to imagine a less sensible way of construing the repeated iterations of the phrase "brought to enforce" in the jurisdictional provisions of the Federal Code.
In any event, this Court in Matsushita addressed § 27 itself, and once again equated the "brought to enforce" and "arising under" standards. That decision arose from a state-law action against corporate directors for breach of fiduciary duty. The issue was whether the state court handling the suit could approve a settlement releasing, in addition to the state claims actually brought, potential Exchange Act claims that § 27 would have committed to federal court. In deciding that the state court could do so, we described § 27-not once, not twice, but three times-as conferring exclusive jurisdiction of suits "arising under" the Exchange Act. See 516 U.S., at 380, 116 S.Ct. 873 (Section 27 "confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the federal courts for suits arising under the [Exchange] Act"); id., at 381, 116 S.Ct. 873 (Section 27 "prohibits state courts from adjudicating claims arising under the Exchange Act"); id., at 385, 116 S.Ct. 873 (Section 27 "prohibit[s] state courts from exercising jurisdiction over suits arising under the Exchange Act") (emphases added). Over and over, then, the Court took as a given that § 27's jurisdictional test mimicked the one in the general federal question statute.
And still more: The Matsushita Court thought clear that the suit as filed-which closely resembled Manning's in its mix of state and federal law-fell outside § 27's grant of exclusive jurisdiction. As just noted, the claims brought in the Matsushita complaint sought relief for breach of a state-law duty. But in support of those claims, the plaintiffs charged, much as Manning did here, that the defendants' conduct also violated federal securities laws. See 516 U.S., at 370, 116 S.Ct. 873 ; supra, at 1566 - 1567. We found the presence of that accusation insufficient to trigger § 27. "[T]he cause pleaded," we wrote, remained "a state common-law action," 516 U.S., at 382, n. 7, 116 S.Ct. 873 : Notwithstanding the potential federal issue, the suit "was not 'brought to enforce' any rights or obligations under the [Exchange] Act," id., at 381, 116 S.Ct. 873. The Court thus rejected the very position Merrill Lynch takes here-i.e., that § 27 precludes a state court from adjudicating any case, even if brought under state law, in which the plaintiff asserts an Exchange Act breach.
C
Construing § 27, consistent with both text and precedent, to cover suits that arise under the Exchange Act serves the goals we have consistently underscored in interpreting jurisdictional statutes. Our reading, unlike Merrill Lynch's, gives due deference to the important role of state courts in our federal system. And the standard we adopt is more straightforward and administrable than the alternative Merrill Lynch offers.
Out of respect for state courts, this Court has time and again declined to construe federal jurisdictional statutes more expansively than their language, most fairly read, requires. We have reiterated the need to give "[d]ue regard [to] the rightful independence of state governments"-and more particularly, to the power of the States "to provide for the determination of controversies in their courts." Romero, 358 U.S., at 380, 79 S.Ct. 468 (quoting Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 270, 54 S.Ct. 700, 78 L.Ed. 1248 (1934) ; Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941) ). Our decisions, as we once put the point, reflect a "deeply felt and traditional reluctance... to expand the jurisdiction of federal courts through a broad reading of jurisdictional statutes." Romero, 358 U.S., at 379, 79 S.Ct. 468. That interpretive stance serves, among other things, to keep state-law actions like Manning's in state court, and thus to help maintain the constitutional balance between state and federal judiciaries.
Nor does this Court's concern for state court prerogatives disappear, as Merrill Lynch suggests it should, in the face of a statute granting exclusive federal jurisdiction. See Brief for Petitioners 23-27. To the contrary, when a statute mandates, rather than permits, federal jurisdiction-thus depriving state courts of all ability to adjudicate certain claims-our reluctance to endorse "broad reading[s]," Romero, 358 U.S., at 379, 79 S.Ct. 468 if anything, grows stronger. And that is especially so when, as here, the construction offered would place in federal court actions bringing only claims created by state law-even if those claims might raise federal issues. To be sure, a grant of exclusive federal jurisdiction, as Merrill Lynch reminds us, indicates that Congress wanted "greater uniformity of construction and more effective and expert application" of federal law than usual. Brief for Petitioners 24 (quoting Matsushita, 516 U.S., at 383, 116 S.Ct. 873 ). But "greater" and "more" do not mean "total," and the critical question remains how far such a grant extends. In resolving that issue, we will not lightly read the statute to alter the usual constitutional balance, as it would by sending actions with all state-law claims to federal court just because a complaint references a federal duty.
Our precedents construing other exclusive grants of federal jurisdiction illustrate those principles. In Pan American, for example, we denied that a state court's resolution of state-law claims potentially implicating the NGA's meaning would "jeopardize the uniform system of regulation" that the statute established. 366 U.S., at 665, 81 S.Ct. 1303. We reasoned that this Court's ability to review state court decisions of federal questions would sufficiently protect federal interests. And similarly, in Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 464-467, 110 S.Ct. 792, 107 L.Ed.2d 887 (1990), we permitted state courts to adjudicate civil RICO actions that might raise issues about the scope of federal crimes alleged as predicate acts, even though federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction "of all offenses against the laws of the United States," 18 U.S.C. § 3231. There, we expressed confidence that state courts would look to federal court interpretations of the relevant criminal statutes. Accordingly, we saw "no significant danger of inconsistent application of federal criminal law" and no "incompatibility with federal interests." Tafflin, 493 U.S., at 464-465, 467, 110 S.Ct. 792 (internal quotation marks omitted).
So too here, when state courts, in deciding state-law claims, address possible issues of the Exchange Act's meaning. Not even Merrill Lynch thinks those decisions wholly avoidable: It admits that § 27 does nothing to prevent state courts from resolving Exchange Act questions that result from defenses or counterclaims. See Brief for Petitioners 32-33; Pan American, 366 U.S., at 664-665, 81 S.Ct. 1303. We see little difference, in terms of the uniformity-based policies Merrill Lynch invokes, if those issues instead appear in a complaint like Manning's. And indeed, Congress likely contemplated that some complaints intermingling state and federal questions would be brought in state court: After all, Congress specifically affirmed the capacity of such courts to hear state-law securities actions, which predictably raise issues coinciding, overlapping, or intersecting with those under the Act itself. See 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(a)(2) ; Matsushita, 516 U.S., at 383, 116 S.Ct. 873. So, for example, it is hardly surprising in a suit like this one, alleging short sales in violation of state securities law, that a plaintiff might say the defendant previously breached a federal prohibition of similar conduct. See supra, at 1566 - 1567 (describing Manning's complaint). And it is less troubling for a state court to consider such an issue than to lose all ability to adjudicate a suit raising only state-law causes of action.
Reading § 27 in line with our § 1331 caselaw also promotes "administrative simplicity[, which] is a major virtue in a jurisdictional statute." Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010). Both judges and litigants are familiar with the "arising under" standard and how it works. For the most part, that test provides ready answers to jurisdictional questions. And an existing body of precedent gives guidance whenever borderline cases crop up. See supra, at 1569 - 1570. By contrast, no one has experience with Merrill Lynch's alternative standard, which would spring out of nothing to govern suits involving not only the Exchange Act but up to nine other discrete spheres of federal law. See n. 3, supra (listing statutes with "brought to enforce" language); supra, at 1572 - 1573 (noting Merrill Lynch's backup claim that legislative histories might compel different tests for different statutes). Adopting such an untested approach, and forcing courts to toggle back and forth between it and the "arising under" standard, would undermine consistency and predictability in litigation. That result disserves courts and parties alike.
Making matters worse, Merrill Lynch's rule is simple for plaintiffs to avoid-or else, excruciating for courts to police. Under that rule, a plaintiff electing to bring state-law claims in state court will purge his complaint of any references to federal securities law, so as to escape removal. Such omissions, after all, will do nothing to change the way the plaintiff can present his case at trial; they will merely make the complaint less informative. Recognizing the potential for that kind of avoidance, Merrill Lynch argues that a judge should go behind the face of a complaint to determine whether it is the product of "artful pleading." See Tr. of Oral Arg. 7 (If the plaintiffs "had just literally whited out, deleted the references to Reg [ulation] SHO," the court should still understand the complaint to allege a breach of that rule; "the fact [that the plaintiffs] didn't cite it wouldn't change the fact"). We have no idea how a court would make that judgment, and get cold comfort from Merrill Lynch's assurance that the question would arise not in this case but in "the next third, fourth, fifth case down the road." Id., at 8. Jurisdictional tests are built for more than a single dispute: That Merrill Lynch's threatens to become either a useless drafting rule or a tortuous inquiry into artful pleading is one more good reason to reject it.
III
Section 27 provides exclusive federal jurisdiction of the same class of cases as "arise under" the Exchange Act for purposes of § 1331. The text of § 27, most naturally read, supports that rule. This Court has adopted the same view in two prior cases. And that reading of the statute promotes the twin goals, important in interpreting jurisdictional grants, of respecting state courts and providing administrable standards.
Our holding requires remanding Manning's suit to state court. The Third Circuit found that the District Court did not have jurisdiction of Manning's suit under § 1331 because all his claims sought relief under state law and none necessarily raised a federal issue. See supra, at 1567. Merrill Lynch did not challenge that ruling, and we therefore take it as a given. And that means, under our decision today, that the District Court also lacked jurisdiction under § 27. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below.
It is so ordered.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice SOTOMAYOR joins, concurring in the judgment.
The Court concludes that respondents' suit belongs in state court because it does not satisfy the multifactor, atextual standard that we have used to assess whether a suit is one "arising under" federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Ante, at
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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma upholding the validity of a loyalty oath prescribed by Oklahoma statute for all state officers and employees. Okla. Stat. Ann., 1950, Tit. 51, §§ 37.1-37.8 (1952 Supp.). Appellants, employed by the State as members of the faculty and staff of Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, failed, within the thirty days permitted, to take the oath required by the Act. Appellee Updegraff, as a citizen and taxpayer, thereupon brought this suit in the District Court of Oklahoma County to enjoin the necessary state officials from paying further compensation to employees who had not subscribed to the oath. The appellants, who were permitted to intervene, attacked the validity of the Act on the grounds, among others, that it was a bill of attainder; an ex post facto law; impaired the obligation of their contracts with the State and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They also sought a mandatory injunction directing the state officers to pay their salaries regardless of their failure to take the oath. Their objections centered largely on the following clauses of the oath:
". . . That I am not affiliated directly or indirectly . . . with any foreign political agency, party, organization or Government, or with any agency, party, organization, association, or group whatever which has been officially determined by the United States Attorney General or other authorized agency of the United States to be a communist front or subversive organization; . . . that I will take up arms in the defense of the United States in time of War, or National Emergency, if necessary; that within the five (5) years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of . . . any agency, party, organization, association, or group whatever which has been officially determined by the United States Attorney General or other authorized public agency of the United States to be a communist front or subversive organization . . .
The court upheld the Act and enjoined the state officers from making further salary payments to appellants. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed, sub nom. Board of Regents v. Updegraff, 205 Okla. 301, 237 P. 2d 131 (1951). We noted probable jurisdiction because of the public importance of this type of legislation and the recurring serious constitutional questions which it presents.
The District Court of Oklahoma County in holding the Act valid concluded that the appellants were compelled to take the oath as written; that the appellants “and each of them, did not take and subscribe to the oath as provided in section 2 of the Act and wilfully refused to take that oath and by reason thereof the Board of Regents is enjoined from paying them, and their employment is terminated.” In affirming, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that the phrase of the oath “any foreign political agency, party, organization or Government, or with any agency, party, organization, association, or group whatever which has been officially determined by the United States Attorney General or other authorized agency of the United States to be a communist front or subversive organization” actually “refers to a list or lists of such organizations in existence at the time of the passage of the act which had been prepared by the Attorney General [of the United States] under governmental directive. Such list or lists are in effect made a part of the oath by reference.” On this point the opinion continues: “There is no requirement in the act that an oath be taken of nonmembership in organizations not on the list of the Attorney General of the United States at the time of the passage of this act.”
We read this part of the highest state court’s decision as limiting the organizations proscribed by the Act to those designated on the list or lists of the Attorney General which had been issued prior to the effective date of the Act. Although this interpretation discarded clear language of the oath as surplusage, the court denied the appellants’ petition for rehearing which included a plea that refusal of the court to permit appellants to take the oath as so interpreted was violative of due process.
The purpose of the Act, we are told, “was to make loyalty a qualification to hold public office or be employed by the State.” 205 Okla., at 305, 237 P. 2d, at 136. During periods of international stress, the extent of legislation with such objectives accentuates our traditional concern about the relation of government to the individual in a free society. The perennial problem of defining that relationship becomes acute when disloyalty is screened by ideological patterns and techniques of disguise that make it difficult to identify. Democratic government is not powerless to meet this threat, but it must do so without infringing the freedoms that are the ultimate values of all democratic living. In the adoption of such means as it believes effective, the legislature is therefore confronted with the problem of balancing its interest in national security with the often conflicting constitutional rights of the individual.
In a series of cases coming here in recent years, we have had occasion to consider legislation aimed at safeguarding the public service from disloyalty. Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U. S. 716 (1951); Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 485 (1952); Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, 341 U. S. 56 (1951). It is in the context of these decisions that we determine the validity of the oath before us.
Garner involved a Los Angeles ordinance requiring all city employees to swear that they did not advocate the overthrow of the government by unlawful means or belong to organizations with such objectives. The ordinance implemented an earlier charter amendment which disqualified from municipal employment all persons unable to take such an oath truthfully. One of the attacks made on the oath in that case was that it violated due process because its negation was not limited to organizations known by the employee to be within the proscribed class. This argument was rejected because we felt justified in assuming that scienter was implicit in each clause of the oath.
Adler also indicated the importance of determining whether a rule of exclusion based on association applies to innocent as well as knowing activity. New York had sought to bar from employment in the public schools-persons who advocate, or belong to organizations which advocate, the overthrow of the government by unlawful means. The Feinberg Law directed the New York Board of Regents to make a listing, after notice and hearing, of organizations of the type described. Under § 3022 of the statute, the Regents provided by regulation that membership in a listed organization should be prima jade evidence of disqualification for office in the New York public schools. In upholding this legislation, we expressly noted that the New York courts had construed the statute to require knowledge of organizational purpose before the regulation could apply. 342 U. S., at 494. Cf. American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 413 (1950).
The oath in Gerende was required of candidates for public office who sought places on a Maryland ballot. On oral argument in that case, the Maryland Attorney General assured us that he would advise the proper state authorities to accept, as complying with the statute, an affidavit stating that the affiant was not engaged in an attempt to overthrow the government by force or violence or knowingly a member of an organization engaged in such an attempt. Because we read an earlier Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision as interpreting the statute so that such an affidavit would satisfy its requirements, we affirmed on the basis of this assurance.
We assumed in Garner, that if our interpretation of the oath as containing an implicit scienter requirement was correct, Los Angeles would give the petitioners who had refused to sign the oath an opportunity to take it as interpreted and resume their employment. But here, with our decision in Garner before it, the Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to extend to appellants an opportunity to take the oath. In addition, a petition for rehearing which urged that failure to permit appellants to take the oath as interpreted deprived them of due process was denied. This must be viewed as a holding that knowledge is not a factor under the Oklahoma statute. We are thus brought to the question touched on in Garner, Adler, and Gerende: whether the Due Process Clause permits a state, in attempting to bar disloyal individuals from its employ, to exclude persons solely on the basis of organizational membership, regardless of their knowledge concerning the organizations to which they had belonged. For, under the statute before us, the fact of membership alone disqualifies. If the rule be expressed as a presumption of disloyalty, it is a conclusive one.
But membership may be innocent. A state servant may have joined a proscribed organization unaware of its activities and purposes. In recent years, many completely loyal persons have severed organizational ties after learning for the first time of the character of groups to which they had belonged. “They had joined, [but] did not know what it was, they were good, fine young-men and women, loyal Americans, but they had been trapped into it — because one of the great weaknesses of all Americans, whether adult or youth, is to join something.” At the time of affiliation, a group itself may be innocent, only later coming under the influence of those who would turn it toward illegitimate ends. Conversely, an organization formerly subversive and therefore designated as such may have subsequently freed itself from the influences which originally led to its listing.
There can be no dispute about the consequences visited upon a person excluded from public employment on disloyalty grounds. In the view of the community, the stain is a deep one; indeed, it has become a badge of infamy. Especially is this so in time of cold war and hot emotions when “each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy.” Yet under the Oklahoma Act, the fact of association alone determines disloyalty and disqualification; it matters not whether association existed innocently or knowingly. To thus inhibit individual freedom of movement is to stifle the flow of democratic expression and controversy at one of its chief sources. We hold that the distinction observed between the case at bar and Garner, Adler and Gerende is decisive. Indiscriminate classification of innocent with knowing activity must fall as an assertion of arbitrary power. The oath offends due process.
But appellee insists that Adler and United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75 (1947), are contra. We are referred to our statement in Adler that persons seeking employment in the New York public schools have “no right to work for the State in the school system on their own terms. United Public Workers v. Mitchell . . . . They may work for the school system upon the reasonable terms laid down by the proper authorities of New York.” 342 U. S., at 492. To draw from this language the facile generalization that there is no constitutionally protected right to public employment is to obscure the issue. For, in United Public Workers, though we held that the Federal Government through the Hatch Act could properly bar its employees from certain types of political activity thought inimical to the interests of the Civil Service, we cast this holding into perspective by emphasizing that Congress could not “enact a regulation providing that no Republican, Jew or Negro shall be appointed to federal office, or that no federal employee shall attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.” 330 U. S., at 100. See also In re Summers, 325 U. S. 561, 571 (1945). We need not pause to consider whether an abstract right to public employment exists. It is sufficient to say that constitutional protection does extend to the public servant whose exclusion pursuant to a statute is patently arbitrary or discriminatory.
Because of this disposition, we do not pass on the serious questions raised as to whether the Act, in proscribing those “communist front or subversive organizations” designated as such on lists of the Attorney General of the United States, gave fair notice to those affeeted, in view of the fact that those listings have never included a designation of “communist fronts,” and have in some cases designated organizations without classifying them. Nor need we consider the significance of the differing standards employed in the preparation of those lists and their limited evidentiary use under the Federal Loyalty Program.
Reversed.
Me. Justice Jackson, not having heard the argument, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Burton concurs in the result.
“I,_, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma by force or violence or other unlawful means; That I am not affiliated directly or indirectly with the Communist Party, the Third Communist International, with any foreign political agency, party, organization or Government, or with any agency, party, organization, association, or group whatever which has been officially determined by the United States Attorney General or other authorized agency of the United States to be a communist front or subversive organization; nor do I advocate revolution, teach or justify a program of sabotage, force or violence, sedition or treason, against the Government of the United States or of this State; nor do I advocate directly or indirectly, teach or justify by any means whatsoever, the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of this State, or change in the form of Government thereof, by force or any unlawful means; that I will take up arms in the defense of the United States in time of War, or National Emergency, if necessary; that within the five (5) years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of the Communist Party, the Third Communist International, or of any agency, party, organization, association, or group whatever which has been officially determined by the United States Attorney General or other authorized public agency of the United States to be a communist front or subversive organization, or of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma by force or violence or other unlawful means;
“And I do further swear (or affirm) that during such time as I am {Here put name of office, or, if an employee,) insert ‘An employee of followed by the complete designation of the employing officer, office, agency, authority, commission, department or institution.
“I will not advocate and that I will not become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates .the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma by force or violence or other unlawful means.”
The state officials named as defendants in Updegralf’s suit took the position in the state courtsThat the statute was unconstitutional. Following a policy of the Oklahoma Attorney General not to appeal from adverse decisions of the state supreme court, these defendants are here only because they were made appellees by the appellant-intervenors. They have chosen in their brief merely to restate, without argument, their position in the court below.
Testimony of J. Edgar Hoover, Hearings before House Committee on Un-American Activities on H. R. 1884 and H. K.. 2122, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 46.
Address by Judge Learned Hand at the 86th Convocation of the University of the State of New York, delivered October 24, 1952, at Albany, New York.
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 Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 504(e) of the Copyright Act of 1976 permits a copyright owner “to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages ..., in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just.” 90Stat. 2585, as amended, 17 U. S. C. § 504(c)(1). In this case, we consider whether § 504(e) or the Seventh Amendment grants a right to a jury trial when a copyright owner elects to recover statutory damages. We hold that although the statute is silent on the point, the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial, which includes a right to a jury determination of the amount of statutory damages. We therefore reverse.
I
Petitioner C. Elvin Feltner owns Krypton International Corporation, which in 1990 acquired three television stations in the southeastern United States. Respondent Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., had licensed several television series to these stations, including “Who’s the Boss,” “Silver Spoons,” “Hart to Hart,” and “T. J. Hooker.” After the stations became delinquent in making their royalty payments to Columbia, Krypton and Columbia entered into negotiations to restructure the stations’ debt. These discussions were unavailing, and Columbia terminated the stations’ license agreements in October 1991. Despite Columbia’s termination, the stations continued broadcasting the programs.
Columbia sued Feltner, Krypton, the stations, various Krypton subsidiaries, and certain Krypton officers in Federal District Court alleging, inter alia, copyright infringement arising from the stations’ unauthorized broadcasting of the programs. Columbia sought various forms of relief under the Copyright Act of 1976 (Copyright Act), 17 U. S. C. § 101 et seq., including a permanent injunction, § 502; impoundment of all copies of the programs, § 503; actual damages or, in the alternative, statutory damages, §504; and costs and attorney’s fees, § 505. On Columbia’s motion, the District Court entered partial summary judgment as to liability for Columbia on its copyright infringement claims.
Columbia exercised the option afforded by § 504(c) of the Copyright Act to recover “Statutory Damages” in lieu of actual damages. In relevant part, § 504(c) provides:
“Statutory Damages—
“(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work,... in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just....
“(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $100,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court [in] its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200....” 17 U. S. C. § 504(c).
The District Court denied Feltner’s request for a jury trial on statutory damages, ruling instead that such issues would be determined at a bench trial. After two days of trial, the trial judge held that each episode of each series constituted a separate work and that the airing of the same episode by different stations controlled by Feltner constituted separate violations; accordingly, the trial judge determined that there had been a total of 440 acts of infringement. The trial judge further found that Feltner’s infringement was willful and fixed statutory damages at $20,000 per act of infringement. Applying that amount to the number of acts of infringement, the trial judge determined that Columbia was entitled to $8,800,000 in statutory damages, plus costs and attorney’s fees.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in all relevant respects. Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 106 F. 3d 284 (1997). Most importantly for present purposes, the court rejected Feltner’s argument that he was entitled to have a jury determine statutory damages. Relying on Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F. 2d 1157 (CA9 1977) — which held that § 25(b) of the Copyright Act of 1909, the statutory predecessor of § 504(c), required the trial judge to assess statutory damages — the Court of Appeals held that § 504(e) does not grant a right to a jury determination of statutory damages. The court reasoned that “[i]f Congress intended to overrule Krofft by having the jury determine the proper award of statutory damages, it would have altered” the language “as the court considers just” in § 504(e). 106 F. 3d, at 293. The Court of Appeals further concluded that the “Seventh Amendment does not provide a right to a jury trial on the issue of statutory damages because an award of such damages is equitable in nature.” Ibid. We granted certiorari. 521 U. S. 1151 (1997).
II
Before inquiring into the applicability of the Seventh Amendment, we must “'first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the [constitutional] question may be avoided.” Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 417, n. 3 (1987) (quoting Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 192, n. 6 (1974)). Sueh a construction is not possible here, for we cannot discern “any congressional intent to grant... the right to a jury trial,” 481 U. S., at 417, n. 3, on an award of statutory damages.
The language of § 504(c) does not grant a right to have a jury assess statutory damages. Statutory damages are to be assessed in an amount that “the court considers just.55 § 504(e)(1). Further, in the event that “the court finds” the infringement was willful or innocent, “the court in its discretion” may, within limits, increase or decrease the amount of statutory damages. § 504(c)(2). These phrases, like the entire statutory provision, make no mention of a right to a jury trial or, for that matter, to juries at all.
The word “court” in this context appears to mean judge, not jury. Cf. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U. S. 228, 232 (1952) (referring to the “judicial discretion” necessary for “the court’s choice between a computed measure of damage and that imputed by” the Copyright Act of 1909 (emphasis added)). In fact, the other remedies provisions of the Copyright Act use the term “court” in contexts generally thought to confer authority on a judge, rather than a jury. See, e. g., § 502 (“court... may . . . grant temporary and final injunctions”); § 503(a) (“[T]he court may order the impounding... of all copies or phonorec-ords”); § 503(b) (“As part of a final judgment or decree, the court may order the destruction or other reasonable disposition of all copies or phonorecords”); § 505 (“[Tjhe court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs” of litigation, and “the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee”). In contrast, the Copyright Act does not use the term “court” in the subsection addressing awards of actual damages and profits, see § 504(b), which generally are thought to constitute legal relief. See Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U. S. 469, 477 (1962) (action for damages for trademark infringement “subject to cognizance by a court of law”); see also Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F. 2d 464, 468 (CA2 1946) (copyright action for damages is “triable at ‘law5 and by a jury as of right”); Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 925 F. 2d 1010, 1014 (CA7 1991) (“little question that the right to a jury tidal exists in a copyright infringement action when the copyright owner endeavors to prove and recover its actual damages”); 3 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 12.10[B] (1997) (“beyond dispute that a plaintiff who seeks to recover actual damages is entitled to a jury trial” (footnotes omitted)).
Feltner relies on Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 585 (1978), in which we held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq., provides a statutory right to a jury trial in an action for unpaid wages even though the statute authorizes “the court... to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate,” § 626(b). That holding, however, turned on two crucial factors: The ADEA’s remedial provisions were expressly to be enforced in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 101 et seq., which had been uniformly interpreted to provide a right to a jury trial, Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S., at 580-581; and the statute used the word “legal,” which we found to be a “term of art” used in cases “in which legal relief is available and legal rights are determined” by juries, id., at 583. Section 504(c), in contrast, does not make explicit reference to another statute that has been uniformly interpreted to provide a right to jury trial and does not use the word “legal” or other language denoting legal relief or rights.
We thus discern no statutory right to a jury trial when a copyright owner elects to recover statutory damages. Accordingly, we must reaeh the constitutional question.
Ill
The Seventh Amendment provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. . . .” U. S. Const., Arndt. 7. Since Justice Story’s time, the Court has understood “Suits at common law” to refer “not merely [to] suits, which the common law recognized among its old and settled proceedings, but [to] suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were administered.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 447 (1830) (emphasis in original). The Seventh Amendment thus applies not only to common-law causes of action, but also to “actions brought to enforce statutory rights that are analogous to common-law causes of action ordinarily decided in English law courts in the late 18th century, as opposed to those customarily heard by courts of equity or admiralty.” Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, 42 (1989) (citing Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S., at 193). To determine whether a statutory action is more analogous to cases tried in courts of law than to suits tried in courts of equity or admiralty, we examine both the nature of the statutory action and the remedy sought. See 492 U. S., at 42.
Unlike many of our recent Seventh Amendment eases, which have involved modern statutory rights unknown to 18th-century England, see, e.g., Wooddell v. Electrical Workers, 502 U. S. 93 (1991) (alleged violations of union’s duties under Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959); Granfinanciera v. Nordberg, supra (action to rescind fraudulent preference under Bankruptcy Act); Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412 (1987) (Government’s claim for civil penalties under Clean Water Act); Curtis v. Loether, supra (claim under Title VIII of Civil Rights Act of 1968), in this case there are close analogues to actions seeking statutory damages under § 504(c). Before the adoption of the Seventh Amendment, the common law and statutes in England and this country granted copyright owners causes of action for infringement. More importantly, copyright suits for monetary damages were tried in courts of law, and thus before juries.
By the middle of the 17th century, the common law recognized an author’s right to prevent the unauthorized publication of his manuscript. See, e. g., Stationers Co. v. Patentees, Carter’s Rep. 89, 124 Eng. Rep. 842 (C. P. 1666). This protection derived from the principle that the manuscript was the product of intellectual labor and was as much the author’s property as the material on which it was written. See Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303, 2398, 98 Eng. Rep. 201, 252 (K. B. 1769) (opinion of Mansfield, C. J.) (common-law copyright derived from principle that “it is just, that an Author should reap the pecuniary Profits of his own ingenuity and Labour”); 1 W. Patry, Copyright Law and Practice 3 (1994). Actions seeking damages for infringement of common-law copyright, like actions seeking damages for invasions of other property rights, were tried in courts of law in actions on the ease. See Millar v. Taylor, supra, at 2396-2397, 98 Eng. Rep., at 251. Actions on the ease, like other actions at law, were tried before juries. See McClenachan v. McCarty, 1 Dall. 375, 378 (C. P. Phila. Cty. 1788); 5 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶38.11[5] (2d ed. 1996); 1 J. Chitty, Treatise on Pleading and Parties to Actions 164 (1892).
In 1710, the first English copyright statute, the Statute of Anne, was enacted to protect published books. 8 Anne eh. 19 (1710). Under the Statute of Anne, damages for infringement were set at “one Penny for every Sheet which shall be found in [the infringer’s] custody, either printed or printing, published, or exposed to Sale,” half (“one Moiety”) to go to the Crown and half to the copyright owner, and were “to be recovered... by Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint, or Information.” §1. Like the earlier practice with regard to common-law copyright claims for damages, actions seeking damages under the Statute of Anne were tried in courts of law. See Beckford v. Hood, 7 T. R. 621, 627, 101 Eng. Rep. 1164, 1167 (K. B. 1798) (opinion of Kenyon, C. J.) C‘[T]he statute having vested that right in the author, the common law gives the remedy by action on the case for the violation of it”).
The practice of trying copyright damages actions at law before juries was followed in this .country, where statutory copyright protections were enacted even before adoption of the Constitution. In 1783, the Continental Congress passed a resolution recommending that the States secure copyright protections for authors. See U. S. Copyright Office, Copyright Enactments: Laws Passed in the United States Since 1783 Relating to Copyright, Bulletin No. 3, p. 1 (rev. ed. 1963) (hereinafter Copyright Enactments). Twelve States (all except Delaware) responded by enacting copyright statutes, each of which provided a cause of action for damages, and none of which made any reference to equity jurisdiction. At least three of these state statutes expressly stated that damages were to be recovered through actions at law, see id., at 2 (in Connecticut, damages for double the value of the infringed copy “to be recovered ... in any court of law in this State”); id., at 17 (in Georgia, similar damages enforceable “in due course of law”); id., at 19 (in New York, similar damages enforceable in “any court of law”), while four others provided that damages would be recovered in an “action of debt,” a prototypical action brought in a court of law before a jury. See F. Maitland, Forms of Action at Common Law 357 (1929) (hereinafter Maitland); see Copyright Enactments 4-9 (in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, damages enforceable by “action of debt”); id., at 12 (in South Carolina, damages of one shilling per sheet enforceable by .“debt, bill, plaint or information”). Although these statutes were short-lived, and hence few courts had occasion to interpret them, the available evidence suggests that the practice was for copyright actions seeking damages to be tried to a jury. See Hudson & Goodwin v. Patten, 1 Root 133, 134 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1789) (jury awarded copyright owner £100 under Connecticut copyright statute).
Moreover, three of the state statutes specifically authorized an award of damages from a statutory range, just as § 504(c) does today. See Copyright Enactments 4 (in Massachusetts, damages of not less than £5 and not more than £3,000); id., at 8 (in New Hampshire, damages of not less than £5 and not more than £1,000); id., at 9 (in Ehode Island, damages of not less than £5 and not more than £3,000). Although we have found no direct evidence of the practice under these statutes, there is no reason to suppose that such actions were intended to deviate from the traditional practice: The damages were to be recovered by an “action of debt,” see id., at 4-9, which was an action at law, see Mait-land 357.
In 1790, Congress passed the first federal copyright statute, the Copyright Act of 1790, which similarly authorized the awarding of damages for copyright infringements. Act of May 31,1790, eh. 15, §§2, 6,1 Stat. 124,125. The Copyright Act of 1790 provided that damages for copyright infringement of published works would be “the sum of fifty cents for every sheet which shall be found in [the infringer’s] possession,... to be recovered by action of debt in any court of record in the United States, wherein the same is cognizable.” §2. Like the Statute of Anne, the Copyright Act of 1790 provided that half (“one moiety”) of such damages were to go to the copyright owner and half to the United States. For infringement of an unpublished manuscript, the statute entitled a copyright owner to “all damages occasioned by such injury, to be recovered by a special action on the case founded upon this act, in any court having cognizance thereof.” § 6.
There is no evidence that the Copyright Act of 1790 changed the practice of trying copyright actions for damages in courts of law before juries. As we have noted, actions on the case and actions of debt were actions at law for which a jury was required. See supra, at 349, 350. Moreover, actions to recover damages under the Copyright Act of 1831— which differed from the Copyright Act of 1790 only in the amount (increased to $1 from 50 cents) authorized to be recovered for certain infringing sheets — were consistently tried to juries. See, e. g., Backus v. Gould, 7 How. 798, 802 (1849) (jury awarded damages of $2,069.75); Reed v. Carusi, 20 F. Cas. 431, 432 (No. 11,642) (CC Md. 1845) (jury awarded damages of $200); Millett v. Snowden, 17 F. Cas. 374, 375 (No. 9,600) (SDNY 1844) (jury awarded damages of $625); Dwight v. Appleton, 8 F. Cas. 183, 185 (No. 4,215) (SDNY 1843) (jury awarded damages of $2,000).
Columbia does not dispute this historical evidence. In fact, Columbia makes no attempt to draw an analogy between an action for statutory damages under § 504(c) and any historical cause of action — including those actions for monetary relief that we have characterized as equitable, such as actions for disgorgement of improper profits. See Teamsters v. Terry, 494 U. S. 558, 570-571 (1990); Tull v. United States, 481 U. S., at 424. Rather, Columbia merely contends that statutory damages are clearly equitable in nature.
We are not persuaded. We have recognized the “general rule” that monetary relief is legal, Teamsters v. Terry, supra, at 570, and an award of statutory damages may serve purposes traditionally associated with legal relief, such as compensation and punishment. See Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S., at 196 (actual damages are “traditional form of relief offered in the courts of law”); Tull v. United States, 481 U. S., at 422 (“Remedies intended to punish culpable individuals ... were issued by courts of law, not courts of equity”). Nor, as we have previously stated, is a monetary remedy rendered equitable simply because it is “not fixed or readily calculable from a fixed formula.” Id., at 422, n. 7. And there is historical evidence that cases involving discretionary monetary relief were tried before juries. See, e. g., Coryell v. Colbaugh, 1 N. J. L. 77 (1791) (jury award of “exemplary damages” in an action on a promise of marriage). Accordingly, we must conclude that the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial where the copyright owner elects to recover statutory damages.
The right to a jury trial includes the right to have a jury determine the amount of statutory damages, if any, awarded to the copyright owner. It has long been recognized that “by the law the jury are judges of the damages.” Lord Townshend v. Hughes, 2 Mod. 150, 151, 86 Eng. Rep. 994, 994-995 (C. P. 1677). Thus in Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U. S. 474 (1935), the Court stated that “the common law rule as it existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” was that “in cases where the amount of damages was uncertain[,] their assessment was a matter so peculiarly within the province of the jury that the Court should not alter it.” Id., at 480 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). And there is overwhelming evidence that the consistent practice at common law was for juries to award damages. See, e. g., Duke of York v. Pilkington, 2 Show. 246, 89 Eng. Rep. 918 (K. B. 1760) (jury award of £100,000 in a slander action); Wilkes v. Wood, Lofft 1, 19, 98 Eng. Rep. 489, 499 (C. P. 1763) (jury award of £1,000 in an action of trespass); Huckle v. Money, 2 Wils. 205, 95 Eng. Rep. 768 (C. P. 1763) (upholding jury award of £300 in an action for trespass, assault and imprisonment); Genay v. Norris, 1 S. C. L. 6, 7 (1784) (jury award of £400); Coryell v. Colbaugh, supra (sustaining correctness of jury award of exemplary damages in an action on a promise of marriage); see also K. Redden, Punitive Damages § 2.2, p. 27 (1980) (describing “primacy of the jury in the awarding of damages”).
More specifically, this was the consistent practice in copyright cases. In Hudson & Goodwin v. Patten, 1 Root, at 134, for example, a jury awarded a copyright owner £100 under the Connecticut copyright statute, which permitted damages in an amount double the value of the infringed copy. In addition, juries assessed the amount of damages under the Copyright Act of 1831, even though that statute, like the Copyright Act of 1790, fixed damages at a set amount per infringing sheet. See Backus v. Gould, supra, at 802 (jury awarded damages of $2,069.75); Reed v. Carusi, supra, at 432 (same, but $200); Dwight v. Appleton, supra, at 185 (same, but $2,000); Millett v. Snowden, supra, at 375 (same, but $625).
Relying on Tull v. United States, supra, Columbia contends that the Seventh Amendment does not provide a right to a jury determination of the amount of the award. In Tull, we held that the Seventh Amendment grants a right to a jury trial on all issues relating to liability for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. §§ 1251, 1319(d), see 481 U. S., at 425, but then went on to decide that Congress could constitutionally authorize trial judges to assess the amount of the civil penalties, see id., at 426-427. According to Columbia, Tull demonstrates that a jury determination of the amount of statutory damages is not necessary “to preserve ‘the substance of the common-law right of trial by jury.’ ” Id., at 426 (quoting Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U. S. 149, 157 (1973)).
In Tull, however, we were presented with no evidence that juries historically had determined the amount of civil penalties to be paid to the Government. Moreover, the awarding of civil penalties to the Government could be viewed as analogous to sentencing in a criminal proceeding. See 481 U. S., at 428 (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Here, of course, there is no similar analogy, and there is clear and direct historical evidence that juries, both as a general matter and in copyright cases, set the amount of damages awarded to a successful plaintiff. Tull is thus inapposite. As a result, if a party so demands, a jury must determine the actual amount of statutory damages under § 504(e) in order “to preserve ‘the substance of the common-law right of trial by jury/ ” Id., at 426.
* % *
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages under § 504(e) of the Copyright Act, including the amount itself. The judgment below is reversed, and we remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
During the course of the litigation, Columbia dropped all claims against all parties except its copyright claims against Feltner.
The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded (for further explanation) the District Court’s award of costs and attorney’s fees to Columbia. See 106 F. 3d, at 296.
Under the 1909 Act, a copyright plaintiff could recover, “in lieu of actual damages and profits, such damages as to the court shall appear to be just, and in assessing such damages the court may, in its discretion, allow the amounts as hereinafter stated, but in the case of a newspaper reproduction of a copyrighted photograph[,] such damages shall not exceed the sum of [$200] nor be less than the sum of [$50], and such damages shall in no other case exceed the sum of [$5,000] nor be less than the sum of [$250] ...” Act of Mar. 4,1909, § 25(b), 35 Stat. 1081 (later amended and codified at 17 U. S. C. § 101(b)).
The Courts of Appeals have unanimously held that § 504(c) is not susceptible of an interpretation that would avoid the Seventh Amendment question. See, e. g., Cass County Music Co. v. C. H. L. R., Inc., 88 F. 3d 635, 641 (CA8 1996); Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 925 F. 2d 1010, 1014 (CA7 1991); Gnossos Music v. Milken Inc., 653 F. 2d 117, 119 (CA4 1981); see also Oboler v. Goldin, 714 F. 2d 211, 213 (CA2 1983); 4 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 14.04[C] (1997).
In addition, a copyright plaintiff may elect statutory damages “at any time before final judgment is rendered.” § 504(c)(1). The parties agree, and we have found no indication to the contrary, that election may occur even after a jury has returned a verdict on liability and an award of actual damages. It is at least unlikely that Congress intended that a jury, having already made a determination of actual damages, should be reconvened to make a determination of statutory damages.
The Copyright Act of 1790 did not provide for equitable remedies at all, and in Stevens v. Gladding, 17 How. 447 (1855), we held that, even after Congress had provided for equity jurisdiction under the Copyright Act, see Act of Feb. 15, 1819, ch. 19, 3 Stat. 481, the statute’s damages provision could not be enforced through a suit in equity. 17 How., at 455; see also Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617, 663 (1888) (Stevens v. Gladding determined that “the penalties given by § 7 of the copyright act of 1831 cannot be enforced in a suit in equity”).
Section 1319(d) of the Clean Water Act provided that violators of certain sections of the Act “shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day” during the period of the violation. 481 U. S., at 414.
This portion of our opinion was arguably dicta, for our holding that there was a right to a jury trial on issues relating to liability required us to reverse the lower court's liability determination.
It should be noted that Tull is at least in tension with Bank of Hamilton v. Lessee of Dudley, 2 Pet. 492 (1829), in which the Court held in light of the Seventh Amendment that a jury must determine the amount of compensation for improvements to real estate, and with Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U. S. 474 (1935), in which the Court held that the Seventh Amendment bars the use of additur.
As we have noted, even under the Statute of Anne and the Copyright Act of 1790, the amount awarded to the Government (“one Moiety”) was determined by a jury.
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 Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was summoned to appear before a federal district grand jury in Denver, Colorado. Both before that body and before the district judge where he was later taken, petitioner declined to answer questions concerning the activities and records of the Communist Party of Colorado, claiming his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. He also refused to reveal the whereabouts of his wife, who was wanted by the grand jury as a witness in connection with the same investigation. As to this refusal to testify, petitioner asserted his privilege against disclosing confidential communications between husband and wife. The district judge overruled both claims of privilege and sentenced petitioner to six months in prison for contempt of court. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 179 F. 2d 559.
For the reasons set out in our recent opinion in Patricia Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 159, we hold it was error to fail to sustain the claim of privilege against self-incrimination.
This leaves for consideration the validity of the sentence insofar as it rests on the failure of petitioner to disclose the whereabouts of his wife. In Wolfle v. United States, 291 U. S. 7, this Court recognized that a confidential communication between husband and wife was privileged. It is not disputed in the present case that petitioner obtained his knowledge as to where his wife was by communication from her. Nevertheless, the Government insists that he should be denied the benefit of the privilege because he failed to prove that the information was privately conveyed. This contention ignores the rule that marital communications are presumptively confidential. Wolfle v. United States, supra, at 14; Wigmore, Evidence, § 2336. The Government made no effort to overcome the presumption. In this case, moreover, the communication to petitioner was of the kind likely to be confidential. Petitioner’s wife, according to the district judge, knew that she and a number of others were “wanted” as witnesses by the grand jury but she “hid out, apparently so that the process . . . could not be served upon her.” Several of the witnesses who appeared were put in jail for contempt of court. Under such circumstances, it seems highly probable that Mrs. Blau secretly told her husband where she could be found. Petitioner’s refusal to betray his wife’s trust therefore was both understandable and lawful. We have no doubt that he was entitled to claim his privilege.
Reversed.
Me. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Petitioner’s wife, when apprehended, was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for contempt, Patricia Blau v. United States, supra, although other witnesses who refused to testify received shorter sentences. In sentencing Mrs. Blau, the judge stated: “I haven’t much sympathy for this lady because, as I said, she defied the Court by avoiding the process of the Court when she knew very well that she was wanted here, and yet she hid out, apparently so that the process of this court could not be served upon her.”
In view of our decision on this phase of the case, it is unnecessary to reach the question whether the single conviction for contempt (which was based on the refusal to give incriminating testimony and on the refusal to reveal a confidential marital communication) would be valid if petitioner were entitled to claim one, but not both, of the privileges.
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 O'Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), dismissed petitioner Vaughn L. Murphy from his job as a UPS mechanic because of his high blood pressure. Petitioner filed suit under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 328, 42 U. S. C. § 12101 et seq., in Federal District Court. The District Court granted summary judgment to respondent, and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. We must decide whether the Court of Appeals correctly considered petitioner in his medicated state when it held that petitioner’s impairment does not “substantially limi[t] ” one or more of his major life activities and whether it correctly determined that petitioner is not “regarded as disabled.” See § 12102(2). In light of our decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., ante, p. 471, we conclude that the Court of Appeals’ resolution of both issues was correct.
I
Petitioner was first diagnosed with hypertension (high blood pressure) when he was 10 years old. Unmedicated, his blood pressure is approximately 250/160. With medication, however, petitioner’s “hypertension does not significantly restrict his activities and ... in general he can function normally and can engage in activities that other persons normally do.” 946 F. Supp. 872, 875 (Kan. 1996) (discussing testimony of petitioner’s physician).
In August 1994, respondent hired petitioner as a mechanic, a position that required petitioner to drive commercial motor vehicles. Petitioner does not challenge the District Court’s conclusion that driving a commercial motor vehicle is an essential function of the mechanic’s job at UPS. Id., at 882-888. To drive such vehicles, however, petitioner had to satisfy certain health requirements imposed by the Department of Transportation (DOT). 49 CFR § 391.41(a) (1998) (“A person shall not drive a commercial motor vehicle unless he/she is physically qualified to do so and ... has on his/her person ... a medical examiner’s certificate that he/she is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle”). One such requirement is that the driver of a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce have “no current clinical diagnosis of high blood pressure likely to interfere with his/her ability to operate a commercial vehicle safely.” § 391.41(b)(6).
At the time respondent hired him, petitioner’s blood pressure was so high, measuring at 186/124, that he was not qualified for DOT health certification, see App. 98a-102a (Department of Transportation, Medical Regulatory Criteria for Evaluation Under Section 391.41(b)(6), attached as exhibit to Affidavit and Testimony of John R. McMahon) (hereinafter Medical Regulatory Criteria). Nonetheless, petitioner was erroneously granted certification, and he commenced work. In September 1994, a UPS medical supervisor who was reviewing petitioner's medical files discovered the error and requested that petitioner have his blood pressure retested. Upon retesting, petitioner’s blood pressure was measured at 160/102 and 164/104. See App. 48a (testimony of Vaughn Murphy). On October 5, 1994, respondent fired petitioner on the belief that his blood pressure exceeded the DOT’S requirements for drivers of commercial motor vehicles.
Petitioner brought suit under Title I of the ADA in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment. It held that, to determine whether petitioner is disabled under the ADA, his “impairment should be evaluated in its medicated state.” 946 F. Supp., at 881. Noting that when petitioner is medicated he is inhibited only in lifting heavy objects-but otherwise functions normally, the court held that petitioner is not “disabled” under the ADA. Id., at 881-882. The court also rejected petitioner’s claim that he was “regarded as” disabled, holding that respondent “did not regard Murphy as disabled, only that he was not certifiable under DOT regulations.” Id., at 882.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment. 141 F. 3d 1185 (CA10 1999) (judgt. order). Citing its decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F. 3d 893, 902 (CA10 1997), aff’d, ante, p. 471, that an individual claiming a disability under the ADA should be assessed with regard to any mitigating or corrective measures employed, the court held that petitioner’s hypertension is not a disability because his doctor had testified that when petitioner is medicated, he “ 'functions normally doing everyday activity that an everyday person does.’ ” App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a. The court also affirmed the District Court’s determination that petitioner is not “regarded as” disabled under the ADA. It explained that respondent did not terminate petitioner “on an unsubstantiated fear that he would suffer a heart attack or stroke,” but “because his blood pressure exceeded the DOT’S requirements for drivers of commercial vehicles.” Id., at 5a. We granted certiorari, 525 U. S. 1068 (1999), and we now affirm.
II
The first question presented in this case is whether the determination of petitioner’s disability is made with reference to the mitigating measures he employs. We have answered that question in Sutton in the affirmative. Given that holding, the result in this case is clear. The Court of Appeals concluded that, when medicated, petitioner’s high blood pressure does not substantially limit him in any major life activity. Petitioner did not seek, and we did not grant, certiorari on whether this conclusion was correct. Because the question whether petitioner is disabled when taking medication is not before us, we have no occasion here to consider whether petitioner is “disabled” due to limitations that persist despite his medication or the negative side effects of his medication. Instead, the question granted was limited to whether, under the ADA, the determination of whether an individual’s impairment “substantially limits” one or more major life activities should be made without consideration of mitigating measures. Consequently, we conclude that the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the grant of summary judgment in respondent’s favor on the claim that petitioner is substantially limited in one or more major life activities and thus disabled under the ADA.
III
The second issue presented is also largely resolved by our opinion in Sutton. Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that he is not “regarded as” disabled because of his high blood pressure. As we held in Sutton, ante, at 489, a person is “regarded as” disabled within the meaning of the ADA if a covered entity mistakenly believes that the person's actual, nonlimiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities. Here, petitioner alleges that his hypertension is regarded as substantially limiting him in the major life activity of working, when in fact it does not. To support this claim, he points to testimony from respondent’s resource manager that respondent fired petitioner due to his hypertension, which he claims evidences respondent’s belief that petitioner’s hypertension— and consequent inability to obtain DOT certification — substantially limits his ability to work. In response, respondent argues that it does not regard petitioner as substantially limited in the major life activity of working but, rather, regards him as unqualified to work as a UPS mechanic because he is unable to obtain DOT health certification.
As a preliminary matter, we note that there remains some dispute as to whether petitioner meets the requirements for DOT certification. As discussed above, petitioner was incorrectly granted DOT certification at his first examination when he should have instead been found unqualified. See supra, at 519-520. Upon retesting, although petitioner’s blood pressure was not low enough to qualify him for the 1-year certification that he had incorrectly been issued, it was sufficient to qualify him for optional temporary DOT health certification. App. 98a-102a (Medical Regulatory Criteria). Had a physician examined petitioner and, in light of his medical history, declined to issue a temporary DOT certification, we would not second-guess that decision. Here, however, it appears that UPS determined that petitioner could not meet the DOT standards and did not allow him to attempt to obtain the optional temporary certification. Id., at 84a-86a (testimony of Monica Sloan, UPS’ company nurse); id., at 54a-55a (testimony and affidavit of Vaughn Murphy). We need not resolve the question whether petitioner could meet the standards for DOT health certification, however, as it goes only to whether petitioner is qualified and whether respondent has a defense based on the DOT regulations, see Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, post, p. 555, issues not addressed by the court below or raised in the petition for certiorari.
The only issue remaining is whether the evidence that petitioner is regarded as unable to obtain DOT certification (regardless of whether he can, in fact, obtain optional temporary certification) is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether petitioner is regarded as substantially limited in one or more major life activities. As in Sutton, ante, at 491-492, we assume, arguendo, that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOG) regulations regarding the disability determination are valid. When referring to the major life activity of working, the EEOC defines “substantially limits” as: “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (1998). The EEOC further identifies several factors that courts should consider when determining whether an individual is substantially limited in the major life activity of working, including “the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within [the] geographical area [reasonably accessible to the individual], from which the individual is also disqualified.” § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)(B). Thus, to be regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, one must be regarded as precluded from more than a particular job. See § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (“The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working”).
Again, assuming without deciding that these regulations are valid, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he is regarded as disabled. Petitioner was fired from the position of UPS mechanic because he has a physical impairment — hypertension — that is regarded as preventing him from obtaining DOT health certification. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a (UPS terminated Murphy because “his blood pressure exceeded the DOT’S requirements for drivers of commercial vehicles”); 946 P. Supp., at 882 (“[T]he court concludes UPS did not regard Murphy as disabled, only that he was not certifiable under DOT regulations”); App. 125a, ¶ 18 (Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment) (“UPS considers driving commercial motor vehicles an essential function of plaintiff’s job as mechanic”); id., at 108a (testimony of John R. McMahon) (stating that the reason why petitioner was fired was that he “did not meet the requirements of the Department of Transportation”).
The evidence that petitioner is regarded as unable to meet the DOT regulations is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether petitioner is regarded as unable to perform a class of jobs utilizing his skills. At most, petitioner has shown that he is regarded as unable to perform the job of mechanic only when that job requires driving a commercial motor vehicle — a specific type of vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce. 49 CFR § 390.5 (1998) (defining “commercial motor vehicle” as a vehicle weighing over 10,000 pounds, designed to carry 16 or more passengers, or used in the transportation of hazardous materials). Petitioner has put forward no evidence that he is regarded as unable to perform any mechanic job that does not call for driving a commercial motor vehicle and thus does not require DOT certification. Indeed, it is undisputed that petitioner is generally employable as a mechanic. Petitioner has “performed mechanic jobs that did not require DOT certification” for “over 22 years,” and he secured another job as a mechanic shortly after leaving UPS. 946 F. Supp., at 875, 876. Moreover, respondent presented uncontroverted evidence that petitioner could perform jobs such as diesel mechanic, automotive mechanic, gas-engine repairer, and gas-welding equipment mechanic, all of which utilize petitioner’s mechanical skills. See App. 115a (report of Lewis Vierling).
Consequently, in light of petitioner’s skills and the array of jobs available to petitioner utilizing those skills, petitioner has failed to show that he is regarded as unable to perform a class of jobs. Rather, the undisputed record evidence demonstrates that petitioner is, at most, regarded as unable to perform only a particular job. This is insufficient, as a matter of law, to prove that petitioner is regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working. See Sutton, ante, at 492-493. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals correctly granted summary judgment in favor of respondent on petitioner’s claim that he is regarded as disabled. For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
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.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in this case are the extent of the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to promulgate procedural standards for determining whether testimony taken and documents produced during an investigatory-proceeding should be accorded confidential treatment, and the scope of judicial review of determinations made pursuant to such standards.
This case had its origin in a subpoena and various orders issued during the course of an investigatory proceeding conducted by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to § 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 48 Stat. 1094, 47 U. S. C. § 403 (1958 ed.) The proceeding, financed by specific congressional appropriation, was initiated on February 26, 1959, and had as its objective the gathering of
“comprehensive information concerning the respective roles played by the networks, advertisers, agencies, talent, film producers and distributors, and other major elements in the television industry.”
As an initial step in the investigation, the Commission ordered that an
“inquiry be made to determine the policies and practices pursued by the networks and others in the acquisition, ownership, production, distribution, selection, sale and licensing of programs for television exhibition, and the reasons and necessity in the public interest for said policies and practices....”
The Commission authorized its chief hearing examiner to conduct the investigation. He was empowered, inter alia, to subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, and require the production of any records or documents deemed relevant to the inquiry. The Commission ordered that
“said investigatory proceeding shall be a public proceeding except that the said presiding officer may order non-public sessions of the said investigatory proceeding where and to the extent that the public interest, the proper dispatch of the business of said proceeding, or the ends of justice will be served thereby.”
In October 1960, public sessions were held in Los Angeles, California, at which time evidence was received concerning the functions, policies and practices of television companies, talent agencies and representatives, program “packagers,” sales representatives, and others. On October 17, 1960, the Presiding Officer issued a subpoena duces tecum to respondent Schreiber, a Vice President of respondent Music Corporation of America, Inc. (MCA) — one of the largest packagers and producers of network television programs, directing him to appear at the hearing and to produce certain documents described in the annexes to the subpoena. Respondent Schreiber appeared and produced the material specified in Annex A. He refused, however, to submit without qualification the material called for in Annex B, which included a list of the programs packaged by MCA. Respondent Schreiber stated that he would produce the subpoenaed materials only “if the Commission will take this information and assure us that it will be held in confidence, will not be published, and will not be made available to other people, other than those on the Commission, and that serve the Commission.” As grounds for confidential treatment, he asserted that the information sought might disclose trade secrets and confidential data, and that the information was outside the scope of the hearing. He also objected generally to the procedures governing the hearing on the ground that they would require “public disclosure of trade secrets and confidential data of my company which might be of aid to its many competitors in this highly competitive television industry.” The Presiding Officer found “no doubt” as to the relevance of the material and rejected, as “without merit,” the claim that the information should be received in confidence.
Respondents then petitioned the Commission for review. On January 25,1961, the Commission affirmed the Presiding Officer and ordered respondents to appear, testify and produce the material subpoenaed at a reconvened hearing. In its opinion the Commission stressed the importance of publicizing the information gathered during the course of the investigation and reaffirmed its resolve to permit in camera sessions only in extraordinary situations:
“[W]e determined that public proceedings should be the rule herein, and that non-public procedures should be used only in those extraordinary instances where disclosure would irreparably damage private, competitive interests and where such interests could be found by the Presiding Officer to outweigh the paramount interest of the public and the Commission in full public disclosure.”
The -Commission noted that the Presiding Officer and Commission counsel had made “every effort to avoid public disclosure of detailed internal financial information or detailed contractual arrangements which might in fact irreparably harm private interests without sufficient compensating benefit to the public,” and found that they had not departed from this standard in rejecting respondents’ claim of likely competitive harm which, the Commission held, was “totally unsupported by their pleadings and contrary to the record.” Accordingly, the Commission ordered respondents “to testify... regarding all matters deemed relevant by said Presiding Officer,” and to produce the information required by the subpoena and “such other information and data as may be deemed relevant and ordered or directed to be produced by the said Presiding Officer.” On remand, a broader claim for confidentiality was made by respondents. They requested that all testimony and documentary evidence to be elicited from them be received in nonpublic sessions, and disclosed only if a court, in subsequent litigation, should authorize its public disclosure. The contention was rejected by the Presiding Officer, but respondent Schreiber persisted in his refusal to comply with the subpoena and the Commission's orders.
The Commission thereupon petitioned the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for the enforcement of its subpoena and orders. The District Court found that the investigation was statutorily authorized, that the information requested in Annex B was relevant to the inquiry, and that respondents had disobeyed valid orders and a valid subpoena. Accordingly, the District Court ordered respondents to appear at a reconvened hearing and to comply with the Commission’s subpoena and orders. However, the court, in order to protect “respondents’ rights and to preclude disclosure of trade secrets of which competitors might take advantage,” ordered that all testimony given and documents produced by respondents be received and held in confidence, The court’s order further provided that, after the investigation of respondents had been completed, the Commission could move the court for an order, “should good cause exist therefor,” permitting such testimony and documents to be made public. 201 F. Supp. 421.
On appeal, a divided Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that portion of the District Court’s order which pertains to the questions now before this Court. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had not abused its discretion in conditioning its order to require confidential treatment of the information sought. 329 F. 2d 517. In dissent, Judge Browning stated that the Commission’s procedural rule, requiring public hearings unless in camera, proceedings could be justified by those from whom the information was sought, was well within the Commission’s power. It was Judge Browning’s view that the District Court could require confidential treatment only if the Commission’s application of its procedural rule and consequent refusal to accord confidential treatment were found to be arbitrary or an abuse of the Commission’s discretion. Id., at 528-534. Because this case presents important questions concerning the respective roles to be performed by federal courts and the Federal Communications Commission in the administration of the Communications Act of 1934, we granted certiorari. 379 U. S. 927.
We hold that the Commission’s rule — requiring public disclosure except where the proponents of a request for confidential treatment have demonstrated that the public interest, proper dispatch of business, or the ends of justice would be served by nonpublic sessions — was well within the Commission’s statutory authority. We further find that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in applying this rule. Accordingly, we modify the decision below insofar as it affirms the District Court’s imposition of conditions upon the enforcement of the subpoena and orders issued by the Commission.
I.
Section 4 (j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 48 Stat. 1068, 47 U. S. C. § 154 (j) (1958 ed.), empowers the Federal Communications Commission to “conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.” This Court has interpreted that provision as “explicitly and by implication” delegating to the Commission power to resolve “subordinate questions of procedure... [such as] the scope of the inquiry, whether applications should be heard contemporaneously or successively, whether parties should be allowed to intervene in one another’s proceedings, and similar questions.” Federal Communications Comm’n v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134, 138. The statute does not merely confer power to promulgate rules generally applicable to all Commission proceedings, cf. Federal Communications Comm’n v. WJR, 337 U. S. 265, 282; it also delegates broad discretion to prescribe rules for specific investigations, cf. Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294, 321-322, and to make ad hoc procedural rulings in specific instances, Federal Communications Comm’n v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., supra. Congress has “left largely to its judgment the determination of the manner of conducting its business which would most fairly and reasonably accommodate” the proper dispatch of its business and the ends of justice. Federal Communications Comm’n v. WJR, supra.
In the Pottsville Broadcasting case, this Court stressed, in upholding this delegation of broad procedural authority, the established principle that administrative agencies “should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure and to pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their multitudinous duties.” 309 U. S., at 143. This principle, which has been upheld in a variety of applications, is an outgrowth of the congressional determination that administrative agencies and administrators will be familiar with the industries which they regulate and will be in a better position than federal courts or Congress itself to design procedural rules adapted to the peculiarities of the industry and the tasks of the agency involved. Thus, underlying the broad delegation in § 4 (j) of procedural rule-making power to the Federal Communications Commission is a “recognition of the rapidly fluctuating factors characteristic of the evolution of broadcasting and of the corresponding requirement that the administrative process possess sufficient flexibility to adjust itself to these factors.” Federal Communications Comm’n v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., supra, at 138.
To permit federal district courts to establish administrative procedures de novo would, of course, render nugatory Congress’ effort to insure that administrative procedures be designed by those most familiar with the regulatory problems involved. Thus, in providing for judicial review of administrative procedural rule-making, Congress has not empowered district courts to substitute their judgment for that of the agency. Instead, it has limited judicial responsibility to insuring consistency with governing statutes and the demands of the Constitution. Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186, 214— 218; Federal Communications Comm’n v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., supra, at 144-145; Federal Radio Comm’n v. Nelson Bros. Co., 289 U. S. 266, 276-277.
It is apparent that the courts below did not respect this congressional distribution of authority. The Commission promulgated a rule governing disclosure in this investigation. Yet, neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals inquired into the validity of the Commission’s exercise of its rule-making authority. Instead, the District Court devised procedures to be followed by the Commission on the basis of the court’s conception of how the public and private interests involved could best be served. In reviewing this determination, the Court of Appeals found that the District Judge had not abused his discretion, “but, on the contrary, established a fair and just procedure whereby a most important investigation could proceed without being unduly disrupted, obstructed or prolonged, and at the same time afford [respondents] protection against the improvident disclosure of possible valuable trade secrets.” 329 F. 2d, at 524. In so doing, the Court of Appeals erred. The question for decision was whether the exercise of discretion by the Commission was within permissible limits, not whether the District Judge’s substituted judgment was reasonable.
It is also evident that the Commission’s procedural rule — requiring public proceedings except where it is shown that the public interest, the dispatch of business, or the ends of justice would be served by nonpublic sessions — was well within the Commission’s power. Grants of agency authority comparable in scope to § 4 (j) have been held to authorize public disclosure of information, or receipt of data in confidence, as the agency may determine to be proper upon a balancing of the public and private interests involved. That § 4 (j) is broad enough to empower the Commission to establish standards for determining whether to conduct an investigation publicly or in private is demonstrated by this Court’s decision in Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294. There, the Court pointed out that a similar grant of rule-making authority — § 315 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1922, 42 Stat. 941, 942-943 — which authorizes the Tariff Commission “to adopt such reasonable procedure, rules, and regulations as it may deem necessary,” empowered the Commission
“to shape its course within reasonable limits by its own conception of the promptings of policy and fairness. It would have kept within the statute even though it had made the hearings private and had refrained from the publication of anything, either the records of its agents or the testimony of witnesses.... Instead, it made the hearing public, and exposed everything to view except only when publication was likely in its judgment to result in hardship or injustice.” 288 IT. S., at 321-322.
The delegated power, of course, may not be exercised arbitrarily, but its exercise may not be impeached merely because reasonable minds might differ on the wisdom thereof. Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186, 215-218; Isbrandtsen-Moller Co. v. United States, 300 U. S. 139, 146; Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, supra, at 321-322. It is apparent, however, that the Commission’s determination in the present case that “public proceedings should be the rule” with exceptions granted “only in those extraordinary instances where disclosure would irreparably damage private, competitive interests and where such interests could be found by the Presiding Officer to outweigh the paramount interest of the public and the Commission in full public disclosure” was not an arbitrary exercise of the Commission’s authority. The procedural rule, establishing a presumption in favor of public proceedings, accords with the general, policy favoring disclosure of administrative agency proceedings. Moreover, the reasons advanced by the Commission in support of its determination to make public hearings the norm and to place the burden of justifying confidential treatment upon those from whom information is sought amply demonstrate that the Commission’s exercise of its delegated powers may not be successfully attacked as arbitrary or capricious. The investigative inquiry was designed to secure information to aid the Commission in the discharge of its many functions. The Commission stated that the subject matter of the inquiry is “complex and generally unknown” involving “many-sided transaction [s]” among “networks, advertising agencies, program producers, program packagers, talent agencies” and others. Therefore, the Commission determined, in order “to obtain a full and rounded picture of such transactions, it is highly desirable that the facts, information, data and opinion supplied by one group or individual be known to other groups and individuals involved, so that they may verify, refute, explain, amplify or supplement the record from their own diverse points of view.” The Commission observed that, in addition to stimulating the flow of information, public hearings serve to inform those segments of the public primarily affected by the agency’s regulatory policies and those likely to be affected by subsequent administrative or legislative action of the factual basis for any action ultimately taken- — a practical inducement to public acceptance of the results of the investigation. Also implicit in the Commission’s discourse is a recognition that publicity tends to stimulate the flow of information and public preferences which may significantly influence administrative and legislative views as to the necessity and character of prospective action. The Commission further pointed out that public disclosure is necessary to the execution of its duty under § 4 (k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 48 Stat. 1068, 47 U. S. C. § 154 (k) (1958 ed.), to make annual reports to Congress. Significantly, this investigation was specifically authorized by Congress so that Congress might “draw upon the facts which are obtained.”
We hold, therefore, that the Commission’s adoption of the procedural rule favoring public disclosure and placing upon those from whom information is sought the burden of demonstrating the need for in camera proceedings is statutorily authorized.
II.
Remaining for determination is whether the Commission’s application of its disclosure rule and the consequent rejection of respondents’ requests for confidential treatment were so arbitrary or unreasonable as to warrant the imposition by the District Court of conditions upon enforcement of the Commission’s subpoena and orders.
Upon remand from the Commission, respondents moved that all testimony and documents to be elicited from them — not merely Annex B — should be received in camera. Respondents asserted that in light of the announced scope of the inquiry, the Commission’s order to produce documents upon request and to testify “regarding all matters deemed relevant” would require MCA “to disclose all of its business information to its many competitors and to make a public record of all of its activities,” and that such a disclosure, if demanded, would necessarily include confidential business secrets. No factual showing was made; there was only the argument.
The District Court accepted the argument, finding “well-grounded [the] fears of the respondents that the testimony to be given might result in disclosure of trade-secrets, of which competitors might take advantage.” 201 F. Supp., at 425. Accordingly, the court ordered that all testimony and documents adduced by respondents be received in confidence. In so doing the District Court erred, for it is clear that the Presiding Officer did not abuse his discretion in rejecting this request for blanket nondisclosure.
The Presiding Officer did not know what information would actually be sought, what questions asked. Indeed, he could only speculate as to whether the Commission would seek to elicit any data which, if disclosed to MCA’s competitors, would work competitive harm. He could not ascertain the likelihood of irreparable damage to private competitive interests, nor could he discern whether the private interest outweighed the public interest in disclosure. If and when information was demanded which if disclosed might in fact injure MCA competitively, there would be ample opportunity to request that it be received in confidence, and to seek judicial protection if the request were denied. Cf. Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U. S. 440. The Presiding Officer would have abused his discretion in denying the request only if it were shown that no information could have been elicited from respondents which could be publicly disclosed. The record affords no justification for such a proposition.
The only other possible basis for the District Court’s order would be an assumption that the Presiding Officer would consistently require disclosure even if a balancing of public and private interests compelled secrecy. There is no support for such an assumption in the record and it runs contrary to the presumption to which administrative agencies are entitled — -that they will act properly and according to law.
Nor can the District Court’s order be saved on the ground that it did not direct that all information be held in confidence, but merely deferred the determination of whether the information was entitled to confidential treatment until after the inquiry of respondents had been completed. The order directs that there be no disclosure until the court so orders, “should good cause exist therefor.” Not only does this order seem to shift the burden of proof to the Commission to justify publication, despite the valid rule to the contrary, but it also permits respondents to avoid submitting the issue of disclosure to the Presiding Officer despite the “long settled rule of judicial administration that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41, 50-51; Reisman v. Caplin, supra. Moreover, the District Court’s order forbids disclosure until completion of the investigation of respondents without any showing that secrecy is justified. During this period the Commission could not make the information available to Congress, and the Commission would be denied the benefit of other evidence stimulated by disclosure. And the period during which the benefits of disclosure would be denied would inevitably be long. Respondent first appeared before the Presiding Officer on October 21,1960, and resolution of the issues then raised has caused a delay of more than four and one-half years.
We do not find forceful respondents’ contention that the District Court’s order was necessary to protect against the discriminatory treatment of MCA by the Commission. The allegation finds little support in the record; moreover, no reference is made to this factor in the District Court’s opinion or findings of fact. Respondents’ assertions that “the Commission’s interest in MCA was deep” and that “concentration upon MCA was unique,” even if true, would not demonstrate the need for secrecy. Instead, such assertions merely lend credence to the Commission’s unchallenged finding that because of the importance of MCA in the industry, the failure to explore fully the policies and practices of MCA “would seriously impair, if not render nugatory, any attempt on the Commission’s part to understand and delineate the policies, practices and activities involved in the creation, production, sale and licensing of television filmed programs.” Furthermore, it is clear that respondents are adequately protected against improvident disclosure, even if the Commission should unfairly seek disclosure of information which would be competitively disastrous to respondents. Not only does the administrative remedy exist, but judicial protection against Commission overreaching also remains available with respect to any requests for information made in the future.
We conclude, therefore, that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in rejecting respondents’ requests for blanket nondisclosure and accordingly hold that the District Court erred in ordering the Commission to afford confidential treatment to all information elicited from respondents.
Respondents also moved that confidential treatment be accorded Annex B which called for the production of a list of programs as to which MCA served as a “packager” and those in which MCA had a financial interest. Respondent Schreiber testified that the information sought would disclose MCA’s confidential agency relationships with clients, “might be used detrimentally,” and “would be possibly advantageous to our competitors.”
We find that the Commission’s affirmance of the Presiding Officer’s determination that the material sought in Annex B should be received in public session was clearly proper. Certainly private agreements between MCA and its clients not to disclose facts without the client’s consent could not affect the Commission in the discharge of its public duties. See 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2286 (McNaughton rev. 1961). And the naked assertion of possible competitive injury does not establish that the Presiding Officer abused his discretion in declining to accord confidential treatment. Moreover, there is nothing in the District Court’s opinion, findings or conclusions of law which indicates the likelihood, or even the possibility, of competitive harm from public disclosure of the Annex B information. MCA’s competitors and others engaged in similar businesses had furnished publicly the same type of information without objection. Respondents did not attempt before the Commission or on review to distinguish the information furnished by MCA’s competitors or the list of programs produced by MCA (subpoenaed in Annex A) which was introduced without objection by respondent Schreiber. Nor did respondents file affidavits in support of their position. But, even if it were conceded that disclosure of Annex B might have some competitive impact, there is no warrant for concluding that the Presiding Officer abused his discretion in finding that respondents had not sustained their burden of demonstrating that the private interest involved outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
One further point should be discussed. During oral argument counsel for respondents suggested that his clients were prejudiced in their efforts to demonstrate the need for confidential treatment of the information contained in Annex B by restrictions imposed upon the participation of counsel by the then-prevailing Commission rules. We do not find this contention persuasive. Respondents filed a petition, prepared and signed by counsel, seeking review before the full Commission of the Presiding Officer’s rejection of their confidentiality request. Subsequently, they filed a second motion for confidential treatment with the Presiding Officer and respondents’ counsel was afforded an opportunity to argue orally in support of the motion. Thus, it is evident that the then-existing Commission rules restricting the rights of counsel did not prejudice respondents in their efforts to secure in camera proceedings with regard to Annex B, and hence there is no occasion to order that respondents be afforded an additional opportunity to present objections to the disclosure of the information subpoenaed in Annex B.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is modified so as to strike paragraph 2 of the District Court’s order, and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to enforce the Commission’s orders and subpoena without qualification.
It is so ordered.
Section 403 provides:
“The Commission shall have full authority and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on its own motion, in any case and as to any matter or thing concerning which complaint is authorized to be made, to or before the Commission by any provision of this Act, or concerning which any question may arise under any of the provisions of this Act, or relating to the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Act. The Commission shall have the same powers and authority to proceed with any inquiry instituted on its own motion as though it had been appealed to by complaint or petition under any of the provisions of this Act, including the power to make and enforce any order or orders in the case, or relating to the matter or thing concerning which the inquiry is had, excepting orders for the payment of money.”
Independent Offices Appropriations Act, 1956, 69 Stat. 199, 201-202.
Statement of Commission Chairman McConnaughey; Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Independent Offices Appropriations for 1956, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 293. Chairman McConnaughey also noted that “[o]nly with this information can the problems affecting the further expansion of television outlets be adequately identified and evaluated, and appropriate recommendations made for their solution.” Id., at 294. See also Hearings before the Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Independent Offices Appropriations for 1956, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 663-664.
The purpose and scope of the inquiry are set forth in the Commission’s order of Feb. 26, 1959. 24 Fed. Reg. 1605. On Nov. 10, 1959, the Commission entered a supplemental order
“[t]hat the inquiry and investigatory proceeding instituted pursuant to the Commission’s Order of February 26, 1959 (FCC 59-166), be and is hereby amended and enlarged to determine the policies, practices, mechanics and surveillance pursued and carried out by networks, station licensees and others in connection with the acquisition, ownership, production, distribution, selection, sale and licensing of programs for radio and television exhibition and the policies and practices pursued by networks, station licensees and others in connection with the selection, presentation and supervision of advertising material for broadcast to the public and the reasons and necessity in the public interest for said policies and practices....” Id,., at 9275, 9276.
In its orders the Commission noted that the information sought was necessary (1) to complete its general investigation of radio and television broadcasting pursuant to the Independent Offices Appropriations Act; (2) to determine “what, if any, rules, regulations, legislation or other actions are necessary or desirable in the public interest in connection with” television programming; (3) to determine where the public interest lies in the granting of construction permits, station licenses, modifications and renewals; and (4) to enable the Commission to report and make specific recommendations to Congress in relation to the regulation of broadcasting. Id., at 1605, 9275.
Id., at 1605.
Ibid.
"Packagers” develop and assemble the talent and scripts for a particular program or programs. A “producer” has general charge of the process of preparing the package for television showing.
The Commission’s unchallenged finding was:
“that MCA, Inc., (a) represents a large share of the talent, both acting and creative, engaged in television programming; (b) produces television programs; (c) packages and/or sells such programs; (d) maintains and leases production facilities for such programs and generally engages, on a large scale, in all facets of television program production. The record of the proceeding to date clearly establishes that failure fully to explore the policies, practices and activities of MCA, Inc., in connection with television programming would seriously impair, if not render nugatory, any attempt on the Commission’s part to understand and delineate the policies, practices and activities involved in the creation, production, sale and licensing of television filmed programs....” R. 16.
“ (A) A list by name or title of all television programs whether series programs, special programs, or otherwise, which appeared or were exhibited by or through the facilities of the television networks operated by NBC, CBS, or ABC since September 1, 1958, which programs were produced by MCA, Inc. or Revue Productions, Inc. and/or in which MCA, Inc. or Revue Productions, Inc. has or had a financial or proprietary interest or with regard to which MCA, Inc. or Revue Productions, Inc. is or was entitled to receive or has received a percentage of the profits or other compensation or fees in connection with the production or exhibition of such programs other than remuneration or compensation for the representation as agent of individual natural persons as talent.”
“(B) A list of all television programs whether series programs, special programs, or otherwise, which appeared on or were exhibited by or through the facilities of the television networks of NBC, CBS, or ABC, since September 1, 1958, in which MCA, Inc. or any predecessor affiliate or subsidiary of MCA, Inc. acted as packager and/or, by agreement or otherwise, is entitled to receive or has received a percentage of the cost or selling price of said program or was or is entitled to receive or has received other compensation, remuneration or fees in connection with the packaging, licensing for broadcast or selling of said program, otherwise than as remuneration or compensation for the representation as agent of individual natural persons as talent.”
See infra, pp. 293-294.
On review of the Presiding Officer’s first order, the Commission, although dealing with the merits of that order, held "that the orders and directions of the Presiding Officer as to relevance and public disclosure of evidence, information and data are interlocutory in nature, do not of themselves 'aggrieve’ any person, and are not, as of right, appealable to the Commission.” This holding precluded an application to the Commission for review of the Presiding Officer’s second order.
Respondents do not challenge these findings.
Paragraph 2 of the District Court’s order provides:
“It is Further Ordered that any further interrogation of respondents and any documents produced by respondents be taken and held by the Commission in private and confidential session, that the public be excluded therefrom, that all testimony adduced and documents produced be maintained in confidence by the Commission, that the Commission by motion duly made and served, may move the Court upon the conclusion of such interrogation and production for an order, should good cause exist therefor, permitting such testimony and documents to be made public, and that respondents shall retain the right to oppose such motion if and when so made.”
Under the procedures established by the Presiding Officer, counsel for a witness could not, during the course of interrogation of his client, take exception to, request clarification of, or object to any question, nor could he initiate consultation with his client. Counsel could consult with his client only upon the request of the client if approved by the Presiding Officer. The District Court held that under § 6 (a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 240, respondents were entitled to the assistance of counsel in the following respects: the right to have counsel object to any question and state his reasons therefor, and the right to have counsel initiate consultation without interference by the Commission or its agents. The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that the procedures established by the Presiding Officer were not violative of any constitutional or statutory provisions. On Sept. 2, 1964, the Commission amended Part I of its Rules and Regulations, permitting counsel for any person compelled to appear in Commission proceedings to advise his client either upon his own initiative or that of his client, “to make objections on the record, and to state briefly the basis for such objections.” 29 Fed. Reg. 12774^12775. Finding this amendment to be “in accord with respondents’ legal position on this matter,” respondents did not seek review of the ruling below. Given the change in the Commission’s rules, we need not, and do not, express any views as to the legality of the prior rules concerning a witness’ right to the assistance of counsel.
The Commission’s own conception of its authority is-similarly broad. Section 1.1 of the Commission’s General Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that procedures to be followed in investigative proceedings shall “be such as in the opinion of the Commission will best serve the purposes of such proceeding.” 47 CFR § 1.1 (1965).
Civil Aeronautics Board v. Hermann, 353 U. S. 322; Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186; Wallace Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 323 U. S. 248; Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U. S. 501; Utah Fuel Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Comm’n, 306 U. S. 56; Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294.
Isbrandtsen-Moller Co. v. United States, 300 U. S. 139; American Sumatra Tobacco Corp. v. Securities & Exchange Comm’n, 71 App. D. C. 259, 110 F. 2d 117 (1940); E. Griffiths Hughes, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 61 App. D. C. 386, 63 F. 2d 362 (1933).
Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, supra.
Section 3 (c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 238, 5 U. S. C. § 1002 (c) (1958 ed.), provides:
“Save as otherwise required by statute, matters of official record shall in accordance with published rule be made available to persons properly and directly concerned except information held confidential for good cause found.”
This statute has been interpreted to apply to all information received in any “formal proceeding.” Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 24 (1947). In construing §3 (c), the District Court for the District of Columbia has stated: “Of course, the public interest in open hearings places the burden on the plaintiffs to show that their documents should be received in confidence.” Graber Mfg. Co. v. Dixon, 223 F. Supp. 1020, 1022 (D. C. D. C. 1963). See also Davis, Administrative Law § 8.09 (1958).
See generally Rourke, Law Enforcement Through Publicity, 24 U. Chi. L. Rev. 225 (1957); Note, 72 Yale L. J. 1227 (1963).
Statement of Senator Magnuson, 101 Cong. Rec. 7629.
Respondents do not contend that a denial of confidential treatment would result in the abridgment of any constitutional right.
See note 15, supra.
It should also be noted that during the initial proceeding before the Presiding Officer when respondent Schreiber first objected to disclosure of the Annex B information, he was afforded an opportunity to consult with counsel. In addition, the Commission rules then in effect contained no restrictions on the right
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case has a long and tortured history and is not yet concluded. At this juncture the question is whether, absent further state court proceedings to determine the voluntariness of his confession, respondent’s 1955 conviction for murder is vulnerable to attack under the Fourteenth Amendment as construed and applied in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (1964).
In July 1955, respondent Stidham was convicted of first-degree murder of a fellow inmate during a riot. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was represented by experienced counsel who challenged his confession when it was offered at trial. A full evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury was held. Stidham’s testimony as to the relevant circumstances surrounding his confession was in sharp conflict with that of the officers. His claim was that he had been subjected to gross physical abuse; the officers denied the claim. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge admitted the confession with the following ruling:
“THE COURT: [Exhibit] 16 and 16-1, it is the Court’s opinion that the matters concerning the statement should be offered in the presence of the Jury, subject of course to any attacks as to its credibility by the Defendant. The Defendant has of course the right to proceed to challenge the voluntariness of the statement and confession, even before the Jury, but it is the Court’s opinion that upon the evidence that has been offered before the Court and outside of the hearing of the Jury, ... the statement is and should be admissible in evidence, subject to further examinations of the witnesses which might be conducted, so we may proceed with Sergeant Little, as to his identification before the Jury of the statement in question, Exhibit 16 and 16-1.
“MR. HENNELLY: In other words, the Court is overruling my Motion, and request of the Court to hold as a matter of law, that those statements were involuntary, is that right?
“THE COURT: That is right. Mr. Sheriff will you bring the Jury back in?”
Stidham’s conviction was affirmed on appeal in State v. Stidham, 305 S. W. 2d 7 (Mo. 1957). A motion to vacate was denied and the denial affirmed, 403 S. W. 2d 616 (Mo. 1966). On a second motion to vacate, however, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered an evi-dentiary hearing in accordance with its newly revised post-conviction procedures. State v. Stidham, 415 S. W. 2d 297 (1967). Among the issues to be heard and decided was whether Stidham’s conviction was infirm under Jackson v. Denno and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In compliance with this order, an evidentiary hearing was held on December 5, 1968, before Judge Godfrey in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. The court heard oral testimony from both Stidham and witnesses offered by the State; it also had before it the transcript of the prior proceedings as well as certain stipulations of fact by the parties. In April 1969, the court issued its opinion, with findings of fact and conclusions of law, denying the relief requested. With respect to the confession issue, the court first concluded that the judge himself at Stidham’s trial had found the confession voluntary and had thus complied with the rule of Jackson v. Denno. As to voluntariness vel non, the court said:
“As to subparagraph b concerning the averment that 'the overwhelming evidence was that the statement was involuntary because of coercion exerted on movant/ this contention was raised and profusely litigated in State vs. Stidham, supra, and the Court finds it no longer open to question here. State vs. Statler, supra; Crawford vs. State, supra.
“It should be noted that the evidence concerning the issue of voluntariness was greatly conflicting and was to be resolved by the trial court in the first instance and the jury in the second having regard to the credibility of the witnesses. This issue should now be considered closed, and this Court finds it to be so.”
This judgment was affirmed in the Missouri Supreme Court. State v. Stidham, 449 S. W. 2d 634 (1970). Agreeing first that the judge at Stidham’s trial had with sufficient clarity found the confession voluntary and admissible in evidence, the court then held that in any event Stidham had been given a new evidentiary hearing and his confession again determined to be voluntary by the circuit court. In its view, the circuit court had “found, as had the previous court, that the oral and written confessions were voluntary . . . .” Based upon its own extensive analysis of the record, the Missouri Supreme Court also concluded that the finding of volun-tariness was “overwhelmingly supported and procedurally and factually the cause meets all the requirements of the federal cases and there has been no invasion of due process.” Id., at 644.
Stidham then resorted to federal habeas corpus, presenting several issues including the confession matter. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, after having examined the full record of the state court proceedings, denied the petition without a hearing but with an opinion holding that there had been no violation of Jackson v. Denno because the state trial judge had satisfactorily found the confession voluntary prior to submitting it to the jury. 328 F. Supp. 1291 (1970).
The Court of Appeals reversed by a divided vote. 443 F. 2d 1327 (CA8 1971). Its understanding of Missouri law at the time of Stidham's trial was that the trial judge was not required to make a finding on voluntariness himself, but was permitted to submit the issue to the jury in the first instance. As the Court of Appeals saw it, this is precisely what the trial court did: the finding that the confession was not involuntary as a matter of law was not an independent assessment of voluntariness but merely a statement that the issue was one for the jury. Because in its view there had never been a reliable judicial determination of the facts and of the ultimate issue of voluntariness, either at trial or in later proceedings, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the District Court, it being contemplated that the State would be allowed “reasonable time to make an error-free determination on the voluntariness of the confession at issue . . . Sigler v. Parker, 396 U. S. 482, 484 (1970). We granted certiorari, 404 U. S. 1058 (1972).
We are first asked to hold that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Stidham's trial judge failed to comply with the requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment as construed in Jackson v. Denno that there must be a judicial finding of voluntariness before a challenged confession is submitted to the jury. Petitioner's position is not without force, and begins with the proposition that the Court of Appeals was too much influenced by what the trial judge might have done under the Missouri law prevailing at the time and too little by what he actually did. Even if the controlling rule permitted submission of a challenged confession to the jury without the judge’s own determination of voluntariness, that rule, the argument goes, did not prevent him from resolving the disputed issues of fact prior to admitting the confession into evidence. Obviously, it is said, Stid-ham’s trial judge took the latter course, for (1) he held a full evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury, a wholly unnecessary and time-wasting procedure if he was merely to determine if there was a disputed issue as to voluntariness that should be submitted to the jury and (2) having heard the evidence, he denied the motion to suppress and found the confession not involuntary as a matter of law, a conclusion necessarily indicating that the judge resolved the disputed issues against Stidham, for had he believed him rather than the police, it is inconceivable that the confession would have been submitted to the jury. Finally, it is urged that the Missouri courts and the Federal District Court construed the trial judge’s ruling as equivalent to an affirmative finding that the confession was voluntary and that the Court of Appeals should have accepted this interpretation of the proceedings in the lower courts.
The issue, then, is not free from doubt, but it is evident that we need not decide it in this case, for the Court of Appeals erred in another respect that requires reversal of its judgment.
Even if the trial procedure was flawed with respect to the challenged confession, Jackson v. Denno does not entitle Stidham to a new trial if the State subsequently provided him an error-free judicial determination of the voluntariness of his confession — error-free in that the determination was procedurally adequate and substantively acceptable under the- Due Process Clause. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S., at 393-396. Here, the Missouri courts, in connection with Stidham’s second motion to vacate his sentence, unquestionably furnished a procedurally adequate evidentiary hearing, and the outcome was adverse to Stidham. But it is said that the St. Louis Circuit Court considered itself bound by prior proceedings and never independently determined that Stidham’s confession was voluntarily given. Reliance is placed on Judge Godfrey’s statement that the evidence was conflicting, that the issue was for the trial court and jury and that “[the] issue should now be considered closed, and this Court finds it to be so.”
This contention is in the teeth of the Missouri Supreme Court’s prior order reopening the entire matter and directing the trial judge to hold a full evidentiary hearing and then “to decide all issues of fact and questions of law . . . .” 415 S. W. 2d, at 298. The Missouri Supreme Court later thought its mandate had been complied with and expressly read the Circuit Court as having “found, as had the previous court, that the oral and written confessions were voluntary . . . .” 449 S. W. 2d, at 644. What is more, the Supreme Court carefully reviewed the record, noting that “the testimony in contradiction of Stidham’s uncorroborated claims was all but overwhelming,” id., at 641, and that the patrol, police and prison officers — “all these witnesses, all produced by the state, categorically or implicitly refuted all of Stidham’s claims of mistreatment, either physical or mental.” Id., at 643-644. The court’s conclusion was that the finding of voluntariness was “overwhelmingly supported” and that there had been no invasion of due process. Id., at 644.
We are not inclined to disagree with the Missouri Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Circuit Court’s opinion and judgment. We also hold that as between the two courts the Jackson v. Denno error, if any, was sufficiently remedied.
This, of course, does not end the matter. A state prisoner is free to resort to federal habeas corpus with the claim that, contrary to a state court’s judgment, his confession was involuntary and inadmissible as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals did not reach this issue. We are asked to decide the question here but it is not our function to deal with this issue in the first instance.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
During the selection of the jury in his capital murder trial, petitioner Bobby Lynn Ross resorted to one of his peremptory challenges to remove a juror whom the trial court should have excused for cause under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968). He claims that because of that fact the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution require reversal of his conviction and sentence of death. We conclude they do not.
In the course of robbing a motel in Elk City, Oklahoma, petitioner killed a police officer. Petitioner was charged with first-degree murder, Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, §701.7 (Supp. 1987), a capital offense, Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, § 701.9(A) (Supp. 1987). By statute, Oklahoma provides nine peremptory challenges to both parties in capital trials. Okla. Stat., Tit. 22, §655 (1981).
The jury selection began with the drawing of 12 names from the 150-person venire. Each of the 12 was examined individually by the court and counsel. Prospective jurors not excused for cause after the voir dire were provisionally seated. If a prospective juror was excused for cause, a replacement juror was called and examined. After 12 jurors had been provisionally seated, the parties exercised their peremptory challenges alternately beginning with the prosecution. When a juror was struck, a replacement juror was immediately selected and examined in the manner described above. Once a replacement was provisionally seated, the trial court called for the exercise of a challenge by the party whose turn it was. This procedure was repeated until each side had exercised or waived its nine peremptory challenges.
Darrell Huling’s name was drawn to replace the juror excused by the defense with its fifth peremptory challenge. During voir dire, Huling initially indicated that he could vote to recommend a life sentence if the circumstances were appropriate. On further examination by defense counsel, Hul-ing declared that if the jury found petitioner guilty, he would vote to impose death automatically. Defense counsel moved to have Huling removed for cause, arguing that Huling would not be able to follow the law at the penalty phase. The trial court denied the motion and Huling was provisionally seated. The defense then exercised its sixth peremptory challenge to remove Huling. The defense ultimately used all nine of its challenges. The prosecution used only five, waiving the remaining four.
None of the 12 jurors who actually sat and decided petitioner’s fate was challenged for cause by defense counsel. Petitioner is black; the victim was white. At the close of jury selection, the defense objected “to the composition of the twelve people, in that there were no black people called as jurymen in this case and the defendant feels he’s denied a fair and impartial trial by his peers.” App. 25. The trial court overruled the objection, and the trial commenced.
After two days of evidence, the parties gave closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury, and deliberations began. The jury found petitioner guilty of first-degree murder. Following the presentation of evidence and arguments at a separate sentencing proceeding, the same jury found five aggravating circumstances and sentenced petitioner to death.
On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected petitioner’s argument that the trial court had committed reversible error in failing to excuse Huling for cause:
“The failure of the trial court to remove a prospective juror who unequivocally states that he is unwilling to follow the law during the penalty phase by considering a life sentence is error. The record reflects that defense counsel challenged the prospective juror for cause, and when the court denied the challenge, defense counsel used a peremptory challenge. All of [petitioner’s] peremptory challenges were subsequently used; but as there is nothing in the record to show that any juror who sat on the trial was objectionable, we are unable to discover any grounds for reversal.” 717 P. 2d 117, 120 (1986) (citations omitted).
We granted certiorari, 482 U. S. 926 (1987), to consider the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment implications of the trial court’s failure to remove Huling for cause and petitioner’s subsequent use of a peremptory challenge to strike Huling. We now affirm.
In Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412 (1985), the Court held that “the proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excused for cause because of his or her views on capital punishment... is whether the juror’s views would ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.’ ” Id., at 424 (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U. S. 38, 45 (1980)). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found, 717 P. 2d, at 120, and the State concedes, Tr. of Oral Rearg. 30, that Huling should have been excused for cause and that the trial court erred in failing to do so. Petitioner contends that this error abridged both his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to an impartial jury, and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. We reject both grounds offered by petitioner.
It is well settled that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a defendant on trial for his life the right to an impartial jury. Witt, supra; Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 722 (1961). Had Huling sat on the jury that ultimately sentenced petitioner to death, and had petitioner properly preserved his right to challenge the trial court’s failure to remove Huling for cause, the sentence would have to be overturned. Adams, supra. But Huling did not sit. Petitioner exercised a peremptory challenge to remove him, and Huling was thereby removed from the jury as effectively as if the trial court had excused him for cause.
Any claim that the jury was not impartial, therefore, must focus not on Huling, but on the jurors who ultimately sat. None of those 12 jurors, however, was challenged for cause by petitioner, and he has never suggested that any of the 12 was not impartial. “[T]he Constitution presupposes that a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community is impartial, regardless of the mix of individual viewpoints actually represented on the jury, so long as the jurors can conscientiously and properly carry out their sworn duty to apply the law to the facts of the particular case.” Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U. S. 162, 184 (1986). Although at the close of jury selection petitioner did assert that the jury was not fair and impartial, this claim was based on the absence of blacks from the jury panel. Petitioner neither presses that claim before this Court nor suggests that the absence of blacks was in any way related to the failure to remove Huling for cause. We conclude that petitioner has failed to establish that the jury was not impartial.
In arguing that the trial court’s error abridged his right to an impartial jury, petitioner relies heavily upon Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U. S. 648 (1987), but we think that case affords him no help. During the jury selection in Gray, the State used several of its 12 peremptory challenges to remove jurors opposed to the death penalty whom the trial court should have excluded for cause under Witherspoon. See 481 U. S., at 669 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 673 (Scalia, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and White and O’Connor, JJ.). After the State had exhausted all of its peremptory challenges, a prospective juror, Mrs. H. C. Bounds, stated during voir dire that although she was opposed to the death penalty she could vote to impose it in appropriate circumstances. Arguing that the previous “for cause” rulings had been erroneous, the State asked the trial court to restore one of its peremptory challenges so that it might remove Bounds. In an apparent attempt to correct the earlier rulings, the trial court instead excused Bounds for cause. The jury ultimately seated sentenced Gray to death. A closely divided Court reversed Gray’s sentence, concluding that the removal of Bounds was erroneous under Adams, supra, and Witt, supra, and that the error could not be considered harmless. Gray, supra.
Petitioner relies heavily upon the Gray Court’s statement that “the relevant inquiry is ‘whether the composition of the jury panel as a whole could possibly have been affected by the trial court’s error.’” 481 U. S., at 665 (emphasis in original) (quoting Moore v. Estelle, 670 F. 2d 56, 58 (CA5) (specially concurring opinion), cert. denied, 458 U. S. 1111 (1982)). Petitioner points out that had he not used his sixth peremptory challenge to remove Huling, he could have removed another juror, including one who ultimately sat on the jury. Petitioner asserts, moreover, that had he used his sixth peremptory challenge differently, the prosecution may have exercised its remaining peremptory challenges differently in response, and consequently, the composition of the jury panel might have changed significantly.
Although we agree that the failure to remove Huling may have resulted in a jury panel different from that which would otherwise have decided the case, we do not accept the argument that this possibility mandates reversal. We decline to extend the rule of Gray beyond its context: the erroneous “Witherspoon exclusion” of a qualified juror in a capital case. We think the broad language used by the Gray Court is too sweeping to be applied literally, and is best understood in the context of the facts there involved. One of the principal concerns animating the decision in Gray was the inability to know to a certainty whether the prosecution could and would have used a peremptory challenge to remove the erroneously excused juror. See Gray, 481 U. S., at 665; id., at 669-670, and n. 2 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). In the instant case, there is no need to speculate whether Huling would have been removed absent the erroneous ruling by the trial court; Huling was in fact removed and did not sit.
Petitioner was undoubtedly required to exercise a peremptory challenge to cure the trial court’s error. But we reject the notion that the loss of a peremptory challenge constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to an impartial jury. We have long recognized that peremptory challenges are not of constitutional dimension. Gray, supra, at 663; Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202, 219 (1965); Stilson v. United States, 250 U. S. 583, 586 (1919). They are a means to achieve the end of an impartial jury. So long as the jury that sits is impartial, the fact that the defendant had to use a peremptory challenge to achieve that result does not mean the Sixth Amendment was violated. See Hopt v. Utah, 120 U. S. 430, 436 (1887); Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131 (1887). We conclude that no violation of petitioner’s right to an impartial jury occurred.
Relying largely on Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U. S. 422 (1982), and Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U. S. 343 (1980), petitioner also argues that the trial court’s failure to remove Huling for cause violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by arbitrarily depriving him of the full complement of nine peremptory challenges allowed under Oklahoma law. We disagree. It is true that we have previously stated that the right to exercise peremptory challenges is “ ‘one of the most important of the rights secured to the accused.’” Swain, supra, at 219 (quoting Pointer v. United States, 151 U. S. 396, 408 (1894)). Indeed, the Swain Court cited a number of federal cases and observed: “The denial or impairment of the right is reversible error without a showing of prejudice.” 380 U. S., at 219. But even assuming that the Constitution were to impose this same rule in state criminal proceedings, petitioner’s due process challenge would nonetheless fail. Because peremptory challenges are a creature of statute and are not required by the Constitution, Gray, supra, at 663; Swain, supra, at 219, it is for the State to determine the number of peremptory challenges allowed and to define their purpose and the manner of their exercise. Cf. Stilson, supra, at 587; Frazier v. United States, 335 U. S. 497, 505, n. 11 (1948). As such, the “right” to peremptory challenges is “denied or impaired” only if the defendant does not receive that which state law provides.
It is a long settled principle of Oklahoma law that a defendant who disagrees with the trial court’s ruling on a for-cause challenge must, in order to preserve the claim that the ruling deprived him of a fair trial, exercise a peremptory challenge to remove the juror. Even then, the error is grounds for reversal only if the defendant exhausts all peremptory challenges and an incompetent juror is forced upon him. Ferrell v. State, 475 P. 2d 825, 828 (Okla. Crim. App. 1970); Stott v. State, 538 P. 2d 1061, 1064-1065 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). In McDonald v. State, 54 Okla. Crim. 161, 164-165, 15 P. 2d 1092, 1094 (1932), the court declared:
“If counsel believed any juror was pledged to return a verdict imposing the death penalty, under the circumstances named, he should have purged the jury by chai-lenge. He cannot speculate on the result of the jury’s verdict by consenting that the juror sit on the panel, and, if the verdict is adverse, then assert he is disqualified.”
Thus, although Oklahoma provides a capital defendant with nine peremptory challenges, this grant is qualified by the requirement that the defendant must use those challenges to cure erroneous refusals by the trial court to excuse jurors for cause. We think there is nothing arbitrary or irrational about such a requirement, which subordinates the absolute freedom to use a peremptory challenge as one wishes to the goal of empaneling an impartial jury. Indeed, the concept of a peremptory challenge as a totally freewheeling right unconstrained by any procedural requirement is difficult to imagine. As pointed out by the dissenters in Swain, supra, at 243-244:
“This Court has sanctioned numerous incursions upon the right to challenge peremptorily. Defendants may be tried together even though the exercise by one of his right to challenge peremptorily may deprive his codefen-dant of a juror he desires or may require that codefen-dant to use his challenges in a way other than he wishes. United States v. Marchant, [12 Wheat. 480 (1827)]. A defendant may be required to exercise his challenges prior to the State, so that some may be wasted on jurors whom the State would have challenged. Pointer v. United States, 151 U. S. 396 [(1894)]. Congress may regulate the number of peremptory challenges available to defendants by statute and may require codefendants to be treated as a single defendant so that each has only a small portion of the number of peremptories he would have if tried separately. Stilson v. United States, [250 U. S. 583 (1919)].”
As required by Oklahoma law, petitioner exercised one of his peremptory challenges to rectify the trial court’s error, and consequently he retained only eight peremptory chai-lenges to use in his unfettered discretion. But he received all that Oklahoma law allowed him, and therefore his due process challenge fails.
Petitioner relies on Logan, 455 U. S. 422 (1982), and Hicks, 447 U. S. 343 (1980), to support his claim of a denial of due process. The Logan Court held that because of the arbitrary application of a limitations period, Logan had been deprived of a state-provided cause of action in violation of due process. In Hicks, the Court overturned on due process grounds the sentence imposed on Hicks because the sentence had not been determined by the jury as required by Oklahoma law. Here, however, the requirement that the defendant use peremptory challenges to cure trial court errors is established by Oklahoma law, and petitioner received all that was due under Oklahoma law.
Although the trial court erred in failing to dismiss prospective juror Huling for cause, the error did not deprive petitioner of an impartial jury or of any interest provided by the State. “[T]he Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 681 (1986).
Affirmed.
Petitioner was also convicted of robbery with a firearm, Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, §801 (Supp. 1987), and sentenced to 99 years’ imprisonment on that charge.
As the dissent in Gray pointed out, the statement that any error which affects the composition of the jury must result in reversal defies literal application. 481 U. S., at 678 (Scalia, J., dissenting). If, after realizing its error, the trial court in Gray had dismissed the entire venire and started anew, the composition of the jury would undoubtedly have been affected by the original error. But the Gray majority concedes that the trial court could have followed that course without risking reversal. Id., at 663-664, n. 13.
In Spies, the petitioners were sentenced to death for their participation in the killing of several police officers at the Haymarket riot. Using a number of their peremptory challenges to excuse jurors unsuccessfully challenged for cause, petitioners eventually exhausted all of their peremptory challenges. See Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1, 256-257, 12 N. E. 865, 989 (1887). Before this Court, petitioners argued they had been deprived of a fair trial because numerous biased jurors had not been excused for cause. The Court declined to examine the “for cause” rulings as to the jurors who had been removed by petitioners. 123 U. S., at 168.
We need not decide the broader question whether, in the absence of Oklahoma’s limitation on the “right” to exercise peremptory challenges, “a denial or impairment” of the exercise of peremptory challenges occurs if the defendant uses one or more challenges to remove jurors who should have been excused for cause. See Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202, 219 (1965); cf. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131 (1887); Stroud v. United States, 251 U. S. 380, 382 (1920), denying rehearing to 251 U. S. 15 (1919).
No claim is made here that the trial court repeatedly and deliberately misapplied the law in order to force petitioner to use his peremptory challenges to correct these errors.
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 Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Halcyon Lines hired the Haenn Ship Ceiling and Refitting Corporation to make repair's on Halcyon’s ship which was moored in navigable waters. Salvador Baccile, an employee of Haenn, was injured aboard ship while engaged in making these repairs. Alleging that his injuries were caused by Halcyon’s negligence and the unseaworthiness of its vessel, he brought this action for damages against Halcyon in the United States District Court. On the ground that Haenn’s negligence had contributed to the injuries, Halcyon brought Haenn in as a third-party defendant. By agreement of all parties, a $65,000 judgment was rendered for B.accile and paid by Halcyon. Despite Haenn’s protest, the district judge allowed the introduction of evidehce tending to show the relative degree of fault of the two parties. On this evidence the jury returned a special verdict finding Haenn 75% and Halcyon 25% responsible. The district judge refused to follow this jury determination and entered judgment in accordance with his conclusion that there was a general rule governing maritime torts such as this under which each joint tortfeasor must pay half the damages. 89 F. Supp. 765. The Court of Appeals agreed that a right of contribution existed in this case but held that it could not exceed the amount Haenn would have been compelled to pay Baccile had he elected to claim compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq. 187 F. 2d 403. We granted certiorari because of the conflicting views taken by the circuits as to the existence of and the extent to which contribution can be obtained in cases such as this. 342 U. S. 809.
, Where two vessels .collide due to the fault of both, it is established admiralty doctrine that the mutual wrongdoers shall share equally the damages sustained by each, as-well as personal injury and property damage inflicted On innocent third parties. This maritime rule is of ancient origin and has been applied in many cases, but this Court has never expressly applied it to non-collision cases. Halcyon now urges us to extend it ter non-collision cases and to allow a contribution here based upon the relative degree of fault of Halcyon and Haenn as found by the jury. Haenn urges us to hold that there is no right of contribution, or in the alternative, that the right be based. upon an equal division of all damages. Both parties claim that the decision below limiting an employer’s liability for contribution to those uncertain amounts recoverable under the Harbor Workers’ Act is impractical and undesirable.
In the absence of legislation, courts exercising a common-law jurisdiction have generally held that they cannot on their own initiative create an enforceable right-of contribution as between joint tortfeasors. This judicial attitude has provoked protest on the ground that it is inequitable to compel one tortfeasor to bear the entire burden of a loss , which has been caused in part by the negligence of someone else. Others have defended the policy of common-law courts in refusing to fashion rules of contribution. To some extent courts exercising jurisdiction in maritime affairs have felt freer than common-law courts in fashioning rules, and we would feel free to do so here if wholly convinced that it would best serve the ends of justice.
We have concluded that it would be unwise to attempt to fashion new judicial rules of contribution and that the solution of this problem should await congressional action. ' Congress has already enacted much legislation in the area of maritime personal injuries. For example, under the Harbor Workers’ Act Congress has made fault unimportant in determining the employees responsibility ijo. his employee; Congress has made further inroads on traditional court law by abolition of the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk and by the creation of a statutory schedule of compensation. The Harbor Workers’ Act in turn must be integrated with other acts such as the Jones Act (41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688), the Public Vessels Act (43 Stat. 1112, 46 U. S. C. §§ 781-790), the Limited Liability Act (R. S. § 4281, as amended, 46 U. S. C. § 181 et seq.) and the Harter Act (27 Stat. 445, 46 U. S. C. §§ 190-195). Many groups of persons with varying interests are vitally concerned with the proper functioning and administration of all these Acts as an integrated whole. We think that legislative consideration and action can best bring about a fair accommodation of the diverse but related interests of these groups. The legislative process is peculiarly adapted to determine which of the many possible solutions to this problem would, be most beneficial in the long run. A legislative inquiry might show that neither carriers, shippers, employees, nor casualty insurance companies desire such a change to be made. The record before us is silent as to the wishes of employees, carriers, and shippers; it only shows that the Halcyon Line is in favor of such a change in order to relieve itself of a part of its burden in this particular lawsuit. Apparently insurance companies are opposed to such a change. Should a legislative inquiry convince Congress that a right to contribution among joint tortfeasors is desirable, there would still be much doubt as to whether application of the rule or the amount of contribution should be limited by the Harbor Workers’ Act, or should be based on an equal division of damages, or should be relatively apportioned in accordance with the degree of fault of the parties.
In view of the foregoing, and because Congress while acting in the field has stopped short of approving the rule of contribution here urged, we think it would be inappropriate for us to do so. The judgments of the Court of Appeals are reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the. contribu-, tion proceedings against Haenn.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Burtok would reverse with directions to the District Court to allow contributions equal to fifty per cent of the judgment recovered by Baccile against Halcyon.
Halcyon Lines refers to Halcyon Lines and Vinke & Co., two corporate joint owners and operators of the ship here involved. Halcyon is petitioner in No. 62 and the respondent in No. 197.
Haenn is the petitioner in No. 197 and the respondent in No. 62.
American Mutual Insurance Co. v. Matthews, 182 F. 2d 322; United States v. Rothschild International Stevedoring Co., 183 F. 2d 181. See also Slattery v. Marra Bros., Inc., 186 F. 2d 134; Spaulding v. Parry Navigation Co., 187 F. 2d 257; Hitaffer v, Argonne Co., 87 U. S. App. D. C. 57, 183 F. 2d 811.
The North Star, 106 U. S. 17, 21, traces the doctrine back to the Rules of Oleron and the laws of Wisbuy. See also, The Washington, 9 Wall. 513; The Alabama, 92 U. S. 695; The Atlas, 93 U. S. 302; The Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. 540, 551-555.
American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, 330 U. S. 446, recognized that some lower federal courts had applied the equal-division rule of contribution in non-collision cases. The opinion in that case implied that on remand and under certain. contingencies the district court would “be free to adjudge the responsibility of the parties” in accordance with the contribution rule announced by the lower federal courts. That statement was only incidental as compared to the important questions there decided and cannot be taken as foreclosing a full consideration and determination of the issue which is now directly presented and crucial to our decision.
Union Stock Yards Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 196 U. S. 217, 224. And see cases collected in 3 A. L. R. Digest, pp. 864-866, and in Prosser on Torts (1941), p. 1113.
See e. g., Gregory, Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors: A Defense, 54 Harv. L. Rev. 1170.
George’s Radio, Inc. v. Capital Transit Co., 75 U. S. App. D. C. 187, 191, 126 F. 2d 219, 223, dissenting opinion. See also James, Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors: A Pragmatic Criticism, 54 Harv. L. Rev. 1156.
Swift & Co. v. Compania Colombiana del Caribe, 339 U. S. 684, 690, 691. Compare The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558.
See e. g., The Jones Act (41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688), the Public Vessels Act (43 Stat. 1112, 46 U. S. C. §§ 781-790), and the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (44 Stat. 1424, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq.).
Gregory, supra, n. 7, p. 1177. James, supra, n. 8, pp. 1179-1180.
Section 5 of the Act provides that “The liability of an employer prescribed in section 4 shall be-nexclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death, . . . .” Haenn argues that this section provides the employer’s exclusive liability thereby preventing a third party from having any right of contribution against an employer under the Act in cases where the joint negligence of a third party and the employer injure an employee covered by the Act. We find it unnecessary to decide this question which is treated by the cases cited in n. 3, supra.
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 Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal brings here the legality of the application of the Arkansas Gross Receipts Tax Law of 1941, Ark. Stat., 1947, § 84^1901 et seq., to a transaction by which certain private contractors engaged in a joint venture, abbreviated WHMS, procured in Arkansas two diesel tractors costing $17,146, for use in the construction there for the United States of a naval ammunition depot estimated to cost over thirty million dollars. The tractors were procured from Kern-Limerick, Inc., a local dealer. The circumstances of the transaction would concededly make Kern-Limerick liable for the tax if the real purchaser were not the United States.
The applicable sections of the Gross Receipts Tax Law levy an “excise tax of two [2%] per centum upon the gross proceeds or gross receipts derived from all sales to any person.” § 84-1903. This is a sales tax, not a use tax. It is to be paid to the Tax Commissioner by the seller, § 84H908. He is the taxpayer, § 84-1902 (e), and “shall collect the tax levied hereby from the purchaser.” § 84-1908. Gross receipts derived from sales to the United States Government are exempt. § 84-1904.
The construction contract had, so far as pertinent here, the provisions as to “Materials — Purchases” which are set out in the margin. It was entered into by the Department of the Navy “under authority of Sections 2 (c) (10) and 4 (b)” of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947. 62 Stat. 21, 41 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 157 et seq. These sections authorized this cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract by negotiation without advertising.
Kern-Limerick, Inc., the seller, upon demand by the Commissioner paid under protest the amount of the sales tax and brought this action for a refund in accordance with state law. The United States intervened, as under the contract any state taxes the contractor was required to pay were reimbursable to it by the Government. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held WHMS was the purchaser and the claimed tax payable by Kern-Limerick as the “seller.” It denied the contention of the United States that the Government was the purchaser. It held that the Armed Services Procurement Act authorized the Navy Department “to purchase . . . supplies or services for its own use,” but did not authorize the Department “to buy nails, lumber, cement, tractors, etc., which were not to be used by the Navy but by WHMS [in this instance] to construct, as independent contractors, the Ammunition Dump.” The state court further held that, even if the Department had the authority to buy the tractors, it could not, under the Procurement Act of 1947, delegate this power to WHMS. 221 Ark. 439, 254 S. W. 2d 454.
Appellants seek reversal of the decision on the grounds that the Procurement Act authorizes this contract and that the Arkansas tax cannot by statute or constitutionally be applied to a purchase by the United States.
The state court’s interpretation of the Procurement Act to deny the Navy authority to buy supplies or equipment for the construction of an ammunition dump is, we think, too restrictive. The Act gives broad powers to the Armed Services for obtaining as cheaply and promptly as possible “purchases and contracts for supplies or services ... for the use of any such agency or otherwise,” § 2 (a), and provides:
Sec. 9. “(b) The term ‘supplies’ shall mean all property except land, and shall include, by way of description and without limitation, public works, buildings, facilities, ships, floating equipment, and vessels of every character, type and description, aircraft, parts, accessories, equipment, machine tools and alteration or installation thereof.”
We hold that the Act allows the purchase of this machinery.
It seems to us, also, that under the Procurement Act the Armed Services may use agents, other than its own official personnel, to handle for it the detail of purchase. The contention of Arkansas which was accepted by its Supreme Court is, as we understand it, that the Procurement Act does not permit a delegation to private contractors of any authority to purchase for or pledge the credit of the United States even though these contractors have contracts for construction or supplies on a cost-plus basis. Further, it follows from the Arkansas contention, that without such statutory authority the purchase by the contractor was not for the United States but for itself. This contention is based on the language of the Procurement Act, §§ 7 (a) and (b). Pursuant to § 7 (a), the Secretary of the Navy, somewhat obscurely, appears to have delegated his authority to determine the necessity for a negotiated contract to a Navy Contracting Officer asserted in the contract, without exception, to be the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks. See 32 CFR §§ 400.201-5 and 402.101. That official negotiated the contract, as it stated and as is admitted by stipulation, under the authority of § 2 (c)(10) of the Procurement Act — “for supplies or services for which it is impracticable to secure competition.”
Arkansas calls attention to the restrictions on delegation in § 7 (b) upon which the state court commented. But the provisions of § 7 (b), as the words show, do not cover actions under § 2(c) (10), and the section’s prohibition of delegation in certain instances is inapplicable. We find nothing in the Procurement Act that bars a contract for purchase for the United States of supplies or services by private persons.
The Government asserts that §§ 4 (a) and (b) authorize this contract. Under them, negotiated contracts such as this “may be of any type which . . . will promote the best interests of the Government.” Under such a provision, it seems that the determination to use purchasing agents is permissible. Where there is no prohibition of a particular type of contract and no direction to use a particular type, the contracting officers are free to follow business practices. We conclude that the Navy Department has power to negotiate contracts which provide for private purchasing agents for supplies and materials.
With this determination that the provisions of the contract are within the authority of the Procurement Act, we turn to examine the validity of the argument that the naming of the Government as purchaser was only color-able and left the contractor the real purchaser and the transaction subject to the Arkansas tax. Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1, is relied upon primarily. We consider this argument under the assumption, made by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, that the contract was designed to avoid the necessity in this cost-plus contract of the ultimate payment of a state tax by the United States.
We are mindful, too, of the careful attention Congress has given in recent years to a proper adjustment of tax liabilities between the federal and the state sovereignties. Congress has been solicitous to see that states and their subdivisions are not unduly burdened by federal acquisition of property taxable by the states when otherwise held. It understands the burdens on local public agencies from the new federal installations and their accompanying personnel. Provisions deemed suitable have been made. These include recent legislation designed to make independent contractors carrying on activities of the Atomic Energy Commission subject to state sales taxes. But in recommending the legislation the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, while providing for voluntary contributions, did not propose to subject Government property and purchases to state taxes. The enactment left them free. This recognition of the constitutional immunity of the Federal Government from state exactions rests, of course, upon unquestioned authority. From McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, through Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U. S. 501, and New York ex rel. Rogers v. Graves, 299 U. S. 401, a host of cases upheld freedom from state taxation not only for Government activities but also for the agencies and salaries of persons that carried on the work. James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, reviewed this judicial history, adopted for federal contractors and state taxation the reasoning that subjected a state contractor’s earnings to federal income tax and upheld the state’s gross receipts tax upon a federal contractor’s earnings on the ground that it did not interfere “in any substantial way with the performance of federal functions.” Id., at 161. The question of the immunity of Government in relation to its purchases of commodities was left open. Id., at 153. Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U. S. 466, overruled New York ex rel. Rogers v. Graves, supra, and Gillespie, supra, fell in Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342, 365.
A phase of the question reserved in the Dravo case came up in Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1. We declared that federal sovereignty “does not spell immunity from paying the added costs, attributable to the taxation of those who furnish supplies to the Government and who have been granted no tax immunity.” Id., at 9. That case involved the usual type sales tax on the seller, collectible by him from the buyer. There was there, too, a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract with the United States. We held the state tax collectible from the sellers, notwithstanding the Government bore the economic burden. A few excerpts will make clear the purport of the ruling:
“As the sale of the lumber by King and Boozer was not for cash, the precise question is whether the Government became obligated to pay for the lumber and so was the purchaser whom the statute taxes, but for the claimed immunity. . . . The contract provided that the title to all materials and supplies for which the contractors were ‘entitled to be reimbursed’ should vest in the Government ‘upon delivery at the site of the work or at an approved storage site and upon inspection and acceptance in writing by the Contracting Officer.’ ” Id., at 10.
“. . . we think all the provisions which we have mentioned, read together, plainly contemplate that the contractors were to purchase in their own names and on their own credit all the materials required, unless the Government should elect to furnish them; that the Government was not to be bound by their purchase contracts, but was obligated only to reimburse the contractors when the materials purchased should be delivered, inspected and accepted at the site.” Id., at 11.
“But however extensively the Government may have reserved the right to restrict or control the action of the contractors in other respects, neither the reservation nor the exercise of that power gave to the contractors the status of agents of the Government to enter into contracts or to pledge its credit.” Id., at 13.
The contract here in issue differs in form but not in economic effect on the United States. The Nation bears the burden of the Arkansas tax as it did that of Alabama. The significant difference lies in this. Both the request for bids and the purchase order, in accordance with the contract arrangements making the contractors purchasing agents for the Government, note 2, supra, contain this identical, specific provision:
“3. This purchase is made by the Government. The Government shall be obligated to the Vendor for the purchase price, but the Contractor shall handle all payments hereunder on behalf of the Government. The vendor agrees to make demand or claim for payment of the purchase price from the Government by submitting an invoice to the Contractor. Title to all materials and supplies purchased hereunder shall vest in the Government directly from the Vendor. The Contractor shall not acquire title to any thereof.”
The purchase order is headed Navy Department Bureau of Yards and Docks, is signed by the contractor as purchasing agent, and requires the seller to make this certification on the claim for payment:
“ ‘I certify that the above bill is correct and just; that payment therefor has not been received; that all statutory requirements as to American production and labor standards, and all conditions of purchase applicable to the transactions have been complied with; and that the State or local sales taxes are not included in the amounts billed.’
“In the event the Contractor is required to pay and does pay State or local sales taxes, the words ‘and that State or local sales taxes are not included in the amounts billed’ should be struck from the certification and the following additional certification added:
“ ‘The amount of State or local sales, use, occupational, gross receipts, or other similar taxes or license fees imposed on the Vendor or Vendee by reason of this transaction is $-. The Vendor, or Vendee, as the case may be, agrees upon direction of the United States to make appropriate claim for refund and in the event of any refund, to pay the amount thereof to the United States.’ ”
The stipulation of facts shows in detail the course of business under this contract in the purchase of supplies and the form of this purchase. Both conform to the language of the contract in requiring specific Government approval to the purchasing agent for each request for bid and each purchase. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Government is the disclosed purchaser and that no liability of the purchasing agent to the seller arises from the transaction.
A comment should be made about another excerpt from King & Boozer. It was referred to in the Arkansas opinion as though it were effective for the determination of this case. The quotation is this:
“The soundness of this conclusion turns on the terms of the contract and the rights and obligations of the parties under it. The taxing statute, as the Alabama courts have held, makes the ‘purchaser’ liable for the tax to the seller, who is required ‘to add to the sales price’ the amount of the tax and collect it when the sales price is collected, whether the sale is for cash or on credit. Who, in any particular transaction like the present, is a ‘purchaser’ within the meaning of the statute, is a question of state law on which only the Supreme Court of Alabama can speak with final authority.” Id., at 9-10.
Read literally, one might conclude this Court was saying that a state court might interpret its tax statute so as to throw tax liability where it chose, even though it arbitrarily eliminated an exempt sovereign. Such a conclusion as to the meaning of the quoted words would deny the long course of judicial construction which establishes as a principle that the duty rests on this Court to decide for itself facts or constructions upon which federal constitutional issues rest. The quotation refers, we think, only to the power of the state court to determine who is responsible under its law for payment to the state of the exaction. The formulation of the “precise question” at the first of the quotation from King & Boozer, p. 118, supra, indicates this.
We find that the purchaser under this contract was the United States. Thus, King & Boozer is not controlling for, though the Government also bore the economic burden of the state tax in that case, the legal incidence of that tax was held to fall on the independent contractor and not upon the United States. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is so embedded in constitutional history and practice that this Court cannot subject the Government or its official agencies to state taxation without a clear congressional mandate. No instance of such submission is shown.
Nor do we think that the drafting of the contract by the Navy Department to conserve Government funds, if that was the purpose, changes the character of the transaction. As we have indicated, the intergovernmental submission to taxation is primarily a problem of finance and legislation. But since purchases by independent contractors of supplies for Government construction or other activities do not have federal immunity from taxation, the form of contracts, when governmental immunity is not waived by Congress, may determine the effect of state taxation on federal agencies, for decisions consistently prohibit taxes levied on the property or purchases of the Government itself.
Reversed.
Cook v. Southeast Arkansas Transportation Co., 211 Ark. 831, 202 S.W. 2d 772.
Materials — Purchases. Article 8 — (a) “Except where provision is otherwise made by the Officer-in-Charge, all materials, articles, supplies, and equipment required for the accomplishment of the work under this contract shall be furnished by the Contractor. The Contractor shall act as the purchasing agent of the Government in effecting such procurement and the Government shall be directly liable to the vendors for the purchase price. The exercise of this agency is subject to the obtaining of approval in the instances and in the manner required by subparagraph (c) of this article. The Contractor shall negotiate and administer all such purchases and shall advance all payments therefor unless the Officer-in-Charge shall otherwise direct.
“(b) Title to all such materials, articles, supplies and equipment, the cost of which is reimbursable to the Contractor hereunder, shall pass directly from the vendor to the Government without vesting in the Contractor, and such title (except as to property to which the Government has obtained title at an earlier date) shall vest in the Government at the time payment is' made therefor by the Government or by the Contractor or upon delivery thereof to the Government or the Contractor, whichever of said events shall first occur. This provision for passage of title shall not relieve the Contractor of any of its duties or obligations under this contract or constitute any waiver of the Government’s right to absolute fulfillment of all of the terms hereof.
“(c) No purchase in excess of $500 shall be made hereunder without the prior written approval of the Officer-in-Charge, except that the Officer-in-Charge may, in his discretion, either reduce the limitation on the amount of any purchase which may be made without such prior approval or authorize the Contractor to make purchases in amounts not in excess of $2500 for any one purchase without obtaining such prior approval.”
These provisions were also applicable to subcontractors.
Section 2 (c) provides:
“All purchases and contracts for supplies and services shall be made by advertising, as provided in section 3, except that such purchases and contracts may be negotiated by the agency head without advertising if—
“(10) for supplies or services for which it is impracticable to secure competition; . . . .”
Section 4 (b) prohibits use of cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost contracts and prescribes other operative limitations not pertinent here. All provisions required by those sections were included in the contract.
S. Rep. No. 571, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 21, had this to say of this language:
“To make it clear that the bill relates to all procurement by the services, except purchases with non appropriated funds, subsection (b) of this section defines ‘supplies’ to include all property except land, and shall include, but without limitation, public works, buildings, facilities, ships, floating equipment, and vessels of every character, type and description, aircraft, parts, accessories, equipment, machine tools, and alteration or installation thereof. These are really examples and this section is to be construed in the broadest manner possible.”
The corresponding House Report, No. 109, p. 23, omitted only the last sentence.
“Sec. 7. (a) . . . Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the agency head is authorized to delegate his powers provided by this Act, including the making of such determinations and decisions, in his discretion and subject to his direction, to any other officer or officers or officials of the agency.
“(b) The power of the agency head to make the determinations or decisions specified in paragraphs (12), (13), (14), (15), and (16) of section 2 (c) and in section 5 (a) shall not be delegable, and the power to make the determinations or decisions specified in paragraph (11) of section 2 (e) shall be delegable only to a chief officer responsible for procurement and only with respect to contracts which will not require the expenditure of more than $25,000.”
Appellee also refers to § 10. As that provides only for interservice procurement, we do not think it pertinent.
United, States v. Linn, 15 Pet. 290, 316; Muschany v. United States, 324 U. S. 49, 63.
E. g., T. V. A., 16 U. S. C. § 831l; R. F. C., 15 U. S. C. §607. Cf. Dameron v. Brodhead, 345 U. S. 322.
67 Stat. 575. See S. Rep. No. 694, 83d Cong., 1st Sess.
Section 9 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 765, 42 U. S. C. § 1809 (b), as amended, provides: “In order to render financial assistance to those States and localities in which the activities of the Commission are carried on and in which the Commission has acquired property previously subject to State and local taxation, the Commission is authorized to make payments to State and local governments in lieu of property taxes. Such payments may be in the amounts, at the times, and upon the terms the Commission deems appropriate, but the Commission shall be guided by the policy of not making payments in excess of the taxes which would have been payable for such property in the condition in which it was acquired, except in cases where special burdens have been cast upon the State or local government by activities of the Commission, the Manhattan Engineer District or their agents. In any such case, any benefit accruing to the State or local government by reason of such activities shall be considered in determining the amount of the payment.”
See Hodgson v. Dexter, 1 Cranch 345, 362; Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Corp., 337 U. S. 682, 703; Restatement, Agency, §320; Williston, Contracts, § 281. Cf. Merchant Fleet Corp. v. Harwood, 281 U. S. 519, 525.
New Jersey Ins. Co. v. Division of Tax Appeals, 338 U. S. 665, 674; Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board, 329 U. S. 69, 83; United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U. S. 174, 182; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 248 U. S. 67, 69. Cf. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U. S. 22, 29.
This principle covers the question of who is the “purchaser.” S. R. A., Inc. v. Minnesota, 327 U. S. 558, 564; Metropolitan Bank v. United States, 323 U. S. 454, 456; Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 316 U. S. 481, 483.
See Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342, 365: “True intergovernmental immunity remains for the most part. But, so far as concerns private persons claiming immunity for their ordinary business operations (even though in connection with governmental activities), no implied constitutional immunity can rest on the merely hypothetical interferences with governmental functions here asserted to sustain exemption.”
Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1; Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co., 342 U. S. 232; Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 U. S. 495.
United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U. S. 174; Mayo v. United States, 319 U. S. 441; Pittman v. Home Owners’ Corp., 308 U. S. 21, 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: | 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 Souter
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice and Justice O’Connor join.
Section 5821 of the National Firearms Act (NFA or Act), see 26 U. S. C. § 5849, levies a tax of $200 per unit upon anyone “making” a “firearm” as that term is defined in the Act. Neither pistols nor rifles with barrels 16 inches long or longer are firearms within the NFA definition, but rifles with barrels less than 16 inches long, known as short-barreled rifles, are. § 5846(a)(3). This case presents the question whether a gun manufacturer “makes” a short-barreled rifle when it packages as a unit a pistol together with a kit containing a shoulder stock and a 21-inch barrel, permitting the pistol’s conversion into an unregulated long-barreled rifle, or, if the pistol’s barrel is left on the gun, a short-barreled rifle that is regulated. We hold that the statutory language may not be construed to require payment of the tax under these facts.
I
The word “firearm” is used as a term of art in the NFA. It means, among other things, “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length . . . .” § 5845(a)(3). “The term ‘rifle’ means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.” § 5845(c).
The consequence of being the maker of a firearm are serious. Section 5821(a) imposes a tax of $200 “for each firearm made,” which “shall be paid by the person making the firearm,” § 5821(b). Before one may make a firearm, one must obtain the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, § 5822, and §5841 requires that the “manufacturer, importer, and maker . . . register each firearm he manufactures, imports, or makes” in a central registry maintained by the Secretary of the Treasury. A maker who fails to comply with the NFA’s provisions is subject to criminal penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, or both, which may be imposed without proof of willfulness or knowledge. §5871.
Respondent Thompson/Center Arms Company manufactures a single-shot pistol called the “Contender,” designed so that its handle and barrel can be removed from its “receiver,” the metal frame housing the trigger, hammer, and firing mechanism. See 27 CFR § 179.11 (1991) (definition of frame or receiver). For a short time in 1985, Thompson/Center also manufactured a carbine-conversion kit consisting of a 21-inch barrel, a rifle stock, and a wooden fore-end. If one joins the receiver with the conversion kit’s rifle stock, the 21-inch barrel, and the rifle fore-end, the product is a carbine rifle with a 21-inch barrel. If, however, the shorter, pistol-length barrel is not removed from the receiver when the rifle stock is added, one is left with a 10-inch or “short-barreled” carbine rifle. The entire conversion, from pistol to long-barreled rifle takes only a few minutes; conversion to a short-barreled rifle takes even less time.
In 1985, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms advised Thompson/Center that when its conversion kit was possessed or distributed together with the Contender pistol, the unit constituted a firearm subject to the NFA. Thdmpson/Center responded by paying the $200 tax for a single such firearm, and submitting an application for permission under 26 U. S. C. § 5822 “to make, use, and segregate as a single unit” a package consisting of a serially numbered pistol, together with an attachable shoulder stock and a 21-inch barrel. Thompson/Center then filed a refund claim. After more than six months had elapsed without action on it, the company brought this suit in the United States Claims Court under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491, arguing that the unit registered was not a firearm within the meaning of the NFA because Thompson/Center had not assembled a short-barreled rifle from its components. The Claims Court entered summary judgment for the Government, concluding that the Contender pistol together with its conversion kit is a firearm within the meaning of the NFA. 19 Cl. Ct. 725 (1990).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a short-barreled rifle “actually must be assembled” in order to be “made” within the meaning of the NFA. 924 F. 2d 1041, 1043 (1991). The Court of Appeals expressly declined to follow the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Drasen, 845 F. 2d 731, cert. denied, 488 U. S. 909 (1988), which had held that an unassembled “complete parts kit” for a short-barreled rifle was in fact a short-barreled rifle for purposes of the NFA. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 502 U. S. 807 (1991).
II
The NFA provides that “[t]he term ‘make’, and the various derivatives of such word, shall include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this chapter), putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.” 26 U. S. C. § 5845(i). But the provision does not expressly address the question whether a short-barreled rifle can be “made” by the aggregation of finished parts that can readily be assembled into one. The Government contends that assembly is not necessary; Thompson/Center argues that it is.
A
The Government urges us to view the shipment of the pistol with the kit just as we would the shipment of a bicycle that requires some home assembly. “The fact that a short-barrel rifle, or any other ‘firearm,’ is possessed or sold in a partially unassembled state does not remove it from regulation under the Act.” ■ Brief for United States 6.
The Government’s analogy of the partially assembled bicycle to the packaged pistol and conversion kit is not, of course, exact. While each example includes some unassembled parts, the crated bicycle parts can be assembled into nothing but a bicycle, whereas the contents of Thompson/Center’s package can constitute a pistol, a long-barreled rifle, or a short-barreled version. These distinctions, however, do define the issues raised by the Government’s argument, the first of which is whether the aggregation and segregation of separate parts that can be assembled only into a short-barreled rifle and are sufficient for that purpose amount to “making” that firearm, or whether the firearm is not “made” until the moment of final assembly. This is the issue on which the Federal and Seventh Circuits are divided.
We think the language of the statute provides a clear answer on this point. The definition of “make” includes not only “putting together,” but also “manufacturing ... or otherwise producing a firearm.” If as Thompson/Center submits, a firearm were only made at the time of final assembly .(the moment the firearm was “put together”), the additional language would be redundant. Congress must, then, have understood “making” to cover more than final assembly, and some disassembled aggregation of parts must be included. Since the narrowest example of a combination of parts that might be included is a set of parts that could be used to make nothing but a short-barreled rifle, the aggregation of such a set of parts, at the very least, must fall within the definition of “making” such a rifle.
This is consistent with the holdings of every Court of Appeals, except the court below, to consider a combination of parts that could only be assembled into an NFA-regulated firearm, either under the definition of rifle at issue here or under similar statutory language. See United States v. Drasen, supra; United States v. Endicott, 803 F. 2d 506, 508-509 (CA9 1986) (unassembled silencer is a silencer); United States v. Luce, 726 F. 2d 47, 48-49 (CA1 1984) (same); United States v. Lauchli, 371 F. 2d 303, 311-313 (CA7 1966) (unas-sembled machineguns are machineguns). We thus reject the broad language of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to the extent that it would mean that a disassembled complete short-barreled rifle kit must be assembled before it has been “made” into a short-barreled rifle. The fact that the statute would serve almost no purpose if this were the rule only confirms the reading we have given it.
We also think that a firearm is “made” on facts one step removed from the paradigm of the aggregated parts that can be used for nothing except assembling a firearm. Two courts to our knowledge have dealt in some way with claims that when a gun other than a firearm was placed together with a further part or parts that would have had no use in association with the gun except to convert it into a firearm, a firearm was produced. See United States v. Kokin, 365 F. 2d 595, 596 (CA3) (carbine together with all parts necessary to convert it into a machinegun is a machinegun), cert. denied, 385 U. S. 987 (1966); see also United States v. Zeidman, 444 F. 2d 1051, 1053 (CA7 1971) (pistol and attachable shoulder stock found “in different drawers of the same dresser” constitute a short-barreled rifle). Here it is true,, of course, that some of the parts could be used without ever assembling a firearm, but the likelihood of that is belied by the utter uselessness of placing the converting parts with the others except for just such a conversion. Where the evidence in a given case supports a finding of such uselessness, the case falls within the fair intendment of “otherwise producing a firearm.” See 26 U. S. C. §5845(i).
B
Here, however, we are not dealing with an aggregation of parts that can serve no useful purpose except the assembly of a firearm, or with an aggregation having no ostensible utility except to convert a gun into such a weapon. There is, to be sure, one resemblance to the latter example in the sale of the Contender with the converter kit, for packaging the two has no apparent object except to convert the pistol into something else at some point. But the resemblance ends with the fact that the unregulated Contender pistol can be converted not only into a short-barreled rifle, which is a regulated firearm, but also into a long-barreled rifle, which is not. The packaging of pistol and kit has an obvious utility for those who want both a pistol and a regular rifle, and the question is whether the mere possibility of their use to assemble a regulated firearm is enough to place their combined packaging within the scope of “making” one.
1
Neither the statute’s language nor its structure provides any definitive guidance. Thompson/Center suggests guidance may be found in some subsections of the statute governing other types of weapons by language that expressly covers combinations of parts. The definition of “machine-gun,” for example, was amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968 to read that “[t]he term shall also include ... any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” 26 U. S. C. § 5845(b). In 1986, the definition of “silencer” was amended by the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act to “includ[e] any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer . . . .” See 26 U. S. C. § 5845(a)(7); 18 U. S. C. § 921(a)(24).
Thompson/Center stresses the contrast between these references to “any combination of parts” and the silence about parts in the definition of rifle in arguing that no aggregation of parts can suffice to make the regulated rifle. This argument is subject to a number of answers, however. First, it sweeps so broadly as to conflict with the statutory definition of “make,” applicable to all firearms, which implies that a firearm may be “made” even where not fully “put together.” If this were all, of course, the conflict might well be resolved in Thompson/Center’s favor. We do not, however, read the machinegun and silencer definitions as contrasting with the definition of rifle in such a way as to raise a conflict with the broad concept of “making.”
The definition of “silencer” is now included in the NFA only by reference, see 26 U. S. C. § 5845(a)(7), whereas its text' appears only at 18 U. S. C. § 921(a)(24), in a statute that itself contains no definition of “make.” Prior to 1986 the definition of “firearm” in the NFA included “a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition.” 26 U. S. C. § 5845(a)(7) (1982 ed.). Two Courts of Appeals held this language to include unassembled silencers that could be readily and easily assembled. See United States v. Endicott, 803 F. 2d, at 508-509; United States v. Luce, 726 F. 2d, at 48-49.
In 1986, Congress replaced that language with “any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code).” Pub. L. 99-308, § 109(b), 100 Stat. 460. The language defining silencer that was added to 18 U. S. C. § 921 at that same time reads: “The terms ‘firearm silencer’ and ‘firearm muffler’ mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.” Pub. L. 99-308, §101, 100 Stat. 451.
Thompson/Center argues that if, even before the amendment, a combination of parts was already “made” into a firearm, the “any combination of parts” language would be redundant. While such a conclusion of redundancy could suggest that Congress assumed that “make” in the NFA did not cover unassembled parts, the suggestion (and the implied conflict with our reading of “make”) is proven false by evidence that Congress actually understood redundancy to result from its new silencer definition. Congress apparently assumed that the statute reached complete-parts kits even without the “combination” language and understood the net effect of the new definition as expanding the coverage of the Act beyond complete-parts kits. “The definition of silencer is amended to include any part designed or redesigned and intended to be used as a silencer for a firearm. This will help to control the sale of incomplete silencer kits that now circumvent the prohibition on selling complete kits.” H. R. Rep. No. 99-495, p. 21 (1986). Because the addition of the “combination of parts” language to the definition of silencer does not, therefore, bear the implication Thompson/Center would put on it, that definition cannot give us much guidance in answering the question before us.
We get no more help from analyzing the machinegun definition’s reference to parts. It speaks of “any combination” of them in the possession or control óf any one person. Here the definition sweeps broader than the aggregation of parts, clearly covered by “making” a rifle. The machinegun parts need not even be in any particular proximity to each other. There is thus no conflict between definitions, but neither is much light shed on the limits of “making” a short-barreled rifle. We can only say that the notion of an unassembled machinegun is probably broader than that of an unassembled rifle. But just where the line is to be drawn on short-barreled rifles is not demonstrated by textual considerations.
2
Thompson/Center also looks for the answer in the purpose and history of the NFA, arguing that the congressional purpose behind the NFA, of regulating weapons useful for criminal purposes, should caution against drawing the line in such a way as to apply the Act to the Contender pistol and carbine kit. See H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., A395 (1954) (the adoption of the original definition of rifle was intended to preclude coverage of antique guns held by collectors, “in pursuance of the clearly indicated congressional intent to cover under the National Firearms Act only such modern and lethal weapons, except pistols and revolvers, as could be used readily and efficiently by criminals or gangsters”).
It is of course clear from the face of the Act that the NFA’s object was to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes, just as the regulation of short-barreled rifles, for example, addresses a concealable weapon likely to be so used. But when Thompson/Center urges us to recognize that “the Contender pistol and carbine kit is not a criminal-type weapon,” Brief for Respondent 20, it does not really address the issue of where the line should be drawn in deciding what combinations of parts are “made” into short-barreled rifles. Its argument goes to the quite different issue whether the single-shot Contender should be treated as a firearm within the meaning of the Act even when assembled with a rifle stock.
Since Thompson/Center’s observations on this extraneous issue shed no light on the limits of unassembled “making” under the Act, we will say no more about congressional purpose. Nor are we helped by the NFA’s legislative history, in which we find nothing to support a conclusion one way or the other about the narrow issue presented here.
I — I I — I h — I
After applying the ordinary rules of statutory construction, then, we are left with an ambiguous statute. The key to resolving the ambiguity lies in recognizing that although it is a tax statute that we construe npw in a civil setting, the NFA has criminal applications that carry no additional requirement of willfulness. Cf. Cheek v. United States, 498 U. S. 192, 200 (1991) (“Congress has ... softened the impact of the common-law presumption [that ignorance of the law is no defense to criminal prosecution] by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses”); 26 U. S. C. §§7201, 7203 (criminalizing willful evasion of taxes and willful failure to file a return). Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U. S. C. §§5861, 5871. It is proper, therefore, to apply the rule of lenity and resolve the ambiguity in Thompson/Center’s favor. See Crandon v. United States, 494 U. S. 152, 168 (1990) (applying lenity in interpreting a criminal statute invoked in a civil action); Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U. S. 87, 91 (1959). Accordingly, we conclude that the Contender pistol and carbine kit when packaged together by Thompson/Center have not been “made” into a short-barreled rifle for purposes of the NFA. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
Unregulated, that is, under the NFA.
The phrase “other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this chapter” apparently refers to those manufacturers who have sought and obtained qualification as a firearms manufacturer under 26 U. S. C. § 5801(a)(1), which requires payment of a $1,000 occupational tax. Rather than seek such qualification, Thompson/Center applied for permission to make a firearm as a nonqualified manufacturer under § 6822, which requires payment of the $200 per firearm “making tax” under § 5821(a).
In Drasen, a complete-parts kit was sold with a flash suppressor, which, if affixed to the rifle barrel, would have extended it beyond the regulated length. See Drasen, 846 F. 2d, at 737. Because the Drasen court concluded that such a flash suppressor was not a part of the rifle’s barrel, see ibid., its holding is consistent with ours.
We do not accept the Government’s suggestion, however, that complete-parts kits must be taxable because otherwise manufacturers will be able to “avoid the tax.” Brief for United States 11. Rather, we conclude that such kits are within the definition of the taxable item. Failure to pay the tax on such a kit thus would amount to evasion, not avoidance. In our system, avoidance of a tax by remaining outside the ambit of the law that imposes it is every person’s right. “Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich of poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.” Commissioner v. Newman, 169 F. 2d 848, 860-851 (CA2) (L. Hand, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 331 U. S. 869 (1947).
Contrary to Justice Scalia’s suggestion, see post, at 522, our understanding of these aggregations of parts, shared by a majority of the Court (those who join this opinion and the four Members of the Court in dissent, see post, p. 523 (White, J., joined by Blackmun, Stevens, and Kennedy, JJ., dissenting) (any aggregation of parts necessary to assemble a firearm is a firearm)), applies to all the provisions of the Act, whether they regulate the “making” of a firearm, e. g., 26 U. S. C. § 5821(a), or not, see, e. g., § 5842(b) (possession of a firearm that has no serial number); § 5844 (importation of a firearm); § 5811 (transfer of a firearm). Since, as we conclude, such a combination of parts, or of a complete gun and an additional part or parts, is “made” into a firearm, it follows, in the absence of some reason to the contrary, that all portions of the Act that apply to “firearms” apply to such a combination. Justice Scalia does not explain how we would be free to construe “firearm” in a different way for purposes of those provisions that do not contain the verb “to make.” Our normal canons of construction caution us to read the statute as a whole, and, unless there is a good reason, to adopt a consistent interpretation of a term used in more than one place within a statute.
Thompson/Center suggests that further enquiry could be avoided when it contends that the Contender and carbine kit do not amount to a “rifle” of any kind because, until assembled into a rifle, they are not “ ‘made’ and ‘intended to be fired from the shoulder.’ ” Brief for Respondent 8. From what we have said thus far, however, it is apparent that, though disassembled, the parts included when the Contender and its carbine kit are packaged together have been “made” into a rifle. The inclusion of the rifle stock in the package brings the Contender and carbine kit within the “intended to be fired from the shoulder” language contained in the definition of rifle in the statute. See 26 U. S. C. § 5845(c). The only question is whether this combination of parts constitutes a short-barreled rifle. Surely Justice Scalia’s argument would take us over the line between lenity and credulity when he suggests that one who makes what would otherwise be a short-barreled rifle could escape liability by carving a warning into the shoulder stock. See post, at 523 (ScaliA, J., concurring in judgment).
At the same time, the definition of “destructive device” was amended to include “any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device . . . and from which a destructive device may readily be assembled.” 26 U. S. C. § 5845(f). This appears to envision by its terms only combinations of parts for converting something into a destructive device.
Justice Scalia upbraids us for reliance on legislative history, his “St. Jude of the hagiology of statutory construction.” Post, at 521. The shrine, however, is well peopled (though it has room for one more) and its congregation has included such noted elders as Justice Frankfurter: “A statute, like other living organisms, derives significance and sustenance from its environment, from which it cannot be severed without being mutilated. Especially is this true where the statute, like the one before us, is part of a legislative process having a history and a purpose. The meaning of such a statute cannot be gained by confining inquiry within its four corners. Only the historic process of which such legislation is an incomplete fragment — that to which it gave rise as well as that which gave rise to it — can yield its true meaning.” United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424, 432 (1943) (dissenting opinion).
The Government has urged us to defer to an agency interpretation contained in two longstanding Revenue Rulings. Even if they were entitled to deference, neither of the rulings, Rev. Rul. 61-45, 1961-1 Cum. Bull. 663, and Rev. Rul. 61-203,1961-2 Cum. Bull. 224 (same), goes to the narrow question presented here, addressing rather the question whether pistols with short barrels and attachable shoulder stocks are short-barreled rifles. We do not read the Government to be relying upon Rev. Rul. 54-606, 1954-2 Cum. Bull. 33, which was repealed as obsolete in 1972, Rev. Rul. 72-178, 1972-1 Cum. Bull. 423, and which contained broader language that “possession or control of sufficient parts to assemble an operative firearm ... constitutes the possession of a firearm.” Reply Brief for United States 10.
Justice Stevens contends that lenity should not be ápplied because this is a “ ‘tax statute,’ ” post, at 626, rather than a “criminal statute,” see post, at 625, n. 1, quoting Crandon v. United States, 494 U. S. 162, 168 (1990). But this tax statute has criminal applications, and we know of no other basis for determining when the essential nature of a statute is “criminal.” Surely, Justice Stevens cannot mean to suggest that in order for the rule of lenity to apply, the statute must be contained in the Criminal Code. See, e. g., United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 344 U. S. 218, 221-222 (1952) (construing the criminal provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U. S. C. §§215, 216(a)). Justice Stevens further suggests that lenity is inappropriate because we construe, the statute today ‘“in a civil setting,’” rather than a “criminal prosecution.” Post, at 526. The rule of lenity, however, is a rule of statutory construction whose purpose is to help give authoritative meaning to statutory language. It is not a rule of administration calling for courts to refrain in criminal cases from applying statutory language that would have been held to apply if challenged in civil litigation.
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.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases present issues concerning state and federal jurisdiction over certain crimes committed on lands within the area designated as a reservation for the Choctaw Indians residing in central Mississippi. More precisely, the questions presented are whether the lands are “Indian country,” as that phrase is defined in 18 U. S. C. § 1151 (1976 ed.) and as it was used in the Major Crimes Act of 1885, being § 9 of the Act of Mar. 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 385, later codified as 18 U. S. C. § 1153, and, if so, whether these federal statutes operate to preclude the exercise of state criminal jurisdiction over the offenses.
I
In October 1975, in the Southern District of Mississippi, Smith John was indicted by a federal grand jury for assault with intent to kill Artis Jenkins, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 1153 and 113 (a). He was tried before a jury and, on December 15, was convicted of the lesser included offense of simple assault: A sentence of 90 days in a local jail-type institution and a fine of $300 were imposed. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, considering the issue on its own motion, see App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 77-836, p. 39A, ruled that the District Court was without jurisdiction over the case because the lands designated as a reservation for the Choctaw Indians residing in Mississippi, and on which the offense took place, were not “Indian country,” and that, therefore, § 1153 did not provide a basis for federal prosecution. 560 F. 2d 1202, 1205-1206 (1977). The United States sought review, and we granted its petition for certiorari in No. 77-836. 434 U. S. 1032 (1978).
In April 1976, Smith John was indicted by a grand jury of Leake County, Miss., for aggravated assault upon the same Artis Jenkins, in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-7 (2) (Supp. 1977). The incident that was the subject of the state indictment was the same as that to which the federal indictment related. A motion to dismiss the charge on the ground the federal jurisdiction was exclusive was denied. John was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court of Leake County and, in May 1976, was convicted of the offense charged. He was sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi, relying on its earlier decision in Tubby v. State, 327 So. 2d 272 (1976), and on the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. State Tax Comm’n, 505 F. 2d 633 (1974), rehearing denied, 535 F. 2d 300, rehearing en banc denied, 541 F. 2d 469 (1976), held that the United States District Court had had no jurisdiction to prosecute Smith John, and that, therefore, his arguments against state-court jurisdiction were without merit. 347 So. 2d 959 (1977). Characterizing the case as one-falling within this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2) (1976 ed.), Smith John filed notice of an appeal in No. 77-575. We postponed jurisdiction, 434 U. S. 1032 (1978). We now note jurisdiction. Antoine v. Washington, 420 U. S. 194 (1975); McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164 (1973).
II
There is no dispute that Smith John is a Choctaw Indian, and it is presumed by all that he is a descendant of the Choctaws who for hundreds of years made their homes in what is now central Mississippi. The story of these Indians, and of their brethren who left Mississippi to settle in what is now the State of Oklahoma, has been told in the pages of the reports of this Court and of other federal courts. See, e. g., Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U. S. 620 (1970); Winton v. Amos, 255 U. S. 373 (1921); Fleming v. McCurtain, 215 U. S. 56 (1909); United States v. Choctaw Nation, 179 U. S. 494 (1900); Choctaw Nation v. United States, 119 U. S. 1 (1886) ; Chitto v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 643, 138 F. Supp. 253, cert. denied, 352 U. S. 841 (1956); Choctaw Nation v. United States, 81 Ct. Cl. 1, cert. denied, 296 U. S. 643 (1935).
At the time of the Revolutionary War, these Indians occupied large areas of what is now the State of Mississippi. In the years just after the formation of our country, they entered into a treaty of friendship with the United States. Treaty at Hopewell, 7 Stat. 21 (1786). But the United States became anxious to secure the lands the Indians occupied in order to allow for westward expansion. The Choctaws, in an attempt to avoid what proved to be their fate, entered into a series of treaties gradually relinquishing their claims to these lands.
Despite these concessions, when Mississippi became a State on December 10, 1817, the Choctaws still retained claims, recognized by the Federal Government, to more than three-quarters of the land within the State’s boundaries. The popular pressure to make these lands available to non-Indian settlement, and the responsibility for these Indians felt by some in the Government, combined to shape a federal policy aimed at persuading the Choctaws to give up their lands in Mississippi completely and to remove to new lands in what for many years was known as the Indian Territory, now a part of Oklahoma and Arkansas. The first attempt to effectuate this' policy, the Treaty at Doak’s Stand, 7 Stat. 210 (1820), resulted in an exchange of more than 5 million acres. Because, however, of complications arising when it was discovered that much of the land promised the Indians already had been settled, most Choctaws remained in Mississippi. A delegation of Choctaws went to Washington, D. C., to untangle the situation and to negotiate yet another treaty. See 7 Stat. 234 (1825). Still, few Choctaws moved.
Only after the election of Andrew Jackson to the Presidency in 1828 did the federal efforts to persuade the Choctaws to leave Mississippi meet with some success. Even before Jackson himself had acted on behalf of the Federal Government, however, the State of Mississippi, grown impatient with federal policies, had taken steps to assert jurisdiction over the lands occupied by the Choctaws. In early 1829, legislation was enacted purporting to extend legal process into the Choctaw territory. 1824-1838 Miss. Gen. Laws 195 (Act of Feb. 4, 1829). In his first annual address to Congress on December 8, 1829, President Jackson made known his position on the Indian question and his support of immediate removal. S. Doc. No. 1, 21st Cong., 1st Sess., 15-16 (1829). Further encouraged, the Mississippi Legislature passed an Act purporting to abolish the Choctaw government and to impose a fine upon anyone assuming the role of chief. The Act also declared that the rights of white persons living within the State were to be enjoyed by the Indians, and that the laws of the State were to be in effect throughout the territory they occupied. 1824-1838 Miss. Gen. Laws 207 (Act of Jan. 19, 1830).
In Washington, Congress debated whether the States had power to assert such jurisdiction and whether such assertions were wise. But the only message heard by the Choctaws in Mississippi was that the Federal Government no longer would stand between the States and the Indians. Appreciating these realities, the Choctaws again agreed to deal with the Federal Government. On September 27, 1830, the Treaty at Dancing Rabbit Creek, 7 Stat. 333, was signed. It provided that the Choctaws would cede to the United States all lands still occupied by them east of the Mississippi, more than 10 million acres. They were to remove to lands west of the river, where they would remain perpetually free of federal or state control, by the fall of 1833. The Government would help plan and pay for this move. Each Choctaw “head of a family being desirous to remain and become a citizen of the States,” id., at 335, however, was to be permitted to do so by signifying his intention within six months to the federal agent assigned to the area. Lands were to be reserved, at least 640 acres per household, to be held by the Indians in fee simple if they would remain upon the lands for five years. Ibid. Other lands were reserved to the various chiefs and to others already residing on improved lands. Id., at 335-336. Those who remained, however, were not to “lose the priviledge of a Choctaw citizen,” id., at 335, although they were to receive no share of the annuity provided for those who chose to remove.
The relations between the Federal Government and the Choctaws remaining in Mississippi did not end with the formal ratification of the Treaty at Dancing Rabbit Creek by the United. States Senate in February 1831. 7 Cong. Deb. 347 (1831). The account of the federal, attempts to satisfy the obligations of the United States both to those who remained, and to those who removed, is one best left to historians. It is enough to say here that the failure of these attempts, characterized by incompetence, if not corruption, proved an embarrassment and an intractable problem for the Federal Government for at least a century. See, e. g., Chitto v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 643, 138 F. Supp. 253 (1956). It remained federal policy, however, to try to induce these Indians to leave Mississippi.
During the 1890’s, the Federal Government became acutely aware of the fact that not all the Choctaws had left Mississippi. At that time federal policy toward the Indians favored the allotment of tribal holdings, including the Choctaw holdings in the Indian Territory, in order to make way for Oklahoma’s statehood. The inclusion of the Choctaws then residing in Mississippi in the distribution of these holdings proved among the largest obstacles encountered during the allotment effort. But even during this era, when federal policy again supported the removal of the Mississippi Choctaws to join their brethren in the West, there was no doubt that there remained persons in Mississippi who were properly regarded both by the Congress and by the Executive Branch as Indians.
It was not until 1916 that this federal recognition of the presence of Indians in Mississippi was manifested by other than attempts to secure their removal. The appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in that year included an item (for $1,000) to enable the Secretary of the Interior “to investigate the condition of the Indians living in Mississippi” and to report to Congress “as to their heed for additional land and school facilities.” 39 Stat. 138. See H. R. Doc. No. 1464, 64th Cong., 2d Sess. (1916). In March 1917, hearings were held in Union, Miss., by the House Committee on Investigation of the Indian Service, again exploring the desirability of providing federal services for these Indians. The efforts resulted in an inclusion in the general appropriation for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1918. This appropriation, passed only after debate in the House, 56 Cong. Rec. 1136-1140 (1918), included funds for the establishment of an agency with a physician, for the maintenance of schools, and for the purchase of land and farm equipment. Lands purchased through, these appropriations were to be sold on contract to individuals in keeping with the general pattern of providing lands eventually to be held in fee by individual Indians, rather than held collectively. Further provisions for the Choctaws in Mississippi were made in similar appropriations in later years.
In the 1930’s, the federal Indian policy had shifted back toward the preservation of Indian communities generally. This shift led to the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 984, and the discontinuance of the allotment program. The Choctaws in Mississippi were among the many groups who, before the legislation was enacted, voted to support its passage. This vote was reported to Congress by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. See Hearings on S. 2755 and S. 3645 before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, p. 82 (1934); Hearings on H. R. 7902 before the House Committee on Indian Affairs, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 423 (1934). On March 30, 1935, the Mississippi Choctaws voted, as anticipated by § 18 of the Act, 48 Stat. 988, 25 U. S. C. § 478 (1976 ed.), to accept the provisions of the Act. T. Haas, Ten Years of'Tribal Government Under I. R. A. 17 (U. S. Indian Service, Tribal Relations Pamphlet No. 1 (1947)).
By this time, it had become obvious that the original method of land purchase authorized by the 1918 appropriations — by contract to a particular Indian purchaser — not only was inconsistent with the new federal policy of encouraging the preservation of Indian communities with commonly held lands, but also was not providing the Mississippi Choctaws with the benefits intended. See H. R. Rep. No. 194, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. (1939). In 1939, Congress passed an Act providing essentially that title to all the lands previously purchased for the Mississippi Choctaws would be “in the United States in trust for such Choctaw Indians of one-half or more Indian blood, resident in Mississippi, as shall be designated by the Secretary of the Interior.'” Ch. 235, 53 Stat. 851. In December 1944, the Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior officially proclaimed all the lands then purchased in aid of the Choctaws in Mississippi, totaling at that time more than 15,000 acres, to be a reservation. 9 Fed. Reg. 14907.
In April 1945, again as anticipated by the Indian Reorganization Act, § 16, 48 Stat. 987, 25 U. S. C. §476 (1976 ed.), the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians adopted a constitution and bylaws; these were duly approved by the appropriate federal authorities in May 1945.
With this historical sketch as background, we turn to the jurisdictional issues presented by Smith John’s case.
Ill
In order to determine whether there is federal jurisdiction over the offense with which Smith John was charged (alleged in the federal indictment to have been committed “on and within the Choctaw Indian Reservation and on land within the Indian country under the jurisdiction of the United States of America”), we first look to the terms of the statute upon which the United States relies, that is, the Major Crimes Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1153. This Act, as codified at the time of the alleged offense, provided: “Any Indian who commits... assault with intent to kill... within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons committing any [such offense], within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.” The definition of “Indian country” as used here and elsewhere in chapter 53 of Title 18 is provided in § 1151. Both the Mississippi Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals concluded that the situs of the alleged offense did not constitute “Indian country/’ and that therefore § 1153 did not afford a basis for the prosecution of Smith John in federal court. We do not agree.
With certain exceptions not pertinent here, § 1151 includes within the term “Indian country” three categories of land. The first, with which we are here concerned, is “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent.” This language first appeared in the Code in 1948 as a part of the general revision of Title 18. The Reviser’s Notes indicate that this definition was based on several decisions of this Court interpreting the term as it was used in various criminal statutes relating to Indians. In one of these cases, United States v. McGowan, 302 U. S. 535 (1938), the Court held that the Reno Indian Colony, consisting of 28.38 acres within the State of Nevada, purchased out of federal funds appropriated in 1917 and 1926 and occupied by several hundred Indians theretofore scattered throughout Nevada, was “Indian country” for the purposes of what was then 25 U. S. C. § 247. (the predecessor of 18 U. S. C. §3618 (1976 ed.)), providing for the forfeiture of a vehicle used to transport intoxicants into the Indian country. The Court noted that the “fundamental consideration of both Congress and the Department of the Interior in establishing this colony has been the protection of a dependent people.” 302 U. S., at 538. The principal test applied was drawn from an earlier case, United States v. Pelican, 232 U. S. 442 (1914), and was whether the land in question “had been validly set apart for the use of the Indians as such, under the superintendence of the Government.” Id., at 449; 302 U. S., at 539.
The Mississippi lands in question here were declared by Congress to be held in trust by the Federal Government for the benefit of the Mississippi Choctaw Indians who were at that time under federal supervision. There is no apparent reason why these lands, which had been purchased in previous years for the aid of those Indians, did not become a “reservation,” at least for the purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction at that particular time. See United States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278, 285 (1909). But if there were any doubt about the matter in 1939 when, as hereinabove described, Congress declared that title to lands previously purchased for the Mississippi Choctaws would be held in trust, the situation was completely clarified by the proclamation in 1944 of a reservation and the subsequent approval of the constitution and bylaws adopted by the Mississippi Band.
The Court of Appeals and the Mississippi Supreme Court held, and the State now argues, that the 1944 proclamation had no effect because the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 was not intended to apply to the Mississippi Choctaws. Assuming for the moment that authority for the proclamation can be found only in the 1934 Act, we find this argument unpersuasive. The 1934 Act defined “Indians” not only as “all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized [in 1934] tribe now under Federal jurisdiction,” and their descendants who then were residing on any Indian reservation, but also as “all other persons of one-half or more Indian blood.” 48 Stat. 988, 25 U. S. C. § 479 (1976 ed.). There is no doubt that persons of this description lived in Mississippi, and were recognized as such by Congress and by the Department of the Interior, at the time the Act was passed. The references to the Mississippi Choctaws in the legislative history of the Act, see supra, at 645-646, confirm our view that the Mississippi Choctaws were not to be excepted from the general operation of the 1934 Act.
IV
Mississippi appears to concede, Brief for Appellee in No. 77-575, p. 44, that if § 1153 provides a basis for the prosecution of Smith John for the offense charged, the State has no similar jurisdiction. This concession, based on the assumption that § 1153 ordinarily is pre-emptive of state jurisdiction when it applies, seems to us to be correct. It was a necessary premise of at least one of our earlier decisions. Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U. S. 351 (1962). See also Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 220, and n. 5 (1959); Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786 (1945); In re Carmen’s Petition, 165 F. Supp. 942 (ND Cal. 1958), aff’d sub nom. Dickson v. Carmen, 270 F. 2d 809 (CA9 1959), cert. denied, 361 U. S. 934 (1960).
The State argues, however, that the Federal Government has no power to produce this result. It suggests that since 1830 the Choctaws residing in Mississippi have become fully assimilated into the political and social life of the State, and that the Federal Government long ago abandoned its supervisory authority over these Indians. Because of this abandonment, and the long lapse in the federal recognition of a tribal organization in Mississippi, the power given Congress “[t]o regulate Commerce... with the Indian Tribes,” Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, cannot provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. To recognize the Choctaws in Mississippi as Indians over whom special federal power may be exercised would be anomalous and arbitrary.
We assume for purposes of argument, as does the United States, that there have been times when Mississippi’s jurisdiction over the Choctaws and their lands went unchallenged. But, particularly in view of the elaborate history, recounted above, of relations between the Mississippi Choctaws and the United States, we do not agree that Congress and the Executive Branch have less power to deal with the affairs of the Mississippi Choctaws than with the affairs of other Indian groups. Neither the fact that the Choctaws in Mississippi are merely a remnant of a larger group of Indians, long ago removed from Mississippi, nor the fact that federal supervision over them has not been continuous, destroys the federal power to deal with them. United States v. Wright, 53 F. 2d 300 (CA4 1931), cert. denied, 285 U. S. 539 (1932).
The State also argues that the Federal Government may not deal specially with the Indians within the State’s boundaries because to do so would be inconsistent with the Treaty at Dancing Rabbit Creek. This argument may seem to be a cruel joke to those familiar with the history of the execution of that treaty, and of the treaties that renegotiated claims arising from it. See supra, at 640-643. And even if that treaty were the only source regarding the status of these Indians in federal law, we see nothing in it inconsistent with the continued federal supervision of them under the Commerce Clause. It is true that this treaty anticipated that each of those electing to remain in Mississippi would become “a citizen of the States,” but the extension of citizenship status to Indans does not, in itself, end the powers given Congress to deal with them. See United States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278 (1909).
y
We therefore hold that § 1153 provides a proper basis for federal prosecution of the offense involved here, and that Mississippi has no power similarly to prosecute Smith John for that same offense. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi in No. 77-575 is reversed; further, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in No. 77-836, is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Smith John’s son, Harry Smith John, also was charged jointly with his father in the federal indictment. The United States and counsel for the Johns have advised the Court of Harry Smith John’s death on February 18, 1978, and concede that as to him the case is moot. Brief for United States 3: Brief for John et al. 1. The brief for the State of Mississippi is silent as to this. We agree that both cases are moot as to Harry Smith John.
At the time of the alleged offense, 18 U. S. C. § 1153 read:
“Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely, murder, manslaughter, rape, carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, assault with intent to commit rape, incest, assault with intent to kill, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, arson, burglary, robbery, and larceny within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
“As used in this section, the offenses of rape and assault with intent to commit rape shall be defined in accordance with the laws of the State in which the offense was committed, and any Indian who commits the offenses of rape or assault with intent to commit rape upon any female Indian within the Indian country shall be imprisoned at the discretion of the court.
“As used in this section, the offenses of burglary, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and incest shall be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in which such offense was committed.”
This section has since been amended by the Indian Crimes Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 685, which added kidnaping to the list of offenses covered and made changes, not pertinent to these eases, in the ways in which state law is incorporated. Section 113, the statute specifying punishment for assaults committed -within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States, including those for which federal prosecutions are authorized by § 1153, was also amended by the same Act. See H. R. Rep. No. 94^1038 (1976) ; S. Rep. No. 9^620 (1976).
Under Keeble v. United States, 412 U. S. 205 (1973), Smith John was entitled to instructions regarding this lesser included offense. It appears, however, see Brief for John et al. 5; Brief for United States 4, and n. 6, that Smith John argued before the Court of Appeals that although he was entitled to such instructions, the District Court had no jurisdiction to enter a judgment of conviction for the lesser offense, a misdemeanor not listed in § 1153. The Court of Appeals, in deciding that the statute did not apply even to the extent urged by the United States, did not reach the issue. It has not been argued before this Court. See, however, Felicia v. United States, 495 F. 2d 353 (CA8), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 849 (1974).
Harry Smith John was also jointly charged with his father under the Mississippi indictment, and was convicted. As stated above, counsel for Harry Smith John concedes that the death of Harry Smith John on February 18, 1978, renders the state case moot as to him. Brief for John et al. 1.
Treaty at Fort Adams, 7 Stat. 66 (1801) (2% million aeres ceded); Treaty at Fort Confederation, 7 Stat. 73 (1802) (establishment of boundaries generally); Treaty at Hoe-Buckin-too-pa, 7 Stat. 80 (1803) (900,000 acres in conformity with the Fort Confederation agreement); Treaty at Mount Dexter, 7 Stat. 98 (1805) (4 million acres); Treaty at Fort St. Stephens, 7 Stat. 152 (1816) (ceding a relatively small tract where Columbus, Miss., now stands). See A. DeRosier, Jr., The Removal of the Choctaw Indians 29 (1970).
Andrew Jackson had been one of the two commissioners sent to negotiate the Treaty at Doak’s Stand. From the land ceded by the Choctaws under that treaty, a new state capital, to be named Jackson, was planned. P. Fortune, The Formative Period, in 1 A History of Mississippi 255 (R. McLemore ed., 1973). Jackson’s position with regard to the removal of the Indians played a significant role in his Presidential election and in his popularity in Mississippi. Id., at 277. See generally DeRosier, supra n. 5, at 100-115; M. Young, Redskins, Rufileshirts, and Rednecks: Indian Allotments in Alabama and Mississippi, 1830-1860, pp. 14-21 (1961); G. Foreman, Indian Removal: The Emigration of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians 21 (1953 ed.); F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 56-59 (1941); Prucha, Andrew Jackson’s Indian Policy: A Reassessment, 56 J. of Am. Hist. 527 (1969).
See, e. g., 6 Cong. Deb. 585 (1830). These debates culminated on May 28, 1830, in the passage of the Indian Removal Bill. 4 Stat. 411. See generally A. Abel, The History of Events Resulting in Indian Consolidation West of the Mississippi River, in 1906 Annual Report of the American Historical Assn. 377-382 (1908). They also set the stage for the constitutional crisis surrounding this Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515 (1832), that the States had no power over the Indians and the Indian lands within their boundaries. See generally Burke, The Cherokee Cases: A Study in Law, Politics, and Morality, 21 Stan. L. Rev. 500 (1969); Miles, After John Marshall's Decision: Worcester v. Georgia and the Nullification Crisis, 39 J. of So. Hist. 619 (1973).
Perhaps the best evidence of the circumstances surrounding this treaty-lies in its very words. As signed by the Choctaws, it contained the following preamble:
“Whereas the General Assembly of the State of Mississippi has extended the laws of said State to persons and property within the chartered limits of the [Choctaw lands], and the President of the United States has said that he cannot protect the Choctaw people from the operation of these laws; Now therefore that the Choctaw may live under their own laws in peace with the United States and the State of Mississippi they have determined to sell their lands east of the Mississippi and have accordingly agreed to the following articles of treaty.”
The preamble was stricken from the treaty as ratified by the Senate. 7 Cong. Deb. 346-347 (1831).
See generally Chitto v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 643, 138 F. Supp. 253, cert. denied, 352 U. S. 841 (1956); Young, supra n. 6, at 47-72; Riley, Choctaw Land Claims, 8 Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society 345 (1904).
It is generally acknowledged that, whether anxious to conceal the fact that far more Choctaws had remained in Mississippi than he had anticipated originally, or simply because he was disinterested in his job and generally dissolute, the agent in charge of the task refused to record the claims of those who elected to remain. See, e. g., Coleman v. Doe, 12 Miss. 40 (1844); Chitto v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl., at 648-649, 138 F. Supp., at 257. Speculators soon began pressing the cause of those who had been refused. Perhaps in large part due to their efforts, and the cloud created on the ceded lands as they were put up for sale without the proper recordation of Indian claims, Congress soon authorized investigation of the situation. See 7 American State Papers, Public Lands 448-525 (1860); H. R. Rep. No. 663, 24th Cong., 1st Sess. (1836).
Although one might wonder whether it was concern for the preservation of the claims for the Indians, or simply concern for the preservation of the claims, that motivated subsequent events, measures were taken to remedy the situation and to provide substitute lands for the Choctaws to replace those lands sold despite their attempt to file claims. One measure provided that the claimants would be issued scrip enabling them to claim substitute lands, but half the scrip was not to be delivered unless the claimants removed to territory west of the Mississippi. Act of Aug. 23, 1842, 5 Stat. 513.
The administration of this statute was as unsuccessful as had been the administration of the original treaty. It appears that in practice, none of the scrip was delivered before removal, Chitto v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl., at 649, 138 F. Supp., at 257, and that Congress later established a fund to be paid in lieu of part of the scrip. 5 Stat. 777 (1845). After an attempt at settlement in 1852 proved unsuccessful, the United States and the Choctaws in Oklahoma in 1855 entered into still another treaty that provided that the Senate would make a determination of the amounts owing to the Choctaws generally for the failure of the United States to abide by its various treaty promises. Treaty of June 22, 1855, 11 Stat. 611. In March 1859, the Senate approved the general formula under which those amounts were to be calculated, Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 2d Sess., 1691; S. Rep. No. 374, 35th Cong., 2d Sess. (1859), and the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to this direction, computed the total to be almost $3 million. See H. R. Exec. Doe. No. 82, 36th Cong., 1st Sess. (1860), reprinted in H. R. Rep. No. 251, 45th Cong., 2d Sess., 12 (1878). The War Between the States interrupted the payment of this Senate award, and, after the war, the Choctaws found themselves forced to prove their claims once again, this time in the federal courts. See Choctaw Nation v. United States, 119 U. S. 1 (1886), rev’g 21 Ct. Cl. 59.
See generally DeRosier, supra n. 5, at 129-167; Wright, The Removal of the Choctaws to the Indian Territory 1830-1833, 6 Chronicles of Oklahoma 103 (1928); A. Debo, The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic 56 (2d ed. 1961); n. 9, supra.
The potential right of the Choctaws who had not removed to participate in any general allotment of the Oklahoma lands was acknowledged in the treaty entered into by the United States and the Choctaws and Chickasaws at the close of the war.
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises questions of whether the Supreme Court of Virginia (Virginia Court) and its chief justice are officially immune from suit in an action brought under 42 U. S. C.
§ 1983 challenging the Virginia Court’s disciplinary rules governing the conduct of attorneys and whether attorney’s fees were properly awarded under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U. S. C. § 1988, against the Virginia Court and its chief justice in his official capacity.
I
It will prove helpful at the outset to describe the role of the Virginia Court in regulating and disciplining attorneys. The Virginia Court has firmly held to the view that it has inherent authority to regulate and discipline attorneys. Button v. Day, 204 Va. 547, 552-555, 132 S. E. 2d 292, 295-298 (1963). It also has statutory authority to do so. Section 54-48 of the Code of Virginia (1978) authorizes the Virginia Court to “promulgate and amend rules and regulations... [p]rescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys-at-law....”
Pursuant to these powers, the Virginia Court promulgated the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility (State Bar Code, Bar Code, or Code), the provisions of which were substantially identical to the American Bar Association’s Code of Professional Responsibility. Section 5A-48 provides no standards for the Virginia Court to follow in regulating attorneys; it is apparent that insofar as the substantive content of such a code is concerned, the State has vested in the court virtually its entire legislative or regulatory power over the legal profession.
Section 54-48 also authorizes the Virginia Court to prescribe “procedure for disciplining, suspending and disbarring attorneys-at-law” ; and § 54^49 authorizes the court to promulgate rules and regulations “organizing and governing the association known as the Virginia State Bar, composed of the attorneys-at-law of this State, to act as an administrative agency of the Court for the purpose of investigating and reporting... violation [s]....” Acting under this authority, the Virginia State Bar (State Bar or Bar) has been organized and its enforcement role vested in an ethics committee and in various district committees. Section 54-51 reserves to the courts the sole power to adjudicate alleged violations of the Bar Code, and hence the role of the State Bar is limited to the investigation of violations and the filing of appropriate complaints in.the proper courts. Under § 54-74, the enforcement procedure involves the filing of a complaint in a court of record, the issuance of a rule to show cause against the charged attorney, the prosecution of the case by the commonwealth attorney, and the hearing of the case by the judge issuing the rule together with two other judges designated by the chief justice of the Virginia Supreme Court. Appeal lies to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The courts of Virginia, including the Supreme Court, thus play an adjudicative role in enforcing the Bar Code similar to their function in enforcing any statute adopted by the Virginia Legislature and similar or identical to the role they would play had the Bar Code been adopted by the state legislature.
The Virginia Court, however, has additional enforcement power. As we have said, it asserts inherent power to discipline attorneys. Also, § 54-74 expressly provides that if the Virginia Court or any other court of record observes any act of unprofessional conduct, it may itself, without any complaint being filed by the State Bar or by any third party, issue a rule to show cause against the offending attorney. Although once the rule issues, such cases would be prosecuted by the commonwealth attorney, it is apparent that the Virginia Court and other courts in Virginia have enforcement authority beyond that of adjudicating complaints filed by others and beyond the normal authority of the courts to punish attorneys for contempt.
II
This case arose when, in 1974, one of the appellees, Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. (Consumers Union), sought to prepare a legal services directory designed to assist consumers in making informed decisions concerning utilization of legal services. Consumers Union sought to canvass all attorneys practicing law in Arlington County, Va., asking for information concerning each attorney’s education, legal activities, areas of specialization, office location, fee and billing practices, business and professional affiliations, and client relations. However, it encountered difficulty because lawyers declined to supply the requested information for fear of violating the Bar Code’s strict prohibition against attorney advertising. Rule 2-102 (A) (6) of the Code prohibited lawyers from being included in legal directories listing the kind of legal information that Consumers Union sought to publish.
On February 27, 1975, Consumers Union and the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council brought an action pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against the Virginia Court, the Virginia State Bar, the American Bar Association, and, in both their individual and official capacities, the chief justice of the Virginia Court, the president of the State Bar, and the chairman of the State Bar’s Legal Ethics Committee. With respect to the Virginia Court, the complaint identified its chief justice and alleged only that the court had promulgated the Bar Code. The other defendants were alleged to have authority to enforce the Code. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that defendants had violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to gather, publish, and receive factual, information concerning attorneys practicing in Arlington County, and a permanent injunction against the enforcement and operation of DR 2-102 (A)(6).
A three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1970 ed.). Defendants moved for indefinite continuance of the trial on the grounds that the ABA and the State Bar were preparing amendments to relax the advertising prohibitions contained in DR 2-102 (A)(6). Over plaintiff-appellees’ opposition, the District Court granted defendants a continuance until March 25,1976.
On February 17, 1976, the ABA adopted amendments to its Code of Professional Responsibility which would permit attorneys to advertise office hours, initial consultation fees, and credit arrangements. Defendants then sought and obtained a further continuance to permit the Virginia Court and the State Bar to consider amending the State Bar Code to conform to the ABA amendments. Although the governing body of the State Bar recommended that the Virginia Court adopt the ABA amendments to DR 2-102, on April 20, 1976, the court declined to adopt the amendments on the. ground that they would “not serve the best interests of the public or the legal profession.”
The action then proceeded to trial on May 17, 1976, and was decided on December 17, 1976. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. American Bar Assn., 427 F. Supp. 506 (ED Va. 1976). The three-judge District Court concluded that abstention would be inappropriate in light of defendants’ failure to amend the State Bar Code despite continuances based on the speculation that DR 2-102 (A) (6) would be relaxed. Id., at 513-516. The court declared that DR 2-102 (A)(6) unconstitutionally restricted the right of plaintiff-appellees to receive and gather nonfee information and information concerning initial consultation fees. Defendants were permanently enjoined from enforcing DR 2-102 (A) (6) save for its prohibition against advertising fees for services other than the initial consultation fee. Id., at 523.
Plaintiff-appellees appealed to this Court, challenging the District Court’s refusal to enjoin enforcement of the prohibition of fee advertising. Defendants brought a cross-appeal, arguing that DR 2-102 (A) (6) should have been upheld in its entirety. While these appeals were pending, we decided Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350 (1977), in which we held that enforcement of a ban on attorney advertising would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of attorneys seeking to advertise the fees they charged for certain routine legal services. In light of Bates, the judgment below was vacated and the case was remanded for further consideration. 433 U. S. 917 (1977).
On remand, defendants agreed that in light of Bates DR 2-102 (A) (6) could not constitutionally be enforced to prohibit attorneys from providing plaintiff-appellees with any of the information they sought to publish in their legal services directory. Defendants proposed that a permanent injunction be entered barring them from enforcing DR 2-102 (A)(6) against attorneys providing plaintiff-appellees with information. On May 8, 1979, the District Court declared DR 2-102 (A) (6) unconstitutional on its face and permanently enjoined defendants from enforcing it.
Plaintiff-appellees also moved for costs, including an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U. S. C. § 1988. The defendants objected to any fee award on various grounds, including judicial immunity. They did not object to their paying other costs. Although holding the individual defendants immune from attorney’s fees liability in their individual capacities, the District Court held that the Act authorized in proper circumstances the award of fees against the State Bar, the Virginia Court and the individual defendants in their official capacities. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. American Bar Assn., 470 F. Supp. 1055, 1059-1061 (ED Va. 1979).
The District Court went on to conclude that special circumstances made it unjust to award attorney’s fees against the State Bar or against the State Bar officers in their official capacities because it was not these defendants but the Virginia Court that had the power to change the State Bar disciplinary rules and because the State Bar and its officers had unsuccessfully sought to persuade the court to amend the Code to conform to what they deemed to be constitutional standards. There were no similar circumstances making it unjust to award attorney’s fees against the Virginia Court and its chief justice in his official capacity. This was because the court had denied the State Bar’s petition to amend the Code to conform to what were deemed to be the requirements of Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809 (1975), and had also failed to amend the Code to conform to the holding in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, supra. Hence, “[i]t would hardly be unjust to order the Supreme Court of Virginia defendants to pay plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees in light of their continued failure and apparent refusal to amend [the Code] to conform with constitutional requirements.” 470 F. Supp., at 1063. The parties were directed to attempt to reach an agreement on a reasonable sum, failing which the court would determine the fee.
On May 23, 1979, defendants filed a petition for rehearing, arguing for the first time, on judicial immunity grounds, that the Virginia Court and its chief justice were exempt from having declaratory and injunctive relief entered against them. It was also argued that in any event it was an abuse of discretion to enter the fee award against the Virginia Court and its chief justice.
Following denial of rehearing, the Virginia Court and its chief justice appealed, presenting the following questions:
1. Is the Supreme Court of Virginia immune from judgment under the doctrine of judicial immunity?
2. May the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 be construed to permit an award of attorneys’ fees against the Supreme Court of Virginia for its judicial acts?
3. Does the doctrine of judicial immunity preclude the award of attorneys’ fees for failure to correct a challenged judicial act which is the subject of litigation?
4. On the facts before it, did the District Court abuse its discretion in awarding fees against'the Virginia Court?
Appellees moved to dismiss or affirm, the motion to dismiss urging that the claim of judicial immunity from declaratory or injunctive relief was not properly before the Court because it had not been timely raised in the District Court and had therefore been waived. We noted probable jurisdiction, 444 U. S. 914(1979).
Ill
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1988, as amended by the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, provides in pertinent part:
“In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title... the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.”
The District Court held that in light of the § 1983 judgment that had been entered in favor of appellees, the Act authorized an award of attorney’s fees against appellants. Appellants urge that this was error. Their primary contention is that on the grounds of absolute legislative or judicial immunity they should have been excluded from the judgment below and also from liability for attorney’s fees. Appellees on the other hand assert that neither judicial nor legislative immunity immunized these defendants from declaratory or injunctive relief as distinguished from a damages award; and in any event they insist that the judgment stand against these defendants because the Virginia Court itself shares direct enforcement authority with the State Bar and hence is subject to prospective judgments just as other enforcement officials are.
A
Appellees sought declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to particular provisions of the State Bar Code propounded by the Virginia Court. Although it is clear that under Virginia law the issuance of the Bar Code was a proper function of the Virginia Court, propounding the Code was not an act of adjudication but one of rulemaking. The District Court below referred to the issuance of the Code as a judicial function, but this is not conclusive upon us for the purpose of deciding whether issuance of the Code is a judicial act entitled to immunity under § 1983. Judge Warriner, dissenting in the District Court, agreed with a prior District Court holding in Hirschkop v. Virginia State Bar, 421 F. Supp. 1137, 1156 (ED Va. 1976), rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom. Hirschkop v. Snead, 594 F. 2d 356 (CA4 1979), that in promulgating disciplinary rules the Virginia Supreme Court acted in a legislative capacity. Judge Warriner said:
“Disciplinary rules are rules of general application and are statutory in character. They act not on parties litigant but on all those who practice law in Virginia. They do not arise out of a controversy which must be adjudicated, but instead out of a need to regulate conduct for the protection of all citizens. It is evident that, in enacting disciplinary rules, the Supreme Court of Virginia is constituted a legislature.” 470 F. Supp., at 1064.
We agree with this analysis and hence must inquire whether the Virginia Court and its chief justice are immune from suit for acts performed in their legislative capacity.
We have already decided that the Speech or Debate Clause immunizes Congressmen from suits for either prospective relief or damages. Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U. S. 491, 502-503 (1975). The purpose of this immunity is to insure that the legislative function may be performed independently without fear of outside interference. Ibid. To preserve legislative independence, we have concluded that “legislators engaged ‘in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,' Tenney v. Brandhove, [341 U. S. 367, 376 (1951)], should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation’s results but also from the burden of defending themselves.” Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U. S. 82, 85 (1967).
We have also recognized that state legislators enjoy common-law immunity from liability for their legislative acts, an immunity that is similar in origin and rationale to that accorded Congressmen under the Speech or Debate Clause. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951). In Tenney we concluded that Congress did not intend § 1983 to abrogate the common-law immunity of state legislators. Although Tenney involved an action for damages under § 1983, its holding is equally applicable to § 1983 actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. In holding that § 1983 “does not create civil liability” for acts unknown “in a field where legislators traditionally have power to act/’ id., at 379, we did not distinguish between actions for damages and those for prospective relief. Indeed, we have recognized elsewhere that “a private civil action, whether for an injunction or damages, creates a distraction and forces [legislators] to divert their time, energy, and attention from their legislative tasks to defend the litigation.” Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, supra, at 503. Although the separation-of-powers doctrine justifies a broader privilege for Congressmen than for state legislators in criminal actions, United States v. Gillock, 445 U. S. 360 (1980), we generally have equated the legislative immunity to which state legislators are entitled under § 1983 to that accorded Congressmen under the Constitution. Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, supra, at 502-503, 505, 506; Dombrowski v. Eastland, supra, at 84-85; United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 180 (1966); Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, at 377-379. Thus, there is little doubt that if the Virginia Legislature had enacted the State Bar Code and if suit had been brought against the legislature, its committees, or members for refusing to amend the Code in the wake of our cases indicating that the Code in some respects would be held invalid, the defendants in that suit could successfully have sought dismissal on the grounds of absolute legislative immunity.
Appellees submit that whatever may be true of state legislators, the Virginia Court and its members should not be accorded the same immunity where they are merely exercising a delegated power to malee rules in the same manner that many executive and agency officials wield authority to make rules in a wide variety of circumstances. All of such officials, it is urged, are not absolutely immune from civil suit. As much could be conceded, but it would not follow that, as appellees would have it, in no circumstances do those who exercise delegated legislative power enjoy legislative immunity. In any event, in this case the Virginia Court claims inherent power to regulate the Bar, and as the dissenting judge below indicated, the Virginia Court is exercising the State’s entire legislative power with respect to regulating the Bar, and its members are the State’s legislators for the purpose of issuing the Bar Code. Thus the Virginia Court and its members are immune from suit when acting in their legislative capacity.
B
If the sole basis for appellees’ § 1983 action against the Virginia Court and its chief justice were the issuance of, or failure to amend, the challenged rules, legislative immunity would foreclose suit against appellants. As has been pointed out, however, the Virginia Court performs more than a legislative role with respect to the State Bar Code. It also hears appeals from lower court decisions in disciplinary cases, a traditional adjudicative task; and in addition, it has independent enforcement authority of its own.
Adhering to the doctrine of Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872), we have held that judges defending against § 1983 actions enjoy absolute immunity from damages liability for acts performed in their judicial capacities. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 349 (1978). However, we have never held that judicial immunity absolutely insulates judges from declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to their judicial acts. The Courts of Appeals appear to be divided on the question whether judicial immunity bars declaratory or injunctive relief; we have not addressed the question.
We need not decide whether judicial immunity would bar prospective relief, for we believe that the Virginia Court and its chief justice properly were held liable in their enforcement capacities. As already indicated, § 54-74 gives the Virginia Court independent authority of its own to initiate proceedings against attorneys. For this reason the Virginia Court and its members were proper defendants in a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, just as other enforcement officers and agencies were.
Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from damages liability, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976), but they are natural targets for § 1983 injunctive suits since they are the state officers who are threatening to enforce and who are enforcing the law. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975), is only one of a myriad of such cases since Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), decided that suits against state officials in federal courts are not barred by thé Eleventh Amendment. If prosecutors and law enforcement personnel cannot be proceeded against for declaratory relief, putative plaintiffs would have to await the institution of state-court proceedings against them in order to assert their federal constitutional claims. This is not the way the law has developed, and, because of its own inherent and statutory enforcement powers, immunity does not shield the Virginia Court and its chief justice from suit in this case.
IV
Because appellees properly prevailed in their § 1983 action, the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1988, authorized the District Court, “in its discretion,” to award them “a reasonable attorney’s fee,” which may be recovered from state officials sued in their official capacities. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678, 694 (1978). Applying the standard of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U. S. 400, 402 (1968), the District Court indicated that attorney’s fees should ordinarily be awarded “ 'unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.’ ” 470 F. Supp., at 1061. Accordingly, enforcement authorities against whom § 1983 judgments have been entered would ordinarily be charged with attorney’s fees. The District Court nevertheless considered it unjust to require the State Bar defendants to pay attorney’s fees because they had recommended that the State Bar Code be amended to conform to what the Bar thought our cases required and because the Virginia Court declined or failed to adopt this proposal. No similar circumstances excused the Virginia Court, the court held, for it was the very authority that had propounded and failed to amend the challenged provisions of the Bar Code.
We are unable to agree that attorney’s fees should have been awarded for the reasons relied on by the District Court. Although the Virginia Court and its chief justice were subject to suit in their direct enforcement role, they were immune in their legislative roles. Yet the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees in this case was premised on acts or omissions for which appellants enjoyed absolute legislative immunity. This was error.
We held in Hutto v. Finney, supra, that Congress intended to waive whatever Eleventh Amendment immunity would otherwise bar an award of attorney’s fees against state officers, but our holding was based on express legislative history indicating that Congress intended the Act to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. There is no similar indication in the legislative history of the Act to suggest that Congress intended to permit an award of attorney’s fees to be premised on acts for which defendants would enjoy absolute legislative immunity. The House Committee Report on the Act indicates that Congress intended to permit attorney’s fees awards in cases in which prospective relief was properly awarded against defendants who would be immune from damages awards, H. R. Rep. No. 94^1558, p. 9 (1976), but there is no indication that Congress intended to permit an award of attorney’s fees to be premised on acts that themselves would be insulated from even prospective relief. Because the Virginia Court is immune from suit with respect to its legislative functions, it runs counter to that immunity for a district court’s discretion in allowing fees to be guided by considerations centering on the exercise or nonexercise of the state court’s legislative powers.
This is not to say that absent some special circumstances in addition to what is disclosed in this record, a fee award should not have been made in this case. We are not convinced that it would be unfair to award fees against the State Bar, which by statute is designated as an administrative agency to help enforce the State Bar Code. Fee awards against enforcement officials are run-of-the-mill occurrences, even though, on occasion, had a state legislature acted or reacted in a different or more timely manner, there would have been no need for a lawsuit or for an injunction. Nor would we disagree had the District Court awarded fees not only against the Bar but also against the Virginia Court because of its own direct enforcement role. However, we hold that it was an abuse of discretion to award fees because the Virginia Court failed to exercise its rulemaking authority in a manner that satisfied the District Court. We therefore vacate the award of attorney’s fees and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“§ 54-48. Rules and regulations defining practice of law and prescribing procedure for practice by law students, codes of ethics and disciplinary procedure. — The Supreme Court may, from time to time, prescribe, adopt, promulgate and amend rules and regulations:
“(a) Defining the practice of law.
“(al) Prescribing procedure for limited practice of law by third-year law students.
“(b) Prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attomeys-at-law including the practice of law or patent law through professional law corporations, professional associations and partnerships, and a code of judicial ethics.
“(e) Prescribing procedure for disciplining, suspending, and disbarring attomeys-at-law.”
“§ 54r-49. Organization and government of Virginia State Bar. — The Supreme Court may, from time to time, prescribe, adopt, promulgate and amend rules and regulations organizing and governing the association known as the Virginia State Bar, composed of the attorneys-at-law of this State, to act as an administrative agency of the Court for the purpose of investigating and reporting the violation of such rules and regulations as are adopted by the Court under this article for such proceedings as may be necessary, and requiring all persons practicing law in this State to be members thereof in good standing.”
“§ 54r-51. Restrictions as to rules and regulations. — Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article, the Supreme Court shall not adopt or promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attomeys-at-law, which shall be inconsistent with any statute; nor shall it adopt or promulgate any rule or regulation of method of procedure which shall eliminate the jurisdiction of the Courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys-at-law as provided by law; and in no case shall an attorney, who demands to be tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for the violation of any rule or regulation adopted under this article be tried in any other manner.”
“§54-74. Procedure for suspension or revocation of license. — (1) Issuance of rule. — If the Supreme Court of Virginia, or any court of record of this State, observes, or if complaint, verified by affidavit, be made by any person to such court of any malpractice or of any unlawful or dishonest or unworthy'or corrupt or unprofessional conduct on the part of any attorney, or that any person practicing law is not duly licensed to practice in this State, such court shall, if it deems the case a proper one for such action, issue a rule against such attorney or other person to show cause why his license to practice law shall not be revoked or suspended. If the complaint, verified by affidavit, be made by a District Committee of the Virginia State Bar, such court shall issue a rule against such attorney to show cause why his license to practice law shall not be revoked or suspended.
“(2) Judges hearing case. — At the time such rule is issued the court issuing the same shall certify the fact of such issuance and the time and place of the hearing thereon, to the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, who shall designate two judges, other than the judge of the court issuing the rule, of circuit courts or courts of record of cities of the first class to hear and decide the ease in conjunction with the judge issuing the rule, which such two judges shall receive as compensation ten dollars per day and necessary expenses while actually engaged in the performance of their duties, to be paid out of the State treasury, from the appropriation for criminal charges.
“(3) Duty of Commonwealth’s attorney. — It shall be the duty of the attorney for the Commonwealth for the county or city in which such case is pending to appear at the hearing and prosecute the case.
“(4) Action of court. — Upon the hearing, if the defendant be found guilty by the court, his license to practice law in this State shall be revoked, or suspended for such time as the court may prescribe; provided, that the court, in lieu of revocation or suspension, may, in its discretion, reprimand such attorney.
“(5) Appeal. — The person or persons making the complaint or the defendant, may, as of right, appeal from the judgment of the court to the Supreme Court of Virginia, by petition based upon a true transcript of the record, which shall be made up and certified as in actions at law. In all such cases where a defendant's license to practice law has been revoked by the judgment of the court, his privilege to practice law shall be suspended pending appeal.”
Effective July 1, 1981, the judge issuing the rule to show cause will not participate in disciplinary cases, which are to be heard by three judges designated by the chief justice from any circuit other than the one in which the case is pending.
At the time Consumers Union sought to canvass Virginia attorneys, Disciplinary Rule 2-102 (A) of the State Bar Code provided in pertinent part: “A lawyer or law firm shall not use professional cards, professional announcement cards, office signs, letterheads, telephone directory listings, law lists, legal directory listings, or similar professional notices or devices, except that the following may be used if they are in dignified form:
(6) A listing in a reputable law list or legal directory giving brief biographical and other informative data.... The published data may include only the following: name, including name of law firm and names of professional associates; addresses and telephone numbers; one or more fields of law in which the lawyer or law firm concentrates; a statement that practice is limited to one or more fields of law; a statement that the lawyer or law firm specializes in a particular field of law or law practice... ; date and place of birth; date and place of admission to the bar of state and federal courts; schools attended, with dates of graduation, degrees, and other scholastic distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; military service; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions; memberships, offices, committee assignments, and section memberships in bar associations; memberships and offices in legal fraternities and legal societies; technical and professional associations and societies; foreign language ability; names and addresses of references, and, with their consent, names of clients regularly represented.”
The District Court’s final order provided in pertinent part:
“1. The publication described in plaintiff’s complaint, as amended, is declared valid and constitutionally protected;
“2. The Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 2-102 (A) (6) is declared unconstitutional on its face;
“3. The defendants, their successors in office, their agents and attorneys and all acting in concert therewith are permanently enjoined from enforcement of Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 2-102 (A) (6).”
The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act was enacted into law on October 19, 1976, five months after the trial in this action and two months before the District Court’s initial decision. The Act is applicable in this case because Congress intended for the Act to apply to actions that were pending when the Act was passed. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678, 694-695, n. 23 (1978).
Judge Warriner dissented on the grounds that legislative immunity barred an award of attorney’s fees and that it would be unjust to award attorney’s fees against a state supreme court in the absence of a showing of bad faith. 470 F. Supp., at 1063.
As indicated in the text, the motion to dismiss the appeal rested on the failure of appellants to have raised the immunity issue at an earlier time. We noted probable jurisdiction, and appellees’ brief on the merits has not again urged that the claim of immunity was not timely raised either with respect to the fee question alone or with respect to the entry of prospective relief against the Virginia Court and its chief justice. Their arguments, like those of appellants, are centered on the issues of judicial and legislative immunity.
This seems to be the view of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in its recent holding in Star Distributors, Ltd. v. Marino, 613 F. 2d 4 (1980). That court held that the legislative immunity enjoyed by the members of a state legislative committee bars an action for declaratory and injunctive relief just as it bars an action for damages. Understanding that Tenney was based on the similarity between common-law immunity and the Speech or Debate Clause, the Second Circuit reasoned that legislative immunity should protect state legislators in a manner similar to the protection afforded Congressmen. The Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have dismissed on immunity grounds suits seeking both damages and injunctive relief but without separately addressing the issue of immunity from prospective relief. Safety Harbor v. Birchfield, 529 F. 2d 1251 (CA5 1976); Smith v. Klecker, 554 F. 2d 848 (CA8 1977); Green v. DeCamp, 612 F. 2d 368 (CA8 1980). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, takes the contrary view and rejects the notion that the legislative immunity enjoyed by state officials bars suits for prospective relief. Jordan v. Hutcheson, 323 F. 2d 597 (1963); Eslinger v. Thomas, 476 F. 2d 225, 230 (1973). Both opinions of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, were rendered prior to this Court’s decision in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U. S. 491 (1975). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may have a similar view with respect to the immunity enjoyed by officials of a regional body exercising both legislative and executive powers. Jacobson v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 566 F. 2d 1353 (1977).
Contrary to appellees’ suggestion, we do not view Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U. S. 391 (1979), as indicating our approval of injunctive relief against a regional legislative body or its officers. No injunctive relief had been awarded when Lake Country Estates reached this Court. Although it is not entirely clear, the Court of Appeals in that case seemed to believe that immunity would not bar a suit for equitable relief against officials of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The court did not specify whether equitable relief could be founded on acts for which the officials would otherwise enjoy legislative immunity, and this Court did not have occasion to express any view on this question because the TRPA never challenged this aspect of the Court of Appeals’ decision. We simply affirmed the Court of Appeals’ holding that TRPA officials could not be held liable in damages for their legislative acts.
Of course, legislators sued for enacting a state bar code might also succeed in obtaining dismissals at the outset on grounds other than legislative immunity, such as the lack of a case or controversy.
The Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and
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 Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) requires a state prisoner seeking a federal habeas corpus remedy to file his federal petition within one year after his state conviction has become “final.” 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The statute adds, however, that the 1-year period does not include the time during which an application for state collateral review is “pending” in the state courts. § 2244(d)(2).
This case raises three questions related to the statutory word “pending”:
(1) Does that word cover the time between a lower state court’s decision and the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher state court?
(2) If so, does it apply similarly to California’s unique state collateral review system — a system that does not involve a notice of appeal, but rather the filing (within a reasonable time) of a further original state habeas petition in a higher court?
(3) If so, was the petition at issue here (filed in the California Supreme Court 4V2 months after the lower state court reached its decision) pending during that period, or was it no longer pending because it failed to comply with state timeliness rules?
We answer the first two questions affirmatively, while remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for its further consideration of the third.
I
In 1990 Tony Saffold, the respondent, was convicted and sentenced in California state court for murder, assault with a firearm, and robbery. His conviction became final on direct review in April 1992. Because Saffold’s conviction became final before AEDPA took effect, the federal limitations period began running on AEDPA’s effective date, April 24, 1996, giving Saffold one year from that date (in the absence of tolling) to file a federal habeas petition.
A week before the federal deadline, Saffold filed a state habeas petition in the state trial court. The state trial court denied the petition. Five days later Saffold filed a further petition in the State Court of Appeal. That court denied his petition. And 4Vz months later Saffold filed a further petition in the California Supreme Court. That court also denied Saffold’s petition, stating in a single sentence that it did so “on the merits and for lack of diligence.” App. G to Pet. for Cert. 1.
Approximately one week later, in early June 1998, Saffold filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Federal District Court. The District Court noted that AEDPA required Saf-fold to have filed his petition by April 24, 1997. It recognized that the statute gave Saffold extra time by tolling its limitations period while Saffold’s application for state collateral review was “pending” in the state courts. But the District Court decided that Saffold’s petition was “pending” only while the state courts were actively considering it, and that period did not include the intervals between the time a lower state court had denied Saffold’s petition and the time he had filed a further petition in a higher state court. In Saffold’s case those intervals amounted to five days (between the trial court and intermediate court) plus 4A months (between the intermediate court and Supreme Court), and those intervals made a critical difference. Without counting the intervals as part of the time Saffold’s application for state collateral review was “pending,” the tolling period was not long enough to make Saffold’s federal habeas petition timely. Hence the District Court dismissed the petition.
The Ninth Circuit reversed. It included in the “pending” period, and hence in the tolling period, the intervals between what was, in effect, consideration of a petition by a lower state court and further consideration by a higher state court — at least assuming a petitioner’s request for that further higher court consideration was timely. Saffold v. Newland, 250 F. 3d 1262, 1266 (2001). It added that Saffold’s petition to the California Supreme Court was timely despite the 4V4 months that had elapsed since the California Court of Appeal decision. That is because the California Supreme Court had denied Saffold’s petition, not only because of “lack of diligence” but also “on the merits,” a circumstance that showed the California Supreme Court had “applied its untimeliness bar only after considering to some degree the underlying federal constitutional questions raised.” Id., at 1267.
We granted certiorari. We now vacate the judgment and remand the case.
II
In most States, relevant state law sets forth some version of the following collateral review procedures. First, the prisoner files a petition in a state court of first instance, typically a trial court. Second, a petitioner seeking to appeal from the trial court’s judgment must file a notice of appeal within, say, 30 or 45 days after entry of the trial court’s judgment. See, e. g., Ala. Rule App. Proc. 4 (2001); Colo. App. Rule 4(b)(1) (2001); Ky. Rule Crim. Proc. 12.04(3) (2002). Third, a petitioner seeking further review of an appellate court’s judgment must file a further notice of appeal to the state supreme court (or seek that court’s discretionary review) within a short period of time, say, 20 or 30 days, after entry of the court of appeals judgment. See, e. g., Ala. Rule App. Proc. 5 (2001); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-4-108 (2001); Conn. Rule App. Proc. 80-1 (2002); Ky. Rule Civ. Proc. 76.20(2)(b) (2002). California argues here for a “uniform national rule” to the effect that an application for state collateral review is not “pending” in the state courts during the interval between a lower court’s entry of judgment and the timely filing of a notice of appeal (or petition for review) in the next court. Brief for Petitioner 36. Its rationale is that, during this period of time, the petition is not under court consideration.
California’s reading of the word “pending,” however, is not consistent with that word’s ordinary meaning. The dictionary defines “pending” (when used as an adjective) as “in continuance” or “not yet decided.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1669 (1993). It similarly defines the term (when used as a preposition) as “through the period of continuance . . . of,” “until the . . . completion of.” Ibid. That definition, applied in the present context, means that an application is pending as long as the ordinary state collateral review process is “in continuance” — i. e., “until the completion of” that process. In other words, until the application has achieved final resolution through the State’s post-conviction procedures, by definition it remains “pending.”
California’s reading would also produce a serious statutory anomaly. A federal habeas petitioner must exhaust state remedies before he can obtain federal habeas relief. The statute makes clear that a federal petitioner has not exhausted those remedies as long as he maintains “the right under the law of the State to raise” in that State, “by any available procedure, the question presented.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(c). We have interpreted this latter provision to require the federal habeas petitioner to “invok[e] one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U. S. 888, 845 (1999). The exhaustion requirement serves AEDPA’s goal of promoting “comity, finality, and federalism,” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 420, 436 (2000), by giving state courts “the first opportunity to review [the] claim,” and to “correct” any “constitutional violation in the first instance.” Boerckel, supra, at 844-845. And AEDPA’s limitations period — with its accompanying tolling provision — ensures the achievement of this goal because it “promotes the exhaustion of state remedies while respecting the interest in the finality of state court judgments.” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 178 (2001). California’s interpretation violates these principles by encouraging state prisoners to file federal habeas petitions before the State completes a full round of collateral review. This would lead to great uncertainty in the federal courts, requiring them to contend with habeas petitions that are in one sense unlawful (because the claims have not been exhausted) but in another sense required by law (because they would otherwise be barred by the 1-year statute of limitations).
It is therefore not surprising that no circuit court has interpreted the word “pending” in the manner proposed by California. Every Court of Appeals to consider the argument has rejected it. Melancon v. Kaylo, 259 F. 3d 401, 406 (CA5 2001); Payton v. Brigano, 256 F. 3d 405, 408 (CA6 2001); Hizbullahankhamon v. Walker, 255 F. 3d 65, 72 (CA2 2001); Nyland v. Moore, 216 F. 3d 1264, 1267 (CA11 2000); Swartz v. Meyers, 204 F. 3d 417, 421-422 (CA3 2000); Taylor v. Lee, 186 F. 3d 557, 560-561 (CA4 1999); Nino v. Galaza, 183 F. 3d 1003, 1005 (CA9 1999); Barnett v. LeMaster, 167 F. 3d 1321, 1323 (CA10 1999). Like these courts, we answer the first question in the affirmative.
III
Having answered the necessarily predicate question of how the tolling provision ordinarily treats applications for state collateral review in typical “appeal” States, we turn to the question whether this rule applies in California. California’s collateral review system differs from that of other States in that it does not require, technically speaking, appellate review of a lower court determination. Instead it contemplates that a prisoner will file a new “original” habeas petition. And it determines the timeliness of each filing according to a “reasonableness” standard. These differences, it is argued, require treating California differently from “appeal” States, in particular by not counting a petition as “pending” during the interval between a lower court’s determination and filing of another petition in a higher court. See, e. g., Brief for Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae 5-18.
California’s “original writ” system, however, is not as special in practice as its terminology might suggest. As interpreted by the courts, California’s habeas rules lead a prisoner ordinarily to file a petition in a lower court first. In re Ramirez, 89 Cal. App. 4th 1312, 1316, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 229, 232 (2001) (appellate court “has discretion to refuse to issue the writ ... on the ground that application has not [first] been made ... in a lower court”); Harris v. Superior Court of Cal, 500 F. 2d 1124, 1126 (CAS 1974) (same); 6 B. Witkin & N. Epstein, California Criminal Law § 20, p. 540 (3d ed. 2000) (describing general policy that reviewing court will require application to have been made first in lower court). And a prisoner who files a subsequent and similar petition in another lower court (say, another trial court) will likely find consideration of that petition barred as successive. See, e. g., In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750, 767-771, 855 P. 2d 729, 740-744 (1993). At the same time, a prisoner who files that same petition in a higher, reviewing court will find that he can obtain the basic appellate review that he seeks, even though it is dubbed an “original” petition. See In re Resendiz, 25 Cal. 4th 230, 250, 19 P. 3d 1171, 1184 (2001) (reviewing court grants substantial deference to lower court’s factual findings). Thus, typically a prisoner will seek habeas review in a lower court and later seek appellate review in a higher court — just as occurred in this case.
The upshot is that California’s collateral review process functions very much like that of other States, but for the fact that its timeliness rule is indeterminate. Other States (with the exception of North Carolina, see Allen v. Mitchell, 276 F. 3d 183, 186 (CA4 2001)), specify precise time limits, such as 30 or 45 days, within which an appeal must be taken, while California applies a general “reasonableness” standard. Still, we do not see how that feature of California law could make a critical difference. As mentioned, AEDPA’s tolling rule is designed to protect the principles of “comity, finality, and federalism,” by promoting “the exhaustion of state remedies while respecting the interest in the finality of state court judgments.” Duncan, supra, at 178 (internal quotation marks omitted). It modifies the 1-year filing rule (a rule that prevents prisoners from delaying their federal filing) in order to give States the opportunity to complete one full round of review, free of federal interference. Inclusion of California’s “reasonableness” periods carries out that purpose in the same way, and to the same degree, as does inelusion of the more specific appellate filing periods prevalent in other States. And exclusion of those periods in California would undermine AEDPA’s statutory goals just as it would in those States. See Part II, supra.
The fact that California’s timeliness standard is general rather than precise may make it more difficult for federal courts to determine just when a review application (i. e., a filing in a higher court) comes too late. But it is the State’s interests that the tolling provision seeks to protect, and the State, through its supreme court decisions or legislation, can explicate timing requirements more precisely should that prove necessary.
Ordinarily, for purposes of applying a federal statute that interacts with state procedural rules, we look to how a state procedure functions, rather than the particular name that it bears. See Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 329 U. S. 69,72 (1946) (looking to function rather than “designation” that state law gives a state-court judgment for purposes of determining federal jurisdiction); Department of Banking of Neb. v. Pink, 317 U. S. 264, 268 (1942) (per cu-riam) (same). We find that California’s system functions in ways sufficiently like other state systems of collateral review to bring intervals between a lower court decision and a filing of a new petition in a higher court within the scope of the statutory word “pending.”
The dissent contends that this application of the federal tolling provision to California’s “original writ” system “will disrupt the sound operation of the federal limitations period in at least 36 States.” Post, at 227 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). This is so, the dissent believes, because the prisoner is given two choices when his petition has been denied by the intermediate court: He can file a “petition for hearing” in the supreme court within 10 days, or he can file a “new petition” in the supreme court. In re Reed, 33 Cal. 3d 914, 918, and n. 2, 663 P. 2d 216, 217, and n. 2 (1983). Why is California different, the dissent asks, from “appeal” States that also give their supreme courts the power to entertain original habeas petitions? Won’t our interpretation of the federal tolling rule, as it applies to California, apply equally to those other States, meaning that even after the statutory time to appeal to the supreme court has expired, the federal limitations period may still be tolled because a prisoner might, at any time, file an original petition?
The answer to this question is “no.” In “appeal” systems, the original writ plays a different role. As the Supreme Court of Idaho (one of the States cited by the dissent) explains:
“The Supreme Court, having jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions of the district courts in habeas corpus proceedings . . . will not exercise its power ... to grant an original writ of habeas corpus, except in extraordinary cases.” In re Barlow, 48 Idaho 309, 282 P. 380 (1929).
See also, e. g., Commonwealth v. Salzinger, 406 Pa. 268, 269, 177 A. 2d 619, 620 (1962) (“extraordinary circumstances” required for exercise of original jurisdiction); La Belle v. Hancock, 99 N. H. 254, 255, 108 A. 2d 545 (1954) (per curiam) (“original authority” to grant habeas relief “not ordinarily exercised”); Ex parte Lambert, 37 Tex. Crim. 435, 436, 36 S. W. 81, 82 (1896) (“[EJxcept in extraordinary cases, we will not entertain jurisdiction as a court to grant original writs of habeas corpus”).
California, in contrast, has engrained original writs — both at the appellate level and in the supreme court — into its normal collateral review process. As we have explained, and as the dissent recognizes, the only avenue for a prisoner to challenge the denial of his application in the superior court is to file a “new petition” in the appellate court. And to challenge an appellate court denial, “[f]urther review [of a habeas application] may be sought in [the supreme] court either by a new petition for habeas corpus or, preferably, by a petition for hearing.” In re Reed, supra, at 918, n. 2, 663 P. 2d, at 216, n. 2 (emphasis added). Unlike States such as, say, Idaho, see In re Barlow, supra, the original writ in California is not “extraordinary” — it is interchangeable with the petition for hearing, with neither option bringing adverse consequences to the petitioner. Consequently, we treat California both as similar to other States (in that its “original writ” system functions like the “appeal” systems of those other States), and differently from other States (in that the rule we apply to original writs in California does not apply to original writs in other States, precisely because original writs in California function like appeals). And of course, as we have said, California remains free, through legislative or judicial action, to adjust its “original writ” system accordingly.
IV
It remains to ask whether Saffold delayed “unreasonably” in seeking California Supreme Court review. If so, his application would no longer have been “pending” during this period. Saffold filed his petition for review in the California Supreme Court 4'/2 months after the California Court of Appeal issued its decision. The Ninth Circuit held that this filing was nonetheless timely. It based its conclusion primarily upon the fact that the California Supreme Court wrote that it denied the petition “on the merits and for lack of diligence.” These first three words, the Ninth Circuit suggested, showed that the California Supreme Court could not have considered the petition too late, for, if so, why would it have considered the merits? 250 F. 3d, at 1267.
There are many plausible answers to this question. A court will sometimes address the merits of a claim that it believes was presented in an untimely way: for instance, where the merits present no difficult issue; where the court wants to give a reviewing court alternative grounds for decision; or where the court wishes to show a prisoner (who may not have a lawyer) that it was not merely a procedural technicality that precluded him from obtaining relief. Given the variety of reasons why the California Supreme Court may have included the words “on the merits,” those words cannot by themselves indicate that the petition was timely. And the Ninth Circuit’s apparent willingness to take such words as an absolute bellwether risks the tolling of the federal limitations period even when it is highly likely that the prisoner failed to seek timely review in the state appellate courts. See, e. g., Welch v. Newland, 267 F. 3d 1013 (CA9 2001) (finding limitations period tolled during 4-year gap). The Ninth Circuit’s rule consequently threatens to undermine the statutory purpose of encouraging prompt filings in federal court in order to protect the federal system from being forced to hear stale claims. See Duncan, 533 U. S., at 179.
If the California Supreme Court had clearly ruled that Saf-fold’s 41/2-month delay was “unreasonable,” that would be the end of the matter, regardless of whether it also addressed the merits of the claim, or whether its timeliness ruling was “entangled” with the merits. 250 F. 3d, at 1267. We cannot say in this case, however, that the Ninth Circuit was wrong in its ultimate conclusion. Saffold argues that special circumstances were present here: He was not notified of the Court of Appeal’s decision for several months, and he filed within days after receiving notification. And he contends it is more likely that the phrase “lack of diligence” referred to the delay between the date his conviction became final and the date he first sought state postconviction relief — a matter irrelevant to the question whether his application was “pending” during the 4'/2-month interval. We leave it to the Court of Appeals to evaluate these and any other relevant considerations in the first instance. We also leave to the Court of Appeals the decision whether it would be appropriate to certify a question to the California Supreme Court for the purpose of seeking clarification in this area of state law.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we answer the first two issues presented in this case in the affirmative, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent 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.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents a pre-enforcement facial challenge to a drug paraphernalia ordinance on the ground that it is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The ordinance in question requires a business to obtain a license if it sells any items that are “designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs.” Village of Hoffman Estates Ordinance No. 969-1978. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the ordinance is vague on its face. 639 F. 2d 373 (1981). We noted probable jurisdiction, 452 U. S. 904 (1981), and now reverse.
I
For more than three years prior to May 1, 1978, appellee The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (Flipside), sold a variety of merchandise, including phonographic records, smoking accessories, novelty devices, and jewelry, in its store located in the village of Hoffman Estates, Ill. (village). On February 20, 1978, the village enacted an ordinance regulating drug paraphernalia, to be effective May 1, 1978. The ordinance makes it unlawful for any person “to sell any items, effect, paraphernalia, accessory or thing which is designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs, as defined by Illinois Revised Statutes, without obtaining a license therefor.” The license fee is $150. A business must also file affidavits that the licensee and its employees have not been convicted of a drug-related offense. Moreover, the business must keep a record of each sale of a regulated item, including the name and address of the purchaser, to be open to police inspection. No regulated item may be sold to a minor. A violation is subject to a fine of not less than $10 and not more than $500, and each day that a violation continues gives rise to a separate offense. A series of licensing guidelines prepared by the Village Attorney define “Paper,” “Roach Clips,” “Pipes,” and “Paraphernalia,” the sale of which is required to be licensed.
After an administrative inquiry, the village determined that Flipside and one other store appeared to be in violation of the ordinance. The Village Attorney notified Flipside of the existence of the ordinance, and made a copy of the ordinance and guidelines available to Flipside. Flipside’s owner asked for guidance concerning which items were covered by the ordinance; the Village Attorney advised him to remove items in a certain section of the store “for his protection,” and he did so. App. 71. The items included, according to Flipside’s description, a clamp, chain ornaments, an “alligator” clip, key chains, necklaces, earrings, cigarette holders, glove stretchers, scales, strainers, a pulverizer, squeeze bottles, pipes, water pipes, pins, an herb sifter, mirrors, vials, cigarette rolling papers, and tobacco snuff. On May 30, 1978, instead of applying for a license or seeking clarification via the administrative procedures that the village had established for its licensing ordinances, Flipside filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and requested in-junctive and declaratory relief and damages. The District Court, after hearing testimony, declined to grant a preliminary injunction. The case was tried without a jury on additional evidence and stipulated testimony. The court issued an opinion upholding the constitutionality of the ordinance, and awarded judgment to the village defendants. 485 F. Supp. 400 (1980).
The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague on its face. The court reviewed the language of the ordinance and guidelines and found it vague with respect to certain conceivable applications, such as ordinary pipes or “paper clips sold next to Rolling Stone magazine.” 639 F. 2d, at 382. It also suggested that the “subjective” nature of the “marketing” test creates a danger of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement against those with alternative lifestyles. Id., at 384. Finally, the court determined that the availability of administrative review or guidelines cannot cure the defect. Thus, it concluded that the ordinance is impermissibly vague on its face.
II
In a facial challenge to the overbreadth and vagueness of a law, a court’s first task is to determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. If it does not, then the overbreadth challenge must fail. The court should then examine the facial vagueness challenge and, assuming the enactment implicates no constitutionally protected conduct, should uphold the challenge only if the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others. A court should therefore examine the complainant’s conduct before analyzing other hypothetical applications of the law.
The Court of Appeals in this case did not explicitly consider whether the ordinance reaches constitutionally protected conduct and is overbroad, nor whether the ordinance is vague in all of its applications. Instead, the court determined that the ordinance is void for vagueness because it is unclear in some of its applications to the conduct of Flipside and of other hypothetical parties. Under a proper analysis, however, the ordinance is not facially invalid.
Ill
We first examine whether the ordinance infringes Flip-side’s First Amendment rights or is overbroad because it inhibits the First Amendment rights of other parties. Flipside makes the exorbitant claim that the village has imposed a “prior restraint” on speech because the guidelines treat the proximity of drug-related literature as an indicium that paraphernalia are “marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs.” Flipside also argues that because the presence of drug-related designs, logos, or slogans on paraphernalia may-trigger enforcement, the ordinance infringes “protected symbolic speech.” Brief for Appellee 25.
These arguments do not long detain us. First, the village has not directly infringed the noncommercial speech of Flipside or other parties. The ordinance licenses and regulates the sale of items displayed “with” or “within proximity of” “literature encouraging illegal use of cannabis or illegal drugs,” Guidelines, supra n. 3, but does not prohibit or otherwise regulate the sale of literature itself. Although drug-related designs or names on cigarette papers may subject those items to regulation, the village does not restrict speech as such, but simply regulates the commercial marketing of items that the labels reveal may be used for an illicit purpose. The scope of the ordinance therefore does not embrace noncommercial speech.
Second, insofar as any commercial speech interest is implicated here, it is only the attenuated interest in displaying and marketing merchandise in the manner that the retailer desires. We doubt that the village’s restriction on the manner of marketing appreciably limits Flipside’s communication of information — with one obvious and telling exception. The ordinance is expressly directed at commercial activity promoting or encouraging illegal drug use. If that activity is deemed “speech,” then it is speech proposing an illegal transaction, which a government may regulate or ban entirely. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n, 447 U. S. 557, 563-564 (1980); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Comm’n, 413 U. S. 376, 388 (1973). Finally, it is irrelevant whether the ordinance has an overbroad scope encompassing protected commercial speech of other persons, because the overbreadth doctrine does not apply to commercial speech. Central Hudson, supra, at 565, n. 8.
IV
A
A law that does not reach constitutionally protected conduct and therefore satisfies the overbreadth test may nevertheless be challenged on its face as unduly vague, in violation of due process. To succeed, however, the complainant must demonstrate that the law is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. Flipside makes no such showing.
The standards for evaluating vagueness were enunciated in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 108-109 (1972):
“Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications” (footnotes omitted).
These standards should not, of course, be mechanically applied. The degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates — as well as the relative importance of fair notice and fair enforcement — depends in part on the nature of the enactment. Thus, .economic regulation is subject to a less strict vagueness test because its subject matter is often more narrow, and because businesses, which face economic demands to plan behavior carefully, can be expected to consult relevant legislation in advance of action. Indeed, the regulated enterprise may have the ability to clarify the meaning of the regulation by its own inquiry, or by resort to an administrative process. The Court has also expressed greater tolerance of enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe. And the Court has recognized that a scienter requirement may mitigate a law’s vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed.
Finally, perhaps the most important factor affecting the clarity that the Constitution demands of a law is whether it threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. If, for example, the law interferes with the right of free speech or of association, a more stringent vagueness test should apply.
B
This ordinance simply regulates business behavior and contains a scienter requirement with respect to the alternative “marketed for use” standard. The ordinance nominally imposes only civil penalties. However, the village concedes that the ordinance is “quasi-criminal,” and its prohibitory and stigmatizing effect may warrant a relatively strict test. Flipside’s facial challenge fails because, under the test appropriate to either a quasi-criminal or a criminal law, the ordinance is sufficiently clear as applied to Flipside.
The ordinance requires Flipside to obtain a license if it sells “any items, effect, paraphernalia, accessory or thing which is designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs, as defined by the Illinois Revised Statutes.” ' Flipside expresses no uncertainty about which drugs this description encompasses; as the District Court noted, 485 F. Supp., at 406, Illinois law clearly defines cannabis and numerous other controlled drugs, including cocaine. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 5672, ¶¶703 and 1102(g) (1980). On the other hand, the words “items, effect, paraphernalia, accessory or thing” do not identify the type of merchandise that the village desires to regulate. Flipside’s challenge thus appropriately focuses on the language “designed or marketed for use.” Under either the “designed for use” or “marketed for use” standard, we. conclude that at least some of the items sold by Flipside are covered. Thus, Flipside’s facial challenge is unavailing.
1. “Designed for use”
The Court of Appeals objected that “designed ... for use” is ambiguous with respect to whether items must be inherently suited only for drug use; whether the retailer’s intent or manner of display is relevant; and whether the intent of a third party, the manufacturer, is critical, since the manufacturer is the “designer.” 639 F. 2d, at 380-381. For the. reasons that follow, we conclude that this language is not unconstitutionally vague on its face.
The Court of Appeals’ speculation about the meaning of “design” is largely unfounded. The guidelines refer to “paper of colorful design” and to other specific items as conclusively “designed” or not “designed” for illegal use. A principal meaning of “design” is “[t]o fashion according to a plan.” Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language 707 (2d ed. 1957). Cf. Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 454, n. 3 (1939). It is therefore plain that the standard encompasses at least an item that is principally used with illegal drugs by virtue of its objective features, i. e., features designed by the manufacturer. A business person of ordinary intelligence would understand that this term refers to the design of the manufacturer, not the intent of the retailer or customer. It is also sufficiently clear that items which are principally used for nondrug purposes, such as ordinary pipes, are not “designed for use” with illegal drugs. Moreover, no issue of fair warning is present in this case, since Flipside concedes that the phrase refers to structural characteristics of an item.
The ordinance and guidelines do contain ambiguities. Nevertheless, the “designed for use” standard is sufficiently clear to cover at least some of the items that Flipside sold. The ordinance, through the guidelines, explicitly regulates “roach clips.” Flipside’s co-operator admitted that the store sold such items, see Tr. 26, 30, and the village Chief of Police testified that he had never seen a “roach clip” used for any purpose other than to smoke cannabis. App. 52. The Chief also testified that a specially designed pipe that Flipside marketed is typically used to smoke marihuana. Ibid. Whether further guidelines, administrative rules, or enforcement policy will clarify the more ambiguous scope of the standard in other respects is of no concern in this facial challenge.
2. “Marketed for use”
Whatever ambiguities the “designed ... for use” standard may engender, the alternative “marketed for use” standard is transparently clear: it describes a retailer’s intentional display and marketing of merchandise. The guidelines refer to the display of paraphernalia, and to the proximity of covered items to otherwise uncovered items. A retail store therefore must obtain a license if it deliberately displays its wares in a manner that appeals to or encourages illegal drug use. The standard requires scienter, since a retailer could scarcely “market” items “for” a particular use without intending that use.
Under this test, Flipside had ample warning that its marketing activities required a license. Flipside displayed the magazine High Times and books entitled Marijuana Grower’s Guide, Children’s Garden of Grass, and The Pleasures of Cocaine, physically close to pipes and colored rolling papers, in clear violation of the guidelines. As noted above, Flipside’s co-operator admitted that his store sold “roach clips,” which are principally used for illegal purposes. Finally, in the same section of the store, Flipside had posted the sign, “You must be 18 or older to purchase any head supplies.” Tr. 30.
V
The Court of Appeals also held that the ordinance provides insufficient standards for enforcement. Specifically, the court feared that the ordinance might be used to harass individuals with alternative lifestyles and views. 639 F. 2d, at 384. In reviewing a business regulation for facial vagueness, however, the principal inquiry is whether the law affords fair warning of what is proscribed. Moreover, this emphasis is almost inescapable in reviewing a pre-enforcement challenge to a law. Here, no evidence has been, or could be, introduced to indicate whether the ordinance has been enforced in a discriminatory manner or with the aim of inhibiting unpopular speech. The language of the ordinance is sufficiently clear that the speculative danger of arbitrary enforcement does not render the ordinance void for vagueness. Cf. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 168-171 (1972); Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 614 (1971).
We do not suggest that the risk of discriminatory enforcement is insignificant here. Testimony of the Village Attorney who drafted the ordinance, the village President, and the Police Chief revealed confusion over whether the ordinance applies to certain items, as well as extensive reliance on the “judgment” of police officers to give meaning to the ordinance and to enforce it fairly. At this stage, however, we are not prepared to hold that this risk jeopardizes the entire ordinance.
Nor do we assume that the village will take no further steps to minimize the dangers of arbitrary enforcement. The village may adopt administrative regulations that will sufficiently narrow potentially vague or arbitrary interpretations of the ordinance. In economic regulation especially, such administrative regulation will often suffice to clarify a standard with an otherwise uncertain scope. We also find it significant that the village, in testimony below, primarilyre-lied on the “marketing” aspect of the standard, which does not require the more ambiguous item-by-item analysis of whether paraphernalia are “designed for” illegal drug use, and which therefore presents a lesser risk of discriminatory enforcement. “Although it is possible that specific future applications . . . may engender concrete problems of constitutional dimension, it will be time enough to consider any such problems when they arise.” Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter, 384 U. S. 35, 52 (1966).
HH >
Many American communities have recently enacted laws regulating or prohibiting the sale of drug paraphernalia. To determine whether these laws are wise or effective is not, of course, the province of this Court. See Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 728-730 (1963). We hold only that such legislation is not facially overbroad or vague if it does not reach constitutionally protected conduct and is reasonably clear in its application to the complainant.
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.
Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
Village of Hoffman Estates Ordinance No. 969-1978
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF HOFFMAN ESTATES BY PROVIDING FOR REGULATION OF ITEMS DESIGNED OR MARKETED FOR USE WITH ILLEGAL CANNABIS OR DRUGS
Whereas, certain items designed or marketed for use with illegal drugs are being retailed within the Village of Hoffman Estates, Cook County, Illinois, and
Whereas, it is recognized that such items are legal retail items and that their sale cannot be banned, and
Whereas, there is evidence that these items are designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs and it is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Village of Hoffman Estates to regulate within the Village the sale of items designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs.
Now Therefore, Be It Ordained by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Hoffman Estates, Cook County, Illinois as follows:
Section 1: That the Hoffman Estates Municipal Code be amended by adding thereto an additional Section, Section 8-7-16, which additional section shall read as follows:
Sec. 8-7-16 — ITEMS DESIGNED OR MARKETED FOR USE WITH ILLEGAL CANNABIS OR DRUGS
A. License Required:
It shall be unlawful for any person or persons as principal, clerk, agent or servant to sell any items, effect, paraphernalia, accessory or thing which is designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs, as defined by Illinois Revised Statutes, without obtaining a license therefor. Such licenses shall be in addition to any or all other licenses held by applicant.
B. Application:
Application to sell any item, effect, paraphernalia, accessory or thing which is designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs shall, in addition to requirements of Article 8-1, be accompanied by affidavits by applicant and each and every employee authorized to sell such items that such person has never been convicted of a drug-related offense.
C. Minors:
It shall be unlawful to sell or give items as described in Section 8-7-16A in any form to any male or female child under eighteen years of age.
D. Records:
Every licensee must keep a record of every item, effect, paraphernalia, accessory or thing which is designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs which is sold and this record shall be open to the inspection of any police officer at any time during the hours of business. Such record shall contain the name and address of the purchaser, the name and quantity of the product, the date and time of the sale, and the licensee or agent of the licensee’s signature, such records shall be retained for not less than two (2) years.
E. Regulations:
The applicant shall comply with all applicable regulations of the Department of Health Services and the Police Department.
Section 2: That the Hoffman Estates Municipal Code be amended by adding to Sec. 8-2-1 Fees: Merchants (Products) the additional language as follows:
Items designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs $150.00
Section 3: Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall be fined not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the first offense and succeeding offenses during the same calendar year, and each day that such violation shall continue shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.
Section k: That the Village Clerk be and is hereby authorized to publish this ordinance in pamphlet form.
Section 5: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect May 1, 1978, after its passage, approval and publication according to law.
More specifically, the District Court found:
“[Flipside] sold literature that included ‘A Child’s Garden of Grass,’ ‘Marijuana Grower’s Guide,’ and magazines such as ‘National Lampoon,’ ‘Rolling Stone,’ and ‘High Times.’ The novelty devices and tobacco-use related items plaintiff displayed and sold in its store ranged from small commodities such as clamps, chain ornaments and earrings through cigarette holders, scales, pipes of various types and sizes, to large water pipes, some designed for individual use, some which as many as four persons can use with flexible plastic tubes. Plaintiff also sold a large number of cigarette rolling papers in a variety of colors. One of plaintiffs displayed items was a mirror, about seven by nine inches with the word ‘Cocaine’ painted on its surface in a purple color. Plaintiff sold cigarette holders, ‘alligator clips,’ herb sifters, vials, and a variety of tobacco snuff.” 485 F. Supp. 400, 403 (ND Ill. 1980).
The text of the ordinance is set forth in the Appendix to this opinion.
The guidelines provide:
“LICENSE GUIDELINES FOR ITEMS, EFFECT, PARAPHERNALIA, ACCESSORY OR THING WHICH IS DESIGNED OR MARKETED FOR USE WITH ILLEGAL CANNABIS OR DRUGS
“Paper — white paper or tobacco oriented paper not necessarily designed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs may be displayed. Other paper of colorful design, names oriented for use with illegal cannabis or drugs and displayed are covered.
“Roach Clips — designed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs and therefore covered.
“Pipes — if displayed away from the proximity of nonwhite paper or tobacco oriented paper, and not displayed within proximity of roach clips, or literature encouraging illegal use of cannabis or illegal drugs are not covered; otherwise, covered.
“Paraphernalia — if displayed with roach clips or literature encouraging illegal use of cannabis or illegal drugs it is covered.”
Ordinance No. 932-1977, the Hoffman Estates Administrative Procedure Ordinance, was enacted prior to the drug paraphernalia ordinance, and provides that an interested person may petition for the adoption of an interpretive rule. If the petition is denied, the person may place the matter on the agenda of an appropriate village committee for review. The Village Attorney indicated that no interpretive rules had been adopted with respect to the drug paraphernalia ordinance because no one had yet applied for a license. App. 68.
A “facial” challenge, in this context, means a claim that the law is “invalid in toto—and therefore incapable of any valid application.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 474 (1974). In evaluating a facial challenge to a state law, a federal court must, of course, consider any limiting construction that a state court or enforcement agency has proffered. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 110 (1972).
In making that determination, a court should evaluate the ambiguous as well as the unambiguous scope of the enactment. To this extent, the vagueness of a law affects overbreadth analysis. The Court has long recognized that ambiguous meanings cause citizens to “ ‘steer far wider of the unlawful zone’ . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.” Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 372 (1964), quoting Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526 (1958); see Grayned, supra, at 109; cf. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50, 58-61 (1976).
“[V]agueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case„ai-hand.” United States v. Mazurie, 419 U. S. 544, 550 (1975). See United States v. Powell, 423 U. S. 87, 92-93 (1975); United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U. S. 29, 32-33, 36 (1963). “One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.” Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 756 (1974). The rationale is evident: to sustain such a challenge, the complainant must prove that the enactment is vague “ ‘not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all.’ Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 614 (1971). Such a provision simply has no core.” Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566, 578 (1974).
Flipside explained that it placed items that the village considers drug paraphernalia in locations near a checkout counter because some are “point of purchase” items and others are small and apt to be shoplifted. App. 43. Flipside did not assert that its manner of placement was motivated in any part by a desire to communicate information to its customers.
Flipside also argues that the ordinance is “overbroad” because it could extend to “innocent” and “lawful” uses of items as well as uses with illegal drugs. Brief for Appellee 10, 33-35. This argument seems to confuse vagueness and overbreadth doctrines. If Flipside is objecting that it cannot determine whether the ordinance regulates items with some lawful uses, then it is complaining of vagueness. We find that claim unpersuasive in this pre-enforcement facial challenge. See infra, at 497-504. If Flipside is objecting that the ordinance would inhibit innocent uses of items found to be covered by the ordinance, it is complaining of denial of substantive due process. The latter claim obviously lacks merit. A retailer’s right to sell smoking accessories, and a purchaser’s right to buy and use them, are entitled only to minimal due process protection. Here, the village presented evidence of illegal drug use in the community. App. 37. Regulation of items that have some lawful as well as unlawful uses is not an irrational means of discouraging drug use. See Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U. S. 117, 124-125 (1978).
The hostility of some lower courts to drug paraphernalia laws — and particularly to those regulating the sale of items that have many innocent uses, see, e. g., 639 F. 2d 373, 381-383 (1981); Record Revolution No. 6, Inc. v. City of Parma, 638 F. 2d 916, 928 (CA6 1980), vacated and remanded, 451 U. S. 1013 (1981)—may reflect a belief that these measures are ineffective in stemming illegal drug use. This perceived defect, however, is not a defect of clarity. In the unlikely event that a state court construed this ordinance as prohibiting the sale of all pipes, of whatever description, then a seller of corncob pipes could not complain that the law is unduly vague. He could, of course, object that the law was not intended to cover such items.
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 162 (1972) (dictum; collecting cases).
See, e. g., United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 872 U. S. 29 (1963). Cf. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S., at 574.
See Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter, 384 U. S. 35, 49 (1966); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 428 (1961).
See Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 137 (1969) (Black, J., with whom Warren, C. J., and Douglas, J., joined, dissenting); Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 515 (1948).
See, e. g., Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, 395 (1979); Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U. S. 337, 342 (1952); Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 101-103 (1945) (plurality opinion). See Note, The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U. Pa. L. Rev. 67, 87, n. 98 (1960).
See, e. g., Papachristou, supra; Grayned, 408 U. S., at 109.
The village stipulated that the purpose of the ordinance is to discourage use of the regulated items. App. 33. Moreover, the prohibitory and stigmatizing effects of the ordinance are clear. As the Court of Appeals remarked, “few retailers are willing to brand themselves as sellers of drug paraphernalia, and few customers will buy items with the condition of signing their names and addresses to a register available to the police.” 639 F. 2d, at 377. The proposed register is entitled, “Retail Record for Items Designed or Marketed for Use with Illegal Cannabis or Drugs.” Record, Complaint, App. B. At argument, counsel for the village admitted that the ordinance is “quasi-criminal.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-5.
The District Court apparently relied principally on the growing vernacular understanding of “paraphernalia” as drug-related items, and therefore did not separately analyze the meaning of “designed or marketed for use.” 485 F. Supp., at 405-407. We agree with the Court of Appeals that a regulation of “paraphernalia” alone would not provide much warning of the nature of the items regulated. 639 F. 2d, at 380.
The guidelines explicitly provide that “white paper . . . may be displayed,” and that “Roach Clips” are “designed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs and therefore covered” (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals criticized the latter definition for failing to explain what a “roach clip” is. This criticism is unfounded because that technical term has sufficiently clear meaning in the drug paraphernalia industry. Without undue burden, Flipside could easily determine the meaning of the term. See American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1122 (1980) (defining “roach” as “[t]he butt of a marijuana cigarette”); R. Lingeman, Drugs from A to Z: A Dictionary 213-214 (1969) (defining “roach” and “roach holder”). Moreover, the explanation that a retailer may display certain paper “not necessarily designed for use” clarifies that the ordinance at least embraces items that are necessarily designed for use with cannabis or illegal drugs.
“It is readily apparent that under the Hoffman Estates scheme, the ‘designed for use’ phrase refers to the physical characteristics of items deemed per se fashioned for use with drugs; and that, if any intentional conduct is implicated by the phrase, it is the intent of the ‘designer’ (i. e. patent holder or manufacturer) whose intent for an item or ‘design’ is absorbed into the physical attributes, or structural ‘design’ of the finished product.” Brief for Appellee 42-43. Moreover, the village President described drug paraphernalia as items “[mjanufactured for that purpose and marketed for that purpose.” App. 82 (emphasis added).
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 606 (1980) gives the following alternative definition of “head”: “Slang. One who is a frequent user of drugs.”
The theoretical possibility that the village will enforce its ordinance against a paper clip placed next to Rolling Stone magazine, 639 F. 2d, at 382, is of no due process significance unless the possibility ripens into a prosecution.
The Court of Appeals also referred to potential Fourth Amendment problems resulting from the recordkeeping requirement, which “implies that a customer who purchases an item ‘designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs’ intends to use the item with illegal cánnabis or drugs. A further implication could be-that a customer is subject to police scrutiny or even to a search warrant on the basis of the purchase of a legal item.” Id., at 384. We will not address these Fourth Amendment issues here. In a pre-enforcement challenge- it is difficult to determine whether Fourth Amendment rights are seriously threatened. Flipside offered no evidence of a concrete threat below. In a postenforcement proceeding Flipside may attempt to demonstrate that the ordinance is being employed in such an unconstitutional manner, and that it has standing to raise the objection. It is appropriate to defer resolution of these problems until such a showing is made.
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 by
Mr. Justice Marshall, announced by Mr. Justice Brennan.
The question for decision is whether title to land abandoned by the stream of the Colorado River as a result of a federal rechanneling project vests in the State of Arizona, as owner of the beds under navigable streams within its borders, or in petitioner cattle company, as the owner of land riparian to the river at the time of the rechanneling.
The circumstances that give rise to this case are as follows. In 1910, the subject land was conveyed by federal patent, as part of a larger parcel, to the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co. A survey conducted in 1905 and 1906, and approved by the Surveyor General of the United States in 1906, indicates that as of the date of the patent, the Santa Fe parcel abutted the east bank of the Colorado River. Upon admission to the Union in 1912, Arizona succeeded the Federal Government to title to the bed of the Colorado River. The exact location of the river in 1912 in relation to the subject property is unclear from the record, but it is generally agreed that between 1903 and 1959 (when it was rechanneled) the river moved gradually eastward, eroding its east bank and depositing alluvion on its west bank, resulting in the submergence by erosion of the subject land. As the river crept eastward, the boundary between upland owners and the state-owned riverbed moved mechanically with it, transferring title to the lands which became part of the riverbed to the State. The operation of Hoover Dam, begun in 1938, reduced the flow of water in the Colorado River and substantially decreased its annual flood stage high-water mark. Nonetheless, by 1955, when the Bonelli Cattle Co. acquired title to the subject portion of the original Santa Fe grant, all but 60 acres in the southeast corner of its parcel was covered by water. In 1959, a Federal Bureau of Reclamation Project deepened and rechanneled the Colorado River in the area of the subject land, thereby confining the stream of the river to a substantially reduced portion of the Bonelli property.
In 1962, the Bonelli Cattle Co. filed the instant action to quiet title to the land from which the river had withdrawn as a result of the federal rechanneling project. The state trial court granted judgment for Bonelli and against the State of Arizona. The Arizona Court of Appeals, the State’s intermediate appellate court, affirmed, upholding Bonelli’s contention that if the changes in the river were accretive, the surfaced land belonged to Bonelli, as a riparian owner, and if the change were avulsive, the land nonetheless belonged to Bonelli under the doctrine of re-emergence.
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the equal-footing doctrine and the Submerged Lands Act, Arizona holds title to the beds of all navigable waters within its borders and thus to the subject land as a result of the gradual eastward movement of the river. The Arizona Supreme Court found that, because the federal rechannelization project was an “engineering relocation of the waters of the river by artificial means,” it was, under state law, an avulsive change, which did not divest the State of its title to the exposed land which had formerly been part of the riverbed. The court denied a rehearing and, in a supplemental opinion, clarified the extent of the dry land owned by the State. It held that the high-water mark of the river, to which the State's ownership extends, was fixed by the natural state of the river as it existed in 1938, before the operation of Hoover Dam. We granted certiorari, 410 U. S. 908 (1973). We hold that the ownership of the subject land is governed by federal law, and that the land surfaced by the narrowing of the river channel belongs, not to the State as owner of the riverbed, but to Bonelli as riparian owner. We need not, therefore, reach the question of whether the Arizona Supreme Court properly determined the average high-water mark of the river.
I
The first issue we must decide is whether state or federal law governs this controversy. The State of Arizona claims title to the subject land by virtue of the equal-footing doctrine and the Submerged Lands Act, the basic principles of which are as follows. When the Original Colonies ratified the Constitution, they succeeded to the Crown’s title and interest in the beds of navigable waters within their respective borders. As new States were forged out of the federal territories after the formation of the Union, they were “admitted [with] the same rights, sovereignty and jurisdiction... as the original States possess within their respective borders.” Mumford v. Wardwell, 6 Wall. 423, 436 (1867). Accordingly, title to lands beneath navigable waters passed from the Federal Government to the new States, upon their admission to the Union, under the equal-footing doctrine. See, e. g., Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212 (1845); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 (1894); Weber v. Board of Harbor Comm’rs, 18 Wall. 57, 65-66 (1873).
In order for the States to guarantee full public enjoyment of their navigable watercourses, it has been held that their title to the bed of a navigable river mechanically follows the river’s gradual changes in course. See Oklahoma v. Texas, 268 U. S. 252 (1925). Thus, where portions of a riparian owner’s land are encroached upon by a navigable stream, under federal law, the State succeeds to title in the bed of the river to its new high-water mark.
The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 did not disturb these doctrines or their inherent limitations. The Act merely confirmed the States’ pre-existing rights in the beds of the navigable waterways within their boundaries by, in effect, quitclaiming all federal claims thereto. And, consonant with the above-described common-law doctrine concerning title to the bed of a river that has shifted course, the Submerged Lands Act quitclaims all federal rights to title to lands beneath the navigable streams, as “hereafter modified by accretion, erosion, and reliction.” 43 U. S. C. §1301 (a)(1).
The State of Arizona asserts title to the subject land on the basis of the following application of these principles. When Arizona achieved statehood in 1912, it assumed title to the land beneath the stream of the Colorado River, by virtue of the equal-footing doctrine. It subsequently acquired title to the subject land when it was submerged by the river’s eastward movement. The State asserts that once having acquired title, it was not divested of its proprietary interest in the land by the subsequent withdrawal of the water due to the rechanneling of the river.
Having concluded that title to the subject land was thus vested in the State as a matter of settled federal law, the state courts determined that local law controlled whether petitioner, as a riparian owner, had any interest in the land thereafter. As the Court said in Arkansas v. Tennessee, 246 U. S. 158, 176 (1918): “[I]t is for the States to establish for themselves such rules of property as they deem expedient with respect to the navigable waters within their borders and the riparian lands adjacent to them....”
We continue to adhere to the principle that it is left to the States to determine the rights of riparian owners in the beds of navigable streams which, under federal law, belong to the State. But this doctrine does not require that state law govern the instant controversy. The issue before us is not what rights the State has accorded private owners in lands which the State holds as sovereign; but, rather, how far the State’s sovereign right extends under the equal-footing doctrine and the Submerged Lands Act — whether the State retains title to the lands formerly beneath the stream of the Colorado River or whether that title is defeasible by the withdrawal of those waters. As this Court observed in Borax, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U. S. 10, 22 (1935): “The question as to the extent of this federal grant, that is, as to the limit of the land conveyed,... is necessarily a federal question.... [I] t involves the ascertainment of the essential basis of a right asserted under federal law.”
Arkansas v. Tennessee, supra, and the cases cited therein are not to the contrary. In Arkansas v. Tennessee, for example, we held that federal law governed the question of how far into the river channel a State held title. Only then did this Court turn to state law to determine whether riparian owners had been accorded any rights in that land. But even the State’s disposition of its submerged land vis-a-vis private owners was to be “in each case limited by the interstate boundary,” a matter determined by federal law. 246 U. S., at 176. Similarly, in Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 (1894), the Court held that under settled federal law, the tidelands there at issue belonged to the State in its sovereign capacity; hence whether the State had accorded riparian owners any interests in the tidelands properly remained a matter of local law; “if [the States] choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections.” Id., at 43. In Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 338 (1877), the Court left it to the States to decide whether to accord title to the land beneath non-tidal navigable waters to riparian owners after recognizing that under federal law such lands belong to the States. See also Scott v. Lattig, 227 U. S. 229, 24.2 (1913).
The present case, however, does not involve a question of the disposition of lands, the title to which is vested in the State as a matter of settled federal law. The very question to be decided is the nature and extent of the title to the bed of a navigable stream held by the State under the equal-footing doctrine and the Submerged Lands Act. In this case, the question of title as between the State and a private landowner necessarily depends on a construction of a “right asserted under federal law.”
II
We cannot accept the State's argument that the equal-footing doctrine supports its claim to the disputed land. Historically, title to the beds beneath navigable waters is held by the sovereign, Barney v. Keokuk, supra, at 338, as a public trust for the protection of navigation and related purposes.
“[Tjitle to the... lands under water... enures to the State within which they are situated.... Such title... [is] held in trust for the public purposes of navigation and fishery.” Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 381 (1891).
See United States v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 339 U. S. 799, 808 (1950). As this Court observed in an earlier federal water law case:
“Such waters... are incapable of ordinary and private occupation, cultivation and improvement; and their natural and primary uses are public in their nature, for highways of navigation and commerce, domestic and foreign, and for the purpose of fishing....” Shively v. Bowlby, supra, at 11.
The State's title is to the “[riverjbed as a bed,” and the State of Arizona will continue to hold title to the bed beneath the Colorado River to its present high-water mark. But the exposed land involved here is no longer, as described in Shively, “incapable of ordinary and private occupation... [whose] primary uses are public in their nature, for highways of navigation....” The equal-footing doctrine was never intended to provide a State with a windfall of thousands of acres of dry land exposed when the main thread of a navigable stream is changed. It would be at odds with the fundamental purpose of the original grant to the States to afford a State title to land from which a navigable stream had receded unless the land was exposed as part of a navigational or related public project of which it was a necessary and integral part or unless, of course, the artificial accretion was somehow caused by the upland owner himself. There has been no showing that the rechannelization project was undertaken to give the State title to the subject lands for the protection of navigation or related public goals. Indeed, the State of Arizona did not participate in the rechannelization of the Colorado River, although it had implicitly assented to the project.
The advance of the Colorado’s waters divested the title of the upland owners in favor of the State in order to guarantee full public enjoyment of the watercourse. But, when the water receded from the land, there was no longer a public benefit to be protected; consequently, the State, as sovereign, has no need for title. That the cause of the recession was artificial, or that the rate was perceptible, should be of no effect.
Nor does the Submerged Lands Act provide a basis for the State's claim to the subject lands. The Arizona Supreme Court incorrectly construed this Act as a grant by Congress to the States of lands “formerly... beneath navigable waters.” The Act did not abrogate the federal law of accretion, but defined lands beneath navigable waters as being those covered by streams as “hereafter modified by accretion, erosion, and reliction.” Contrary to the implication raised by the Arizona Supreme Court, the Act creates no new rights for the States in the beds of their inland waterways. The Act is not a grant of title to land but only a quitclaim of federal proprietary rights in the beds of navigable waterways. The Act specifically excepts from its scope lands lawfully conveyed or patented by the United States. Since the Act does not extend to the States any interest beyond those afforded by the equal-footing doctrine, the State can no more base its claim to lands unnecessary to a navigational purpose on.the Submerged Lands Act than on that doctrine.
Ill
The question remains as to who owns the subject land under the applicable federal common law. It is, of course, clear that the State of Arizona did hold title to the subject property before the waters of the river receded. Both the State and the Solicitor General of the United States as amicus curiae, urge that the federal common-law doctrine of avulsion is applicable and thus that the State remains holder of title in the former riverbed. Bonelli, the only private claimant, argues that the narrowing of the river course should properly be characterized as an artificial accretion, hence that the disputed land, which had originally been lost from the Bonelli parcel to the river by erosion, should once again belong to it as the riparian owner.
Federal law recognizes the doctrine of accretion whereby the “grantee of land bounded by a body of navigable water acquires a right to any... gradual accretion formed along the shore.” Hughes v. Washington, 389 U. S. 290, 293 (1967); accord, Jones v. Johnston, 18 How. 150, 156 (1856). When there is a gradual and imperceptible accumulation of land on a navigable riverbank, by way of alluvion or reliction, the riparian owner is the beneficiary of title to the surfaced land:
“It is the established rule that a riparian proprietor of land bounded by a stream, the banks of which are changed by the gradual and imperceptible process of accretion or erosion, continues to hold to the stream as his boundary; if his land is increased he is not accountable for the gain, and if it is diminished he has no recourse for the loss.” Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 624 (1912).
There are a number of interrelated reasons for the application of the doctrine of accretion. First, where lands are bounded by water, it may well be regarded as the expectancy of the riparian owners that they should continue to be so bounded. Second, the quality of being riparian, especially to navigable water, may be the land’s “most valuable feature” and is part and parcel of the ownership of the land itself. Hughes v. Washington, supra, at 293; Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497, 504 (1871). Riparianness also encompasses the vested right to future alluvion, which is an “essential attribute of the original property.” County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. 46, 68 (1874). By requiring that the upland owner suffer the burden of erosion, and by giving him the benefit of accretions, riparianness is maintained. Finally, there is a compensation theory at work. Riparian land is at the mercy of the wanderings of the river. Since a riparian owner is subject to losing land by erosion beyond his control, he should benefit from any addition to his lands by the accretions thereto which are equally beyond his control. Ibid. The effect of the doctrine of accretion is to give the riparian owner a “ ‘ “fee, determinable upon the occupancy of his soil by the river,” and [to afford] the State [a title] to the river bed [which is] likewise a... “qualified” fee, “determinable in favor of the riparians upon the abandonment of the bed by the river.” ’ ”
The doctrine of accretion applies to changes in the river course due to artificial as well as natural causes. County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, supra, at 64-69; United States v. Claridge, 416 F. 2d 933 (CA9 1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 961 (1970) (changes in the Colorado River’s course, caused by the construction of Hoover Dam, are accretive). Where accretions to riparian land are caused by conditions created by strangers to the land, the upland owner remains the beneficiary thereof.
But the federal law is otherwise where “a stream suddenly and perceptibly abandons its old channel.” Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S., at 624-625. Such an avulsive change does not affect title and the boundary established by the former river stream remains at that line, even if the result is to cut off a landowner’s riparian rights. St. Louis v. Ruts, 138 U. S. 226, 245 (1891). The rationale for the doctrine of avulsion is a need to mitigate the hardship that a shift in title caused by a sudden movement of the river would cause the abutting landowners were the accretion principle to be applied. As this Court, quoting from 8 Op. Atty. Gen. 175, observed in Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U. S. 359, 362 (1892):
“ ‘ [When in] deserting its original bed, the river forces for itself a new channel in another direction, then the nation, through whose territory the river thus breaks its way, suffers injury by the loss of territory greater than the benefit of retaining the natural river boundary, and that boundary remains in the middle of the deserted river bed.’ ”
The Arizona Supreme Court held that because the re-channeling of the Colorado River was an “engineering relocation of the waters of the river by artificial means/’ it was, under state law, an avulsion and did not divest the State of title to the land from which the river had withdrawn. But federal law must be applied with a view toward the limited nature of the sovereign’s rights in the riverbed, and an analysis of the interests of the State, and Bonelli, in light of the rationales for the federal common-law doctrines of accretion and avulsion, compels the conclusion that, as between the State, as owner of the riverbed, and Bonelli, as a riparian owner, the surfacing of the subject land should be treated as accretion; hence title to the disputed land should be vested in Bonelli.
The rationale for the application of the doctrine of avulsion is not applicable to this dispute because of the limited interests of the State in the subject property. The Federal Government, which holds a paramount navigable servitude in the river, determined that it was too wide and shallow to permit navigation in the area of the subject land, and that the river therefore needed to be deepened and rechanneled. The resulting changes in the river’s thread actually enhanced the State’s interest in the navigability of the river. The State’s acquisition of the exposed land here could only be a windfall, since unnecessary to the State’s purpose in holding title to the beds of the navigable streams within its borders. Accordingly, the narrowing of the river and vesting of title to the surfaced land in riparian owners does not detract from the State’s legitimate interest in title to the riverbed, so as to require mitigation of the accretion principle by application of the doctrine of avulsion.
The policies behind the doctrine of accretion are, however, fully applicable. That doctrine guarantees the riparian character of land by automatically granting to a riparian owner title to lands which form between his holdings and the river and thus threaten to destroy that valuable feature of his property. The riparian owner is at the mercy,, not only of the natural forces which create such intervening lands, but also, because of the navigational servitude, of governmental forces which may similarly affect the riparian quality of his estate. Accordingly, where land cast up in the Federal Government's exercise of the servitude is not related to furthering the navigational or related public interests, the accretion doctrine should provide a disposition of the land as between the riparian owner and the State. See Michaelson v. Silver Beach Assn., 342 Mass. 251, 173 N. E. 2d 273 (1961).
Similarly, riparian lands may suffer noncompensable losses or be deprived of their riparian character altogether by the State or Federal Government in the exercise of the navigational servitude. In compensation for such losses, land surfaced in the course of such governmental activity should inure to the riparian owner where not necessary to the navigational project or its purpose. In the case before us, all of the subject land, which composed a substantial portion of Bonelli’s parcel, was lost to the State by erosion to serve the public interest in the navigability of the river. Now that the land has resurfaced in the process of rechannelization, it should return to the estate of the riparian owner.
“No other rule can be applied on just principles. Every proprietor whose land is thus bounded [by a navigable stream], is subject to loss, by the same means which may add to his territory: and as he is without remedy for his loss, in this way, he cannot be held accountable for his gain.” New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662, 717 (1836).
Finally, recognition of the State’s claim to the subject land would raise a serious constitutional issue as to whether the State’s assertion of title is a taking without compensation, a question which we find unnecessary to decide on our view of the case. As Mr. Justice Stewart warned in Hughes v. Washington, 389 U. S., at 298 (concurring opinion):
“Although the State in this case made no attempt to take the accreted lands by eminent domain, it achieved the same result by effecting a retroactive transformation of private into public property — without paying for the privilege of doing so.... [T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids such confiscation by a State, no less through its courts than through its legislature, and no less when a taking is unintended than when it is deliberate...
In the exercise of its navigational servitude, the State or Federal Government may decrease the value of riparian property without compensation because the property is held subject to the exercise of that servitude. The government may, without paying compensation, deprive a riparian owner of his common-law right to use flowing water, St. Anthonys Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Comm’rs, 168 U. S. 349 (1897), or to build a wharf over the water, Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 (1894). We have held that the State may deprive the owner of the riparian character of his property in the exercise of its navigational servitude. United States v. Rands, 389 U. S. 121 (1967). But there is no claim here by the State that depriving Bonelli of the subject land is necessary to any navigational or related purpose. Cf. United States v. River Rouge Co., 269 U. S. 411, 419 (1926); Colberg, Inc. v. State, 67 Cal. 2d 408, 432 P. 2d 3 (1967), cert, denied, 390 U. S. 949 (1968). Moreover, what is involved in this case is not just the diminution or elimination of riparian rights, but the State’s attempt to completely divest all of Bonelli’s title and interest in the subject land. See Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall., at 504.
IV
We hold that title to the subject land, which was exposed by the federal rechannelization of the Colorado River, is vested in petitioner Bonelli Cattle Co. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Me. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The federal patent to the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad conveyed a parcel of land in township 19 North of Range 22 West, described as follows:
“The lots one, two, three, four, five and six, the south half of the northeast quarter, the south half of the northwest quarter, the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, and the southeast quarter of section three, containing five hundred eighty-nine and forty hundredths acres.”
The map of the area, approved by the Surveyor General, indicates that, as of 1906, lots 5 and 6 of the Santa Fe parcel abutted the Colorado River. Petitioner Bonelli Cattle Co. was deeded a parcel of land constituting roughly the eastern half of the original Santa Fe grant. The Bonelli deed described the subject property as the “E[ast] % [of] Section 3, excepting Lot 2 thereof.”
The rechannelization also surfaced a small usable pocket of land on the west bank of the Colorado River which was part of the Bonelli parcel. This land is not in Arizona by virtue of the Boundary Compact between Arizona and Nevada, approved by Congress, Pub. L. 87-50, 75 Stat. 93, and hence is not involved in the present controversy.
11 Ariz. App. 412, 464 P. 2d 999 (1970).
107 Ariz. 465, 489 P. 2d 699 (1971).
108 Ariz. 258, 495 P. 2d 1312 (1972).
Before the operation of Hoover Dam, the river’s annual spring floods covered substantially more of the adjacent land than at any time thereafter. It is to the high-water mark of the river at this annual flood stage that the State of Arizona claims title.
See Joint Res. No. 8, To Admit the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona as States into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, 37 Stat. 39.
67 Stat. 29, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq.
See discussion, infra, at 321-324.
The Colorado River has been determined to be a navigable waterway, Arizona v. California, 283 U. S. 423 (1931), and, once found to be navigable, it remains so. United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377, 408 (1940).
Petitioner Bonelli and the Solicitor General of the United States, as amicus curiae, assert that this case should be governed by federal law for a different reason. In Hughes v. Washington, 389 U. S. 290 (1967), this Court held that where an upland property owner traced its title to a pre-statehood federal patent, the owner’s right to accretions is a question of federal law. Id., at 292. We are here again concerned with the right to accretions conveyed by a pre-statehood federal patent, but it is unclear whether, at the time of Santa Fe Pacific’s patent, the portion of the land which ultimately became Bonelli’s parcel was actually riparian. Bonelli argues that its remote grantor, the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad, was given a-patent by the United States which afforded it the right to riparian accretions as governed by federal law, and that it was expected that the river might wander within the parcel of land making parts thereof riparian which were not so at the time of the patent. Petitioner argues that its predecessor was therefore entitled to pass onto his successors all the rights he had in the property- — including his riparian rights. We need not, however, decide whether Hughes compels the application of federal law to the controversy before us, because the State’s claim in this ease is premised on a construction of the federal equal-footing doctrine and the congressionally enacted Submerged Lands Act.
State v. Gill, 259 Ala. 177, 183, 66 So. 2d 141, 145 (1953). For a perceptive discussion of the historical antecedents for the sovereign’s rights in the beds of navigable waterways and of the State’s modem interests in those lands, see Lundquist, Artificial Additions to Riparian Land: Extending the Doctrine of Accretion, 14 Ariz. L. Rev. 315 (1972).
152 U. S., at 11.
The Supreme Court of Arizona relied on this Court’s decisions in Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How. 471 (1850), and Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212 (1845), for the proposition that a federal rechan-neling project could not diminish the extent of the State’s landholdings. Those decisions involved post-statehood federal patents of land covered by navigable waters at the time of statehood. This Court held only that since title to lands beneath navigable waters was vested in Alabama at statehood, the Federal Government did not thereafter own the subject lands, hence its attempted conveyance was void. The Court did not intimate that the operation of federal law could not diminish the State’s title to lands formerly beneath navigable waters.
For a discussion of the navigational-purpose limitation on the State’s interest in the lands beneath its waterways, see United States v. River Rouge Co., 269 U. S. 411, 419 (1926); Colberg, Inc. v. State, 67 Cal. 2d 408, 416, 432 P. 2d 3, 8-9 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U. S. 949 (1968); Michaelson v. Silver Beach Assn., 342 Mass. 251, 173 N. E. 2d 273 (1961). The extent of the State’s interests should not be narrowly construed because it is denominated a navigational purpose. See Zabel v. Tabb, 430 F. 2d 199 (CA5 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 910 (1971) (recognizing conservation as a proper interest). Since the State asserts no public need for ownership of the subject land we do not attempt to define the exact parameters of the permissible public purposes.
In contrast, this Court’s decision in Marine R. & Coal Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 47 (1921), involved a determination of federal rights in land created when the Federal Government itself filled in tidelands belonging to it under a series of interstate compacts.
108 Ariz., at 259, 495 P. 2d, at 1313 (emphasis added).
43 U. S. C. § 1301 (a)(1).
The legislative history of the Act indicates that it was intended to be merely confirmatory of the State’s existing rights in the beds of their navigable waterways. S. Rep. No. 133, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, pp. 6-8 (1953); People v. Hecker, 179 Cal. App. 2d 823, 4 Cal. Rptr. 334 (1960). See generally 1953 U. S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1395-1640. Congress was concerned about this Court’s decision in United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19 (1947), which held that the Federal Government had a “paramount interest” in the marginal sea-lands “outside of inland waters, but within territorial limits” — and that the States had no title in those lands. See H. R. Rep. No. 1778, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1948). That concern is irrelevant to the case before us, which involves an inland waterway.
43 U. S. C. §1301 (f).
E. g., Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U. S. 359, 365-366 (1892); Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371 (1891); Anderson-Tully Co. v. Tingle, 166 F. 2d 224, 227-228 (CA5), cert. denied, 335 U. S. 816 (1948).
107 Ariz., at 472, 489 P. 2d, at 706 (Lockwood, J., dissenting), quoting, State v. R. E. Janes Gravel Co., 175 S. W. 2d 739, 741 (Tex. Civ. App. 1943), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Maufrais v. State, 142 Tex. 559, 180 S. W. 2d 144 (1944).
See sources collected at Burns v. Forbes, 412 F. 2d 995, 997 n. 2 (CA3 1969); cf. Beaver v. United States, 350 F. 2d 4, 11 (CA9 1965), cert. denied, 383 U. S. 937 (1966); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Jones, 233 La. 915, 98 So. 2d 236, aff’d on rehearing, 233 La. 940, 98 So. 2d 244 (1957).
See, e. g., Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 633-635 (1912).
See discussion, supra, at 321-324.
The State may well have an interest in the river as an interstate boundary justifying application of avulsion principles to determining the location of that boundary; “[t]he emergence of... land... ought not in reason to have any controlling effect upon the location of the boundary line... Arkansas v. Tennessee, 246 U. S. 158, 175 (1918). But
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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent is a union that had a collective-bargaining agreement with an employer which contained a maintenance-of-membership clause providing that members were, as a condition of employment, to remain in good standing “as to payment of dues” for the duration of the contract. Neither the contract nor the Union's constitution or bylaws contained any provision defining or limiting the circumstances under which a member could resign. A few days before the collective agreement expired, the Union membership voted to strike if no agreement was reached by a given date. No agreement was reached in the specified period, so the strike and attendant picketing commenced. Shortly thereafter, the Union held a meeting at which the membership resolved that any member aiding or abetting the employer during the strike would be subject to a $2,000 fine.
About six weeks later, two members sent the Union their letters of resignation. Six months or more later, 29 other members resigned. These 31 employees returned to work.
The Union gave them notice that charges had been made against them and that on given dates the Union would hold trials. None of the 31 employees appeared on the dates prescribed; but the trials nonetheless took place even in the absence of the employees and fines were imposed on all. Suits were filed by the Union to collect the fines. But the outcome was not determined because the employees filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board against the Union.
The unfair labor practice charged was that the Union restrained or coerced the employees “in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.” See § 8 (b)(1) of the Act. The Board ruled that the Union had violated § 8 (b)(1). 187 N. L. R. B. 636. The Court of Appeals denied enforcement of the Board’s order. 446 F. 2d 369. The case is here on certiorari, 405 U. S. 987.
We held in NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 175, that a union did not violate §8 (b)(1) by fining members who went to work during a lawful strike authorized by the membership and by suing to collect the fines. The Court reviewed at length in that opinion the legislative history of §§ 7 and 8(b)(1), and concluded by a close majority vote that the disciplinary measures taken by the union against its members on those facts were within the ambit of the union’s control over its internal affairs. But the sanctions allowed were against those who “enjoyed full union membership.” Id., at 196.
Yet when a member lawfully resigns from the union, its power over him ends. We noted in Scofield v. NLRB, 394 U. S. 423, 429, that if a union rule “invades or frustrates an overriding policy of the labor laws the rule may not be enforced, even by fine or expulsion, without violating §8 (b)(1).” On the facts, we held that Scofield) where fines were imposed on members by the union, fell within the ambit of Allis-Ghalmers. But we drew the line between permissible and impermissible union action against members as follows:
. . §8 (b)(1) leaves a union free to enforce a properly adopted rule which reflects a legitimate union interest, impairs no policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws, and is reasonably enforced against union members who are free to leave the union and escape the rule.” Id., at 430.
Under § 7 of the Act the employees have “the right to refrain from any or all” concerted activities relating to collective bargaining or mutual aid and protection, as well as the right to join a union and participate in those concerted activities. We have here no problem of construing a union’s constitution or bylaws defining or limiting the circumstances under which a member may resign from the union. We have, therefore, only to apply the law which normally is reflected in our free institutions— the right of the individual to join or to resign from associations, as he sees fit “subject of course to any financial obligations due and owing” the group with which he was associated. Communications Workers v. NLRB, 215 F. 2d 835, 838.
The Scofield case indicates that the power of the union over the member is certainly no greater than the union-member contract. Where a member lawfully resigns from a union and thereafter engages in conduct which the union rule proscribes, the union commits an unfair labor practice when it seeks enforcement of fines for that conduct. That is to say, when there is a lawful dissolution of a union-member relation, the union has no more control over the former member than- it has over the man in the street.
The Court of Appeals gave weight to the fact that the resigning employees had participated in the vote to strike. We give that factor little weight. The first two members resigned from the Union from one to two months after the strike had begun. The others did so from seven tó 12 months after its commencement. And the strike was still in progress 18 months after its inception. Events occurring after the calling of a strike may have unsettling effects, leading a member who voted to strike to change his mind. The likely duration of the strike may increase the specter of hardship to his family; the ease with which the employer replaces the strikers may make the strike seem less provident. We do not now decide to what extent the contractual relationship between union and member may curtail the freedom to resign. But where, as here, there are no restraints on the resignation of members, we conclude that the vitality of § 7 requires that the member be free to refrain in November from the actions he endorsed in May and that his § 7 rights are not lost by a union’s plea for solidarity or by its pressures for conformity and submission to its regime.
Reversed.
Fines equivalent to a day’s wages for each day worked during the strike were imposed.
Section 7 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 ....’’ 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. §157.
Section 8 (b). “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: Provided, That this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein . . . .” 61 Stat. 141, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b).
Union-security arrangements requiring employees to pay dues, though not requiring membership, have been held not to be an unfair labor practice and therefore not an excuse for the employer to refuse to bargain collectively for such an agreement, at least where state law allows employees that option. NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373 U. S. 734.
The Union argues that its practice was to accept resignations of members only during an annual ten-day “escape period,” during which time the employees were allowed to revoke their “dues check-off” authorizations. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument, saying there was no evidence that the employees knew of this practice or that they had consented to its limitation on their right to resign. 446 F. 2d 369, 372.
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether a National Park Service regulation prohibiting camping in certain parks violates the First Amendment when applied to prohibit demonstrators from sleeping in Lafayette Park and the Mall in connection with a demonstration intended to call attention to the plight of the homeless. We hold that it does not and reverse the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
The Interior Department, through the National Park Service, is charged with responsibility for the management and maintenance of the National Parks and is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations for the use of the parks in accordance with the purposes for which they were established. 16 U. S. C. §§ 1, la-1, 3. The network of National Parks includes the National Memorial-core parks, Lafayette Park and the Mall, which are set in the heart of Washington, D. C., and which are unique resources that the Federal Government holds in trust for the American people. Lafayette Park is a roughly 7-acre square located across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House. Although originally part of the White House grounds, President Jefferson set it aside as a park for the use of residents and visitors. It is a “garden park with a . . . formal landscaping of flowers and trees, with fountains, walks and benches.” National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, White House and President’s Park, Resource Management Plan 4.3 (1981). The Mall is a stretch of land running westward from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial some two miles away. It includes the Washington Monument, a series of reflecting pools, trees, lawns, and other greenery. It is bordered by, inter alia, the Smithsonian Institution and the National Gallery of Art. Both the Park and the Mall were included in Major Pierre L’Enfant’s original plan for the Capital. Both are visited by vast numbers of visitors from around the country, as well as by large numbers of residents of the Washington metropolitan area.
Under the regulations involved in this case, camping in National Parks is permitted only in campgrounds designated for that purpose. 36 CFR § 50.27(a) (1983). No such campgrounds have ever been designated in Lafayette Park or the Mall. Camping is defined as
“the use of park land for living accommodation purposes such as sleeping activities, or making preparations to sleep (including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping), or storing personal belongings, or making any fire, or using any tents or . . . other structure ... for sleeping or doing any digging or earth breaking or carrying on cooking activities.” Ibid.
These activities, the regulation provides,
“constitute camping when it reasonably appears, in light of all the circumstances, that the participants, in conducting these activities, are in fact using the area as a living accommodation regardless of the intent of the participants or the nature of any other activities in which they may also be engaging.” Ibid.
Demonstrations for the airing of views or grievances are permitted in the Memorial-core parks, but for the most part only by Park Service permits. 36 CFR §50.19 (1983). Temporary structures may be erected for demonstration purposes but may not be used for camping. 36 CFR §50.19(e)(8) (1983).
In 1982, the Park Service issued a renewable permit to respondent Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) to conduct a wintertime demonstration in Lafayette Park and the Mall for the purpose of demonstrating the plight of the homeless. The permit authorized the erection of two symbolic tent cities: 20 tents in Lafayette Park that would accommodate 50 people and 40 tents in the Mall with a capacity of up to 100. The Park Service, however, relying on the above regulations, specifically denied CCNV’s request that demonstrators be permitted to sleep in the symbolic tents.
CCNV and several individuals then filed an action to prevent the application of the no-camping regulations to the proposed demonstration, which, it was claimed, was not covered by the regulation. It was also submitted that the regulations were unconstitutionally vague, had been dis-criminatorily applied, and could not be applied to prevent sleeping in the tents without violating the First Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Park Service. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Watt, 227 U. S. App. D. C. 19, 703 F. 2d 586 (1983). The 11 judges produced 6 opinions. Six of the judges believed that application of the regulations so as to prevent sleeping in the tents would infringe the demonstrators’ First Amendment right of free expression. The other five judges disagreed and would have sustained the regulations as applied to CCNV’s proposed demonstration. We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari, 464 U. S. 1016 (1983), and now reverse.
II
We need not differ with the view of the Court of Appeals that overnight sleeping in connection with the demonstration is expressive conduct protected to some extent by the First Amendment. We assume for present purposes, but do not decide, that such is the case, cf. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 376 (1968), but this assumption only begins the inquiry. Expression, whether oral or written or symbolized by conduct, is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. We have often noted that restrictions of this kind are valid provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789 (1984); United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171 (1983); Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45-46 (1983); Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U. S. 640, 647-648 (1981); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976); Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 530, 535 (1980).
It is also true that a message may be delivered by conduct that is intended to be communicative and that, in context, would reasonably be understood by the viewer to be communicative. Spence v. Washington, 418 U. S. 405 (1974); Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S. 503 (1969). Symbolic expression of this kind may be forbidden or regulated if the conduct itself may constitutionally be regulated, if the regulation is narrowly drawn to further a substantial governmental interest, and if the interest is unrelated to the suppression of free speech. United States v. O’Brien, supra.
Petitioners submit, as they did in the Court of Appeals, that the regulation forbidding sleeping is defensible either as a time, place, or manner restriction or as a regulation of symbolic conduct. We agree with that assessment. The permit that was issued authorized the demonstration but required compliance with 36 CPR §50.19 (1983), which prohibits “camping” on park lands, that is, the use of park lands for living accommodations, such as sleeping, storing personal belongings, making fires, digging, or cooking. These provisions, including the ban on sleeping, are clearly limitations on the manner in which the demonstration could be carried out. That sleeping, like the symbolic tents themselves, may be expressive and part of the message delivered by the demonstration does not make the ban any less a limitation on the manner of demonstrating, for reasonable time, place, or manner regulations normally have the purpose and direct effect of limiting expression but are nevertheless valid. City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, supra; Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., supra; Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 (1949). Neither does the fact that sleeping, arguendo, may be expressive conduct, rather than oral or written expression, render the sleeping prohibition any less a time, place, or manner regulation. To the contrary, the Park Service neither attempts to ban sleeping generally nor to ban it everywhere in the parks. It has established areas for camping and forbids it elsewhere, including Lafayette Park and the Mall. Considered as such, we have very little trouble concluding that the Park Service may prohibit overnight sleeping in the parks involved here.
The requirement that the regulation be content-neutral is clearly satisfied. The courts below accepted that view, and it is not disputed here that the prohibition on camping, and on sleeping specifically, is content-neutral and is not being applied because of disagreement with the message presented. Neither was the regulation faulted, nor could it be, on the ground that without overnight sleeping the plight of the homeless could not be communicated in other ways. The regulation otherwise left the demonstration intact, with its symbolic city, signs, and the presence of those who were willing to take their turns in a day-and-night vigil. Respondents do not suggest that there was, or is, any barrier to delivering to the media, or to the public by other means, the intended message concerning the plight of the homeless.
It is also apparent to us that the regulation narrowly focuses on the Government’s substantial interest in maintaining the parks in the heart of our Capital in an attractive and intact condition, readily available to the millions of people who wish to see and enjoy them by their presence. To permit camping — using these areas as living accommodations— would be totally inimical to these purposes, as would be readily understood by those who have frequented the National Parks across the country and observed the unfortunate consequences of the activities of those who refuse to confine their camping to designated areas.
It is urged by respondents, and the Court of Appeals was of this view, that if the symbolic city of tents was to be permitted and if the demonstrators did not intend to cook, dig, or engage in aspects of camping other than sleeping, the incremental benefit to the parks could not justify the ban on sleeping, which was here an expressive activity said to enhance the message concerning the plight of the poor and homeless. We cannot agree. In the first place, we seriously doubt that the First Amendment requires the Park Service to permit a demonstration in Lafayette Park and the Mall involving a 24-hour vigil and the erection of tents to accommodate 150 people. Furthermore, although we have assumed for present purposes that the sleeping banned in this case would have an expressive element, it is evident that its major value to this demonstration would be facilitative. Without a permit to sleep, it would be difficult to get the poor and homeless to participate or to be present at all. This much is apparent from the permit application filed by respondents: “Without the incentive of sleeping space or a hot meal, the homeless would not come to the site.” App. 14. The sleeping ban, if enforced, would thus effectively limit the nature, extent, and duration of the demonstration and to that extent ease the pressure on the parks.
Beyond this, however, it is evident from our cases that the validity of this regulation need not be judged solely by reference to the demonstration at hand. Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U. S., at 652-653. Absent the prohibition on sleeping, there would be other groups who would demand permission to deliver an asserted message by camping in Lafayette Park. Some of them would surely have as credible a claim in this regard as does CCNV, and the denial of permits to still others would present difficult problems for the Park Service. With the prohibition, however, as is evident in the case before us, at least some around-the-clock demonstrations lasting for days on end will not materialize, others will be limited in size and duration, and the purposes of the regulation will thus be materially served. Perhaps these purposes would be more effectively and not so clumsily achieved by preventing tents and 24-hour vigils entirely in the core areas. But the Park Service’s decision to permit nonsleeping demonstrations does not, in our view, impugn the camping prohibition as a valuable, but perhaps imperfect, protection to the parks. If the Government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the National Parks are adequately protected, which we think it has, and if the parks would be more exposed to harm without the sleeping prohibition than with it, the ban is safe from invalidation under the First Amendment as a reasonable regulation of the manner in which a demonstration may be carried out. As in City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, the regulation “responds precisely to the substantive problems which legitimately concern the [Government].” 466 U. S., at 810.
We have difficulty, therefore, in understanding why the prohibition against camping, with its ban on sleeping oversight, is not a reasonable time, place, or manner regulation that withstands constitutional scrutiny. Surely the regulation is not unconstitutional on its face. None of its provisions appears unrelated to the ends that it was designed to serve. Nor is it any less valid when applied to prevent camping in Memorial-core parks by those who wish to demonstrate and deliver a message to the public and the central Government. Damage to the parks as well as their partial inaccessibility to other members of the public can as easily result from camping by demonstrators as by nondemonstra-tors. In neither case must the Government tolerate it. All those who would resort to the parks must abide by otherwise valid rules for their use, just as they must observe the traffic laws, sanitation regulations, and laws to preserve the public peace. This is no more than a reaffirmation that reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on expression are constitutionally acceptable.
Contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Appeals, the foregoing analysis demonstrates that the Park Service regulation is sustainable under the four-factor standard of United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968), for validating a regulation of expressive conduct, which, in the last analysis is little, if any, different from the standard applied to time, place, or manner restrictions. No one contends that aside from its impact on speech a rule against camping or overnight sleeping in public parks is beyond the constitutional power of the Government to enforce. And for the reasons we have discussed above, there is a substantial Government interest in conserving park property, an interest that is plainly served by, and requires for its implementation, measures such as the proscription of sleeping that are designed to limit the wear and tear on park properties. That interest is unrelated to suppression of expression.
We are unmoved by the Court of Appeals’ view that the challenged regulation is unnecessary, and hence invalid, because there are less speech-restrictive alternatives that could have satisfied the Government interest in preserving park lands. There is no gainsaying that preventing overnight sleeping will avoid a measure of actual or threatened damage to Lafayette Park and the Mall. The Court of Appeals’ suggestions that the Park Service minimize the possible injury by reducing the size, duration, or frequency of demonstrations would still curtail the total allowable expression in which demonstrators could engage, whether by sleeping or otherwise, and these suggestions represent no more than a disagreement with the Park Service over how much protection the core parks require or how an acceptable level of preservation is to be attained. We do not believe, however, that either United States v. O’Brien or the time, place, or manner decisions assign to the judiciary the authority to replace the Park Service as the manager of the Nation’s parks or endow the judiciary with the competence to judge how much protection of park lands is wise and how that level of conservation is to be attained.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
The Secretary is admonished to promote and regulate the use of the parks by such means as conform to the fundamental purpose of the parks, which is “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein ... in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” 39 Stat. 535, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 1.
Section 50.19(e)(8), as amended, prohibits the use of certain temporary structures:
“In connection with permitted demonstrations or special events, temporary structures may be erected for the purpose of symbolizing a message or meeting logistical needs such as first aid facilities, lost children areas or the provision of shelter for electrical and other sensitive equipment or displays. Temporary structures may not be used outside designated camping areas for living accommodation activities such as sleeping, or making preparations to sleep (including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping), or storing personal belongings, or making any fire, or doing any digging or earth breaking or carrying on cooking activities. The above-listed activities constitute camping when it reasonably appears, in light of all the circumstances, that the participants, in conducting these activities, are in fact using the area as a living accommodation regardless of the intent of the participants or the nature of any other activities in which they may also be engaging.”
The per curiam opinion preceding the individual opinions described the lineup of the judges as follows:
“Circuit Judge Mikva files an opinion, in which Circuit Judge Wald concurs, in support of a judgment reversing. Chief Judge Robinson and Circuit Judge Wright file a statement joining in the judgment and concurring in Circuit Judge Mikva’s opinion with a caveat. Circuit Judge Edwards files an opinion joining in the judgment and .concurring partially in Circuit Judge Mikva’s opinion. Circuit Judge Ginsburg files an opinion joining in the judgment. Circuit Judge Wilkey files a dissenting opinion, in which Circuit Judges Tamm, MacKinnon, Bork and Scalia concur. Circuit Judge Scalia files a dissenting opinion, in which Circuit Judges MacKinnon and Bork concur.” 227 U. S. App. D. C., at 19-20, 703 F. 2d, at 586-587.
As a threshold matter, we must address respondents’ contention that their proposed activities do not fall within the definition of “camping” found in the regulations. None of the opinions below accepted this contention, and at least nine of the judges expressly rejected it. Id., at 24, 703 F. 2d, at 591 (opinion of Mikva, J.); id., at 42, 703 F. 2d, at 609 (opinion of Wilkey, J.). We likewise find the contention to be without merit. It cannot seriously be doubted that sleeping in tents for the purpose of expressing the plight of the homeless falls within the regulation’s definition of camping.
We reject the suggestion of the plurality below, however, that the burden on the demonstrators is limited to “the advancement of a plausible contention” that their conduct is expressive. Id., at 26, n. 16, 703 F. 2d, at 593, n. 16. Although it is common to place the burden upon the Government to justify impingements on First Amendment interests, it is the obligation of the person desiring to engage in assertedly expressive conduct to demonstrate that the First Amendment even applies. To hold otherwise would be to create a rule that all conduct is presumptively expressive. In the absence of a showing that such a rule is necessary to protect vital First Amendment interests, we decline to deviate from the general rule that one seeking relief bears the burden of demonstrating that he is entitled to it.
Respondents request that we remand to the Court of Appeals for resolution of their claim that the District Court improperly granted summary judgment on the equal protection claim. Brief for Respondents 91, n. 50. They contend that there were disputed questions of fact concerning the uniformity of enforcement of the regulation, claiming that other groups have slept in the parks. The District Court specifically found that the regulations have been consistently applied and enforced in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. App. to Pet. for Cert. 106a-108a. Only 5 of the 11 judges in the Court of Appeals addressed the equal protection claim. 227 U. S. App. D. C., at 43-44, 703 F. 2d, at 610-611 (opinion of Wilkey, J., joined by Tamm, MacKinnon, Bork, and Scalia, JJ.). Our review of the record leads us to agree with their conclusion that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the most that respondents have shown are isolated instances of undiscovered violations of the regulations.
When the Government seeks to regulate conduct that is ordinarily nonexpressive it may do so regardless of the situs of the application of the regulation. Thus, even against people who choose to violate Park Service regulations for expressive purposes, the Park Service may enforce regulations relating to grazing animals, 36 CFR §50.13 (1983); flying model planes, §50.16; gambling, §50.17; hunting and fishing, §50.18; setting off fireworks, § 50.25(g); and urination, § 50.26(b).
Reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions are valid even though they directly limit oral or written expression. It would be odd to insist on a higher standard for limitations aimed at regulable conduct and having only an incidental impact on speech. Thus, if the time, place, or manner restriction on expressive sleeping, if that is what is involved in this case, sufficiently and narrowly serves a substantial enough governmental interest to escape First Amendment condemnation, it is untenable to invalidate it under O’Brien on the ground that the governmental interest is insufficient to warrant the intrusion on First Amendment concerns or that there is an inadequate nexus between the regulation and the interest sought to be served. We note that only recently, in a case dealing with the regulation of signs, the Court framed the issue under O’Brien and then based a crucial part of its analysis on the time, place, or manner cases. City Coun cil of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 804-805, 808-810 (1984).
We also agree with Judge Edwards’ observation that “[t]o insist upon a judicial resolution of this case, given the facts and record at hand, arguably suggests a lack of common sense.” 227 U. S. App. D. C., at 33, 703 F. 2d at 600. Nor is it any clearer to us than it was to him “what has been achieved by this rather exhausting expenditure of judicial resources.” Id., at 34. 703 F. 2d, at 601.
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari, 430 U. S. 929 (1977), to decide whether a trial judge (or designated United States Magistrate) who suspends a sentence of commitment and places a youth offender on probation pursuant to § 5010 (a) of the Federal Youth Corrections Act (YCA), 18 U. S. C. § 5005 et seq. (1976 ed.), may impose a fine, or require restitution, or both, as conditions of probation.
Each of the five petitioners pleaded guilty in a separate proceeding before a United States Magistrate to an offense for which penalties of fine or imprisonment or both are provided. Petitioners Durst and Rice pleaded guilty to obstruction of the mails in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1701 (1976 ed.). Petitioners Blystone and Pinnick pleaded guilty to stealing property with a value less than $100 from a Government reservation in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 661 (1976 ed.). Petitioner Flakes pleaded guilty to theft of property belonging to the United States with a value less than $100 in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 641 (1976 ed.). Each petitioner was sentenced by a Magistrate, under § 5010 (a), to probation and a suspended sentence of imprisonment. Petitioner Flakes was ordered to pay a fine of $50 as a condition of probation and each of the others $100. Petitioner Durst was also ordered to make restitution, in the amount of $160, as a condition of,probation.
Each petitioner appealed his sentence to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, which consolidated and affirmed the appeals. Crim. Action No. N-75-0828 (June 25, 1976). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion, No. 76-1905 (Dec. 9, 1976), judgt. order reported at 549 F. 2d 799, relying on its earlier decision in United States v. Oliver, 546 F. 2d 1096 (1976), cert. pending, No. 76-5632, which had held that imposition of a fine as a condition of probation was consistent with the YCA. In addition, the per curiam in the instant case stated: “For the reasons expressed in Oliver, we believe that a requirement of restitution is also consistent.” App. 2. We agree that, when placing a youth offender on probation under § 5010 (a), the sentencing judge may require restitution, and, when the otherwise applicable penalty provision permits, impose a fine as a condition of probation, and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
The YCA is primarily an outgrowth of recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States, see Dorssynski v. United States, 418 U. S. 424, 432 (1974), designed to reduce criminality among youth. Congress found that between the ages of 16 and 22, “special factors operated to produce habitual criminals. [Moreover,] then-existing methods of treating criminally inclined youths were found inadequate in avoiding recidivism.” Id., at 432-433 (citation omitted).
The core concept of the YCA, like that of England's Borstal System upon which it is modeled, is that rehabilitative treatment should be substituted for retribution as a sentencing goal. Both the Borstal System and the YCA incorporate three features thought essential to the operation of a successful rehabilitative treatment program: flexibility in choosing among a variety of treatment settings and programs tailored to individual needs; separation of youth offenders from hardened criminals; and careful and flexible control of the duration of commitment and of supervised release. The YCA established the framework for creation of a treatment program, incorporating these features, and, as an alternative to existing sentencing options, authorized a sentence of commitment to the Attorney General for treatment under the Act. Dorszynski, supra, at 437-440.
The Act contains four provisions regarding sentencing. Section 5010 (a) provides that “[i]f the court is of the opinion that the youth offender does not need commitment,” imposition or execution of sentence might be suspended and the youth offender placed on probation. Sections 5010 (b) and (c) provide that, if the youth is to be committed, the court might “in lieu of the penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law,” sentence the youth offender to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment and supervision. Section 5010 (d) provides that “[i]f the court shall find that the youth offender will not derive benefit from treatment under subsection (b) or (c),” the court may sentence the youth offender “under any other applicable penalty provision.”
A particularly valuable benefit for the offender sentenced under the YCA is the prospect of obtaining a certificate setting aside his conviction. A certificate automatically issues when a youth committed to the custody of the Attorney General under § 5010 (b) or § 5010 (c) is unconditionally released prior to expiration of the maximum sentence imposed. 18 U. S. C. § 5021 (a) (1976 ed.). In 1961, the YCA was amended to extend the benefit of a certificate to youths sentenced to probation under § 5010 (a) when the court unconditionally discharges the youth prior to expiration of the sentence of probation imposed. Act of Oct. 3, 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-336, 75 Stat. 750 (codified at 18 U. S. C. § 5021 (b) (1976 ed.)).
Petitioners make two arguments in support of their submission that sentencing judges choosing the option under § 5010 (a) of suspending sentence and placing the youth offender on probation may not impose a fine as a condition of probation. First, they argue that the sentencing provisions of the YCA are alternatives to other sentencing provisions and therefore a substitute for the penalties provided in the statute for violation of which the youth offender was convicted; since § 5010 (a) does not explicitly authorize the imposition of fines, sentencing judges have no authority to impose them when sentencing under that provision. Second, they argue that fines are necessarily punitive and their imposition therefore inconsistent with the rehabilitative goals of the YCA. Neither of these arguments has merit.
II
The language of § 5010 (a) neither grants nor withholds the authority to impose fines or orders of restitution. Another provision of the YCA, however, § 5023 (a), incorporates by reference the authority conferred under the general probation statute to permit such exactions. Section 5023 (a) provides: “Nothing in [the Act] shall limit or affect the power of any court to suspend the imposition or execution of any sentence and place a youth offender on probation or be construed in any wise to amend, repeal, or affect the provisions of chapter 231 [§§ 3651-3656] of this title . . . relative to probation.” Chapter 231 is the general probation statute and 18 U. S. C. § 3651 (1976 ed.) expressly provides, inter alia:
“While on probation and among the conditions thereof, the defendant—
“May be required to pay a fine in one or several sums ; and
“May be required to make restitution or reparation to aggrieved parties for actual damages or loss caused by the offense for which conviction was had . . . .”
Petitioners argue, however, that the sentencing provisions contained in § 5010 are separate and distinct from each other and from any other penalty provision. Recognizing that § 5023 (a) makes § 3651 applicable to a § 5010 (a) sentence, they now concede that restitution is a permissible condition of a probationary sentence under § 5010 (a), because § 3651 directly authorizes restitution without resort to any other penalty provision. On the other hand, a fine may be imposed under § 3651 only if the penalty provision of the offense under which the youth is convicted so provides. Thus, a fine is not permissible in conjunction with a § 5010 (a) sentence because it requires resort to the offense penalty provision.
Petitioners’ arguments are refuted by the legislative history of the Act. The legislative history of § 5023 (a) clearly reveals that Congress intended thereby to preserve to sentencing judges their powers under the general probation statute when sentencing youth offenders to probation under § 5010 (a). The House Report accompanying S. 2609, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949), the bill which was enacted as the YCA, makes that clear in stating:
“Under [the bill’s] provisions, if the court finds that a youth offender does not need treatment, it may suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the youth offender on probation. Thus, the power of the court to grant probation is left undisturbed by the bill.” (Emphasis added.) H. R. Rep. No. 2979, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1950).
The same view was expressed during the House hearings on H. R. 2140, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. (1943), a bill whose youth corrections provisions were nearly identical to those of S. 2609 introduced in 1949. Judge Phillips, Chairman of the Subcommittee responsible for drafting model youth correction legislation to be sponsored by the Judicial Conference, emphasized that “[i]t leaves [the probation system] absolutely undisturbed,” for the intent of the Judicial Conference in sponsoring the bill was to retain the existing options with respect to probation and adult punishment, while simply adding a new option of commitment for treatment. See 1943 House Hearings 34-37.
The legislative history of §§ 5010 (b) and 5010 (c) buttresses this understanding of the purpose of §5023 (a). Those subsections provide that commitment to the custody of the Attorney General is “in lieu of the penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law.” The words “of imprisonment” did not appear in the original bill recommended by the Judicial Conference in 1943. H. R. 2140, supra, tit. III, § 1 (a), reprinted in 1943 House Hearings 3. Addition of the words “of imprisonment” was recommended in a letter from Attorney General Biddle to the House Subcommittee. That letter, in which, according to the letter, members of the Judicial Conference concurred and which was read into the record at the Subcommittee hearings, explained the reason for adding the words “of imprisonment” as follows:
“Sentence of the youth offender to the custody of the Authority should be a permissible alternative to a penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law but not to a penalty of a fine. It should, moreover, be possible for the court both to impose a fine and to sentence the offender to the custody of the Authority, where the law provides both fine and imprisonment as the penalties that may be imposed.” (Emphasis added.) Letter from Francis Biddle to Francis E. Walter (June 7, 1943), reprinted in 1943 House Hearings 110-111.
When introduced, S. 2609, supra, which was enacted into law, contained the words “of imprisonment” recommended by Attorney General Biddle. This history of subsection (b) demonstrates that Congress added the words “of imprisonment” in order to preserve the pre-existing authority of judges to impose a fine in conjunction with commitment when the applicable penalty provision provided for a penalty of fine and imprisonment. The fact that Congress contemplated that a sentence under subsections (b) and (c) would permit resort to the otherwise applicable penalty provision as authority for imposition of a fine, militates in favor of the same construction with respect to subsection (a). There is no reason to believe that Congress directed that the subsections should be treated differently in that respect.
We conclude that Congress’ purpose in adopting § 5023 (a), was to assure that a sentence under § 5010 (a) would not displace the authority conferred by § 3651 to impose fines and orders of restitution as conditions of probation.
With respect to petitioners’ second argument, that fines are punitive and their imposition therefore inconsistent with the rehabilitative goals of the YCA, it is sufficient answer that Congress expressed its judgment to the contrary in preserving the authority of sentencing judges to impose them as a condition of probation. Moreover, we are not persuaded that fines should necessarily be regarded as other than rehabilitative when imposed as a condition of probation. There is much force in the observation of the District Court:
“ [A] fine could be consistent . . . with the rehabilitative intent of the Act. By employing this alternative [a fine and probation], the sentencing judge could assure that the youthful offender would not receive the harsh treatment of incarceration, while assuring that the offender accepts responsibility for his transgression. The net result of such treatment would be an increased respect for the law and would, in many cases, stimulate the young person to mature into a good law-abiding citizen.” App. 36-37.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Courts of Appeals have reached conflicting conclusions concerning whether a fine is a permissible condition of a § 5010 (a) sentence. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Bowens, 514 F. 2d 440 (1975); United States v. Mollet, 510 F. 2d 625 (1975), in disagreement with the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the instant case, has held that imposition of a fine is improper. The Ninth Circuit, United States v. Hayes, 474 F. 2d 965 (1973), and the Fifth Circuit, Cramer v. Wise, 501 F. 2d 959 (1974), have held that a fine is not permissible in conjunction with a § 5010 (b) sentence. With respect to orders of restitution, however, the Courts of Appeals that have addressed the question, the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Hix, 545 F. 2d 1247 (1976), and the Third Circuit in United States v. Buechler, 557 F. 2d 1002 (1977), agree with the Court of Appeals in this case that an order of restitution properly may be imposed in conjunction with a sentence under §5010 (a).
Rice, a young adult, was sentenced under § 5010 (a) pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 4216 (1976 ed.), which permits sentencing of young adult offenders under the YCA in appropriate cases.
See S. Rep. No. 1180, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 4 (1949); Prevention of Crime Act of 1908, 8 Edw. 7, ch. 59, pt. 1; The Criminal Justice Act of 1948, 11 & 12 Geo. 6, ch. 58; Criminal Justice Act of 1961, 9 & 10 Eliz. 2, ch. 39. For a discussion of the similarities between the Borstal System and the YCA, see Note, The Federal Youth Corrections Act: Past Concern in Need of Legislative Reappraisal, 11 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 229, 233-242 (1972).
“The underlying theory of the bill is to substitute for retributive punishment methods of training and treatment designed to correct and prevent antisocial tendencies. It departs from the mere punitive idea of dealing with criminals and looks primarily to the objective idea of rehabilitation.” H. R. Rep. No. 2979, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1950).
The Act provides that committed youth “shall undergo treatment in institutions of maximum security, medium security, or minimum security types, including training schools, hospitals, farms, forestry and other camps, and other agencies ... of treatment.” 18 U. S. C. § 5011 (1976 ed.). Moreover, it provides for the examination, classification, and periodic re-evaluation of youth on an individual basis in order to tailor the Act's programs to individual needs. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 5014-5017 (1976 ed.).
The basis for this emphasis on individualized and flexible treatment programs was the Borstal System which the Act emulated. That program was described in H. R. Rep. No. 2979, supra, at 5, as follows:
“[The Borstal System] now embraces 13 institutions. Some are walled. Others are completely open. Each institution has its own particular specialty.
“One provides complete facilities for trade training in metal and woodwork. Another is laid out and run as a summer camp with work and recreational programs which keep the boys out of doors. A third is largely devoted to agriculture and stock raising. One institution graduates skilled workers in the building trades.
“While the institutions differ in, many respects, they have certain things in common. . . .
“Second, an individual plan based on close acquaintance with individual needs and antecedents and calculated to return the young men to society as social and rehabilitated citizens.
“Three cardinal principles dominate the system: (1) flexibility, (2) individualization, and (3) emphasis on the intangibles.”
“By herding youth with maturity, the novice with the sophisticate, the impressionable with the hardened, and by subjecting youth offenders to the evil influences of older criminals and their teaching of criminal techniques, without the inhibitions that come from normal contacts and counteracting prophylaxis, many of our penal institutions actively spread the infection of crime and foster, rather than check, it.” H. R. Rep. No. 2979, supra, at 2-3.
The statement of Mr. Bennett, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, before the Senate Subcommittee explained the need for an indeterminate sentence with discretion vested in the Youth Corrections Division of the Bureau to release the offender at the appropriate time. Mr. Bennett said:
“From the hundreds of cases of this type which have come across my desk I have formed the conclusion, that in the task of correcting the offender the crucial element is that of time. Attitudes, habits, interests, standards cannot be changed overnight. Training in work habits and skills requires time. Once the individual has received the maximum benefit from the institutional program, however, it is just as important that his release to the community be effected promptly. In the case of each person confined there comes a period when he has his best prospects of making good in the community. His release should occur at this time. If he is released earlier he will not be ready for the task of establishing himself; if later, he may have become bitter, unsure of himself, or jittery like the athlete who is overtrained.
“Rarely does a day go by in one of our institutions for younger offenders without a youth being received whose sentence is either far too long or far too short, if the institution is to carry out its objective of correctional treatment.” Correctional System For Youth Offenders: Hearings on S. 1114 and S. 2609 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 27 (1949).
Congress provided the Bureau with the flexibility sought by providing in § 5017 for flexible commitment periods responsive to individual needs and progress.
Section 5010 provides in full:
“ (a) If the court is of the opinion that the youth offender does not need commitment, it may suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the youth offender on probation.
“(b) If the court shall find that a convicted person is a youth offender, and the offense is punishable by imprisonment under applicable provisions of law other than this subsection, the court may, in lieu of the penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law, sentence the youth offender to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment and supervision pursuant to this chapter until discharged by the Commission as provided in section 5017 (c) of this chapter; or
“(c) If the court shall find that the youth offender may not be able to derive maximum benefit from treatment by the Commission prior to the expiration of six years from the date of conviction it may, in lieu of the penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law, sentence the youth offender to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment and supervision pursuant to this chapter for any further period that may be authorized by law for the offense or offenses of which he stands convicted or until discharged by the Commission as provided in section 5017 (d) of this chapter.
“(d) If the court shall find that the youth offender will not derive benefit from treatment under subsection (b) or (c), then the court may sentence the youth offender under any other applicable penalty provision.
“(e) If the court desires additional information as to whether a youth offender will derive benefit from treatment under subsections (b) or (c) it may order that he be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for observation and study at an appropriate classification center or agency. Within sixty days from the date of the order, or such additional period as the court may grant, the Commission shall report to the court its findings.”
Petitioners abandoned the contention contained in their petition for certiorari that a § 5010 (a) sentence may not be conditioned upon restitution. See n. 11, infra.
Section 3651 provides in relevant part:
“Upon entering a judgment of conviction of any offense not punishable by death or life imprisonment, any court having jurisdiction to try offenses against the United States when satisfied that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as the defendant will be served thereby, may suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems best.
“While on probation and among the conditions thereof, the defendant—
“May be required to pay a fine in one or several sums; and
“May be required to make restitution or reparation to aggrieved parties for actual damages or loss caused by the offense for which conviction was had . . . ."
Petitioners apparently agree with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which held in United, States v. Hix, 545 F. 2d 1247 (1976), that a fine is inherently punitive but restitution is essentially rehabilitative. Brief for Petitioners 11. In their brief, petitioners argued that restitution is not a permissible condition of probation, however, because “[i]t is ... a real concern that sentencing courts may use restitution as a vehicle to accomplish that which is not permitted by the statute. Further, since the Federal Youth Corrections Act is an exclusive sentencing statute, any sentence beyond the limits of the Act is improper.” Ibid. During oral argument, petitioners expressly abandoned this argument, conceding that restitution is a permissible condition of probation because it is directly authorized by § 3651. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5, 8, 9.
The Government conceded that § 3651 permits imposition of a fine “only when the underlying statute calls for fine and/or imprisonment.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 12. We need not address the question suggested by this phrasing, that a fine may be imposed when the underlying offense statute provides only a penalty of imprisonment. Compare id., with Letter from Francis Biddle to Francis E. Walter, quoted, infra, at 552.
The full statement of Judge Phillips’ remark regarding the bill’s effect on the probation system is as follows:
“Mr. Cravens. Does this bill in any way affect the so-called probation system?
“Judge Phillips. Not at all.
“Mr. Cravens. There is no attempt to disturb that?
“Judge Phillips. No sir; we found it was working well and concluded it ought not to be disturbed.
“Mr. Cravens. And this bill was drafted with that in mind?
“Judge Phillips. Yes, sir. It leaves it absolutely undisturbed.” Federal Corrections Act and Improvement in Parole: Hearings on H. R. 2139 and H. R. 2140 before Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., 37 (1943) (hereinafter 1943 House Hearings).
Petitioners argued that Congress may have intended to authorize imposition of a fine on one sentenced to commitment under subsection (b), yet to withhold such authority as to one sentenced to probation under subsection (a) based on the “qualitative” distinction between people sentenced under those subsections. Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. If that argument is based on a perceived distinction between the treatment needs of the two “classes” of youth offenders, it is without support in the history of the Act, and conflicts with the Act’s emphasis on flexibility and individualization of treatment. See n. 5, supra. If the premise of the argument is that those sentenced to commitment merit a fine as punishment, while those sentenced to probation do not, it conflicts with the basic purpose of the Act to accord youth offenders rehabilitative treatment rather than retributive punishment. See n. 4, supra.
See ibid,., and accompanying text.
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.
In Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (1923), this Court ruled that a federal taxpayer is without standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute. That ruling has stood for 45 years as an impenetrable barrier to suits against Acts of Congress brought by individuals who can assert only the interest of federal taxpayers. In this case, we must decide whether the Frothingham barrier should be lowered when a taxpayer attacks a federal statute on the ground that it violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
Appellants filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to enjoin the allegedly unconstitutional expenditure of federal funds under Titles I and II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 27, 20 U. S. C. §§ 241a et seg., 821 et seq. (1964 ed., Supp. II). The complaint alleged that the seven appellants had as a common attribute that “each pay[s] income taxes of the United States,” and it is clear from the complaint that the appellants were resting their standing to maintain the action solely on their status as federal taxpayers. The appellees, who are charged by Congress with administering the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, were sued in their official capacities.
The gravamen of the appellants’ complaint was that federal funds appropriated under the Act were being used to finance instruction in reading, arithmetic, and other subjects in religious schools, and to purchase textbooks and other instructional materials for use in such schools. Such expenditures were alleged to be in contravention of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Appellants’ constitutional attack focused on the statutory criteria which state and local authorities must meet to be eligible for federal grants under the Act. Title I of the Act establishes a program for financial assistance to local educational agencies for the education of low-income families. Federal payments are made to state educational agencies, which pass the payments on in the form of grants to local educational agencies. Under § 205 of the Act, 20 U. S. C. § 241e, a local educational agency wishing to have a plan or program funded by a grant must submit the plan or program to the appropriate state educational agency for approval. The plan or program must be “consistent with such basic criteria as the [appellee United States Commissioner of Education] may establish.” The specific criterion of that section attacked by the appellants is the requirement
“that, to the extent consistent with the number of educationally deprived children in the school district of the local educational agency who are enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools, such agency has made provision for including special educational services and arrangements (such as dual enrollment, educational radio and television, and mobile educational services and equipment) in which such children can participate....” 20 U. S. C. §241e (a)(2).
Under § 206 of the Act, 20 U. S. C. § 241f, the Commissioner of Education is given broad powers to supervise a State’s participation in Title I programs and grants. Title II of the Act establishes a program of federal grants for the acquisition of school library resources, textbooks, and other printed and published instructional materials “for the use of children and teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools.” 20 U. S. C. § 821. A State wishing to participate in the program must submit a plan to the Commissioner for approval, and the plan must
“provide assurance that to the extent consistent with law such library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials will be provided on an equitable basis for the use of children and teachers in private elementary and secondary schools in the State....” 20 U. S. C. § 823 (a)(3)(B).
While disclaiming any intent to challenge as unconstitutional all programs under Title I of the Act, the complaint alleges that federal funds have been disbursed under the Act, “with the consent and approval of the [appellees],” and that such funds have been used and will continue to be used to finance “instruction in reading, arithmetic and other subjects and for guidance in religious and sectarian schools” and “the purchase of textbooks and instructional and_ library materials for use in religious and sectarian schools.” Such expenditures of federal tax funds, appellants alleged, violate the First Amendment because “they constitute a law respecting an establishment of religion” and because “they prohibit the free exercise of religion on the part of the [appellants]... by reason of the fact that they constitute compulsory taxation for religious purposes.” The complaint asked for a declaration that appellees’ actions in approving the expenditure of federal funds for the alleged purposes were not authorized by the Act or, in the alternative, that if appellees’ actions are deemed within the authority and intent of the Act, “the Act is to that extent unconstitutional and void.” The complaint also prayed for an injunction to enjoin appel-lees from approving any expenditure of federal funds for the allegedly unconstitutional purposes. The complaint further requested that a three-judge court be convened as provided in 28 U. S. C. §§ 2282, 2284.
The Government moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that appellants lacked standing to maintain the action. District Judge Frankel, who considered the motion, recognized that Frothingham v. Mellon, supra, provided “powerful” support for the Government’s position, but he ruled that the standing question was of sufficient substance to warrant the convening of a three-judge court to decide the question. 267 F. Supp. 351 (1967). The three-judge court received briefs and heard arguments limited to the standing question, and the court ruled on the authority of Frothingham that appellants lacked standing. Judge Frankel dissented. 271 F. Supp. 1 (1967). From the dismissal of their complaint on that ground, appellants appealed directly to this Court, 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 389 U. S. 895 (1967). For reasons explained at length below, we hold that appellants do have standing as federal taxpayers to maintain this action, and the judgment below must be reversed.
I.
We must deal first with the Government’s contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction on direct appeal because a three-judge court was improperly convened below. Under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, direct appeal to this Court from a district court lies only “from an order granting or denying... an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.” Thus, if the Government is correct, we lack jurisdiction over this direct appeal.
The Government’s argument on this question is two-pronged. First, noting that appellants have conceded that the case should be deemed one limited to the practices of the New York City Board of Education, the Government contends that appellants wish only to forbid specific local programs which they find objectionable and not to enjoin the operation of the broad range of programs under the statutory scheme. Only if the latter relief is sought, the Government argues, can a three-judge court properly be convened under 28 U. S. C. § 2282. We cannot accept the Government’s argument in the context of this case. It is true that the appellants’ complaint makes specific reference to the New York City Board of Education’s programs which are funded under the challenged statute, and we can assume that appellants’ proof at trial would focus on those New York City programs. However, we view these allegations of the complaint as imparting specificity and focus to the issues in the lawsuit and not as limiting the impact of the constitutional challenge made in this ease. The injunctive relief sought by appellants is not limited to programs in operation in New York City but extends to any program that would have the unconstitutional features alleged in the complaint. Congress enacted § 2282 “to prevent a single federal judge from being able to paralyze totally the operation of an entire regulatory scheme... by issuance of a broad injunctive order.” Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 154 (1963). If the District Court in this case were to rule for appellants on the merits of their constitutional attack on New York City’s federally funded programs, that decision would cast sufficient doubt on similar programs elsewhere as to cause confusion approaching paralysis to surround the challenged statute. Therefore, even if the injunction which might issue in this case were narrower than that sought by appellants, we are satisfied that the legislative policy underlying § 2282 was served by the convening of a three-judge court, despite appellants’ focus on New York City’s programs.
Secondly, the Government argues that a three-judge court should not have been convened because appellants question not the constitutionality of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 but its administration. The decision in Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1 (1965), is dis-positive on this issue. It is true that appellants’ complaint states a noneonstitutional ground for relief, namely, that appellees’ actions in approving the expenditure of federal funds for allegedly unconstitutional programs are in excess of their authority under the Act. However, the complaint also requests an alternative and constitutional ground for relief, namely, a declaration that, if appellees’ actions “are within the authority and intent of the Act, the Act is to that extent unconstitutional and void.” The Court noted in Zemel v. Rusk, supra, “[W]e have often held that a litigant need not abandon his nonconstitutional arguments in order to obtain a three-judge court.” 381 U. S., at 5-6. See also Florida Lime Growers v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73 (1960); Allen v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., 347 U. S. 535 (1954). The complaint in this case falls within that rule.
Thus, since the three-judge court was properly convened below, direct appeal to this Court is proper. We turn now to the standing question presented by this case.
II.
This Court first faced squarely the question whether a litigant asserting only his status as a taxpayer has standing to maintain a suit in a federal court in Frothingham v. Mellon, supra, and that decision must be the starting point for analysis in this case. The taxpayer in Frothingham attacked as unconstitutional the Maternity Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 224, which established a federal program of grants to those States which would undertake programs to reduce maternal and infant mortality. The taxpayer alleged that Congress, in enacting the challenged statute, had exceeded the powers delegated to it under Article I of the Constitution and had invaded the legislative province reserved to the several States by the Tenth Amendment. The taxpayer complained that the result of the allegedly unconstitutional enactment would be to increase her future federal tax liability and “thereby take her property without due process of law.” 262 U. S., at 486. The Court noted that a federal taxpayer’s “interest in the moneys of the Treasury... is comparatively minute and indeterminable” and that “the effect upon future taxation, of any payment out of the [Treasury’s] funds,... [is] remote, fluctuating and uncertain.” Id., at 487. As a result, the Court ruled that the taxpayer had failed to allege the type of “direct injury” necessary to confer standing. Id., at 488.
Although the barrier Frothingham erected against federal taxpayer suits has never been breached, the decision has been the source of some confusion and the object of considerable criticism. The confusion has developed as commentators have tried to determine whether Frothingham establishes a constitutional bar to taxpayer suits or whether the Court was simply imposing a rule of self-restraint which was not constitutionally compelled. The conflicting viewpoints are reflected in the arguments made to this Court by the parties in this case. The Government has pressed upon us the view that Frothingham announced a constitutional rule, compelled by the Article III limitations on federal court jurisdiction and grounded in considerations of the doctrine of separation of powers. Appellants, however, insist that Frothingham expressed no more than a policy of judicial self-restraint which can be disregarded when compelling reasons for assuming jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s suit exist. The opinion delivered in Frothingham can be read to support either position. The concluding sentence of the opinion states that, to take jurisdiction of the taxpayer’s suit, “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.” 262 U. S., at 489. Yet the concrete reasons given for denying standing to a federal taxpayer suggest that the Court’s holding rests on something less than a constitutional foundation. For example, the Court conceded that standing had previously been conferred on municipal taxpayers to sue in that capacity. However, the Court viewed the interest of a federal taxpayer in total federal tax revenues as “comparatively minute and indeterminable” when measured against a municipal taxpayer’s interest in a smaller city treasury. Id., at 486-487. This suggests that the petitioner in Frothingham was denied standing not because she was a taxpayer but because her tax bill was not large enough. In addition, the Court spoke of the “attendant inconveniences” of entertaining that taxpayer’s suit because it might open the door of federal courts to countless such suits “in respect of every other appropriation act and statute whose administration requires the outlay of public money, and whose validity may be questioned.” Id., at 487. Such a statement suggests pure policy considerations.
To the extent that Frothingham has been viewed as resting on policy considerations, it has been criticized as depending on assumptions not consistent with modern conditions. For example, some commentators have pointed out that a number of corporate taxpayers today have a federal tax liability running into hundreds of millions of dollars, and such taxpayers have a far greater monetary stake in the Federal Treasury than they do in any municipal treasury. To some degree, the fear expressed in Frothingham that allowing one taxpayer to sue would inundate the federal courts with countless similar suits has been mitigated by the ready availability of the devices of class actions and joinder under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted subsequent to the decision in Frothingham. Whatever the merits of the current debate over Frothingham, its very existence suggests that we should undertake a fresh examination of the limitations upon standing to sue in a federal court and the application of those limitations to taxpayer suits.
III.
The jurisdiction of federal courts is defined and limited by Article III of the Constitution. In terms relevant to the question for decision in this case, the judicial power of federal courts is constitutionally restricted to “cases” and “controversies.” As is so often the situation in constitutional adjudication, those two words have an iceberg quality, containing beneath their surface simplicity submerged complexities which go to the very heart of our constitutional form of government. Embodied in the words “cases” and “controversies” are two complementary but somewhat different limitations. In part those words limit the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process. And in part those words define the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power to assure that the federal courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government. Justiciability is the term of art employed to give expression to this dual limitation placed upon federal courts by the case-and-controversy doctrine.
Justiciability is itself a concept of uncertain meaning and scope. Its reach is illustrated by the various grounds upon which questions sought to be adjudicated in federal courts have been held not to be justiciable. Thus, no justiciable controversy is presented when the parties seek adjudication of only a political question, when the parties are asking for an advisory opinion, when the question sought to be adjudicated has been mooted by subsequent developments, and when there is no standing to maintain the action. Yet it remains true that “[jjusticiability is... not a legal concept with a fixed content or susceptible of scientific verification. Its utilization is the resultant of many subtle pressures....” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 508 (1961).
Part of the difficulty in giving precise meaning and form to the concept of justiciability stems from the uncertain historical antecedents of the case-and-controversy doctrine. For example, Mr. Justice Frankfurter twice suggested that historical meaning could be imparted to the concepts of justiciability and case and controversy by reference to the practices of the courts of Westminster when the Constitution was adopted. Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 150 (1951) (concurring opinion); Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 460 (1939) (separate opinion). However, the power of English judges to deliver advisory opinions was well established at the time the Constitution was drafted. 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 127-128 (1958). And it is quite clear that “the oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability is that the federal courts will not give advisory opinions.” C. Wright, Federal Courts 34 (1963). Thus, the implicit policies embodied in Article III, and not history alone, impose the rule against advisory opinions on federal courts. When the federal judicial power is invoked to pass upon the validity of actions by the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Government, the rule against advisory opinions implements the separation of powers prescribed by the Constitution and confines federal courts to the role assigned them by Article III. See Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346 (1911); 3 H. Johnston, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay 486-489 (1891) (correspondence between Secretary of State Jefferson and Chief Justice Jay). However, the rule against advisory opinions also recognizes that such suits often “are not pressed before the Court with that clear concreteness provided when a question emerges precisely framed and necessary for decision from a clash of adversary argument exploring every aspect of a multifaced situation embracing conflicting and demanding interests.” United States v. Fruehauj, 365 U. S. 146, 157 (1961). Consequently, the Article III prohibition against advisory opinions reflects the complementary constitutional considerations expressed by the justiciability doctrine: Federal judicial power is limited to those disputes which confine federal courts to a role consistent with a system of separated powers and which are traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.
Additional uncertainty exists in the doctrine of jus-ticiability because that doctrine has become a blend of constitutional requirements and policy considerations. And a policy limitation is “not always clearly distinguished from the constitutional limitation.” Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249, 255 (1953). For example, in his concurring opinion in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 345-348 (1936), Mr. Justice Brandéis listed seven rules developed by this Court “for its own governance” to avoid passing prematurely on constitutional questions. Because the rules operate in “cases confessedly within [the Court’s] jurisdiction,” id., at 346, they find their source in policy, rather than purely constitutional, considerations. However, several of the cases cited by Mr. Justice Brandéis in illustrating the rules of self-governance articulated purely constitutional grounds for decision. See, e. g., Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (1923); Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U. S. 126 (1922); Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339 (1892). The “many subtle pressures” which cause policy considerations to blend into the constitutional limitations of Article III make the justiciability doctrine one of uncertain and shifting contours.
It is in this context that the standing question presented by this case must be viewed and that the Government's argument on that question must be evaluated. As we understand it, the Government’s position is that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, and the deference owed by the federal judiciary to the other two branches of government within that scheme, present an absolute bar to taxpayer suits challenging the validity of federal spending programs. The Government views such suits as involving no more than the mere disagreement by the taxpayer “with the uses to which tax money is put.” According to the Government, the resolution of such disagreements is committed to other branches of the Federal Government and not to the judiciary. Consequently, the Government contends that, under no circumstances, should standing be conferred on federal taxpayers to challenge a federal taxing or spending program. An analysis of the function served by standing limitations compels a rejection of the Government’s position.
Standing is an aspect of justiciability and, as such, the problem of standing is surrounded by the same complexities and vagaries that inhere in justiciability. Standing has been called one of “the most amorphous [concepts] in the entire domain of public law.” Some of the complexities peculiar to standing problems result because standing “serves, on occasion, as a shorthand expression for all the various elements of justicia-bility.” In addition, there are at work in the standing doctrine the many subtle pressures which tend to cause policy considerations to blend into constitutional-limitations.
Despite the complexities and uncertainties, some meaningful form can be given to the jurisdictional limitations placed on federal court power by the concept of standing. The fundamental aspect of standing is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before a federal court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated. The “gist of the question of standing” is whether the party seeking relief has “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). In other words, when standing is placed in issue in a case, the question is whether the person whose standing is challenged is a proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable. Thus, a party may have standing in a particular case, but the federal court may nevertheless decline to pass on the merits of the case because, for example, it presents a political question. A proper party is demanded so that federal courts will not be asked to decide “ill-defined controversies over constitutional issues,” United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 90 (1947), or a case which is of “a hypothetical or abstract character,” Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 240 (1937). So stated, the standing requirement is closely related to, although more general than, the rule that federal courts will not entertain friendly suits, Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, supra, or those which are feigned or collusive in nature, United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 302 (1943); Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251 (1850).
When the emphasis in the standing problem is placed on whether the person invoking a federal court’s jurisdiction is a proper party to maintain the action, the weakness of the Government’s argument in this case becomes apparent. The question whether a particular person is a proper party to maintain the action does not, by its own force, raise separation of powers problems related to improper judicial interference in areas committed to other branches of the Federal Government. Such problems arise, if at all, only from the substantive issues the individual seeks to have adjudicated. Thus, in terms of Article III limitations on federal court jurisdiction, the question of standing is related only to whether the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution. It is for that reason that the emphasis in standing problems is on whether the party invoking federal court jurisdiction has “a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy,” Baker v. Carr, supra, at 204, and whether the dispute touches upon “the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.” Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, supra, at 240-241. A taxpayer may or may not have the requisite personal stake in the outcome, depending upon the circumstances of the particular case. Therefore, we find no absolute bar in Article III to suits by federal taxpayers challenging allegedly unconstitutional federal taxing and spending programs. There remains, however, the problem of determining the circumstances under which a federal taxpayer will be deemed to have the personal stake and interest that impart the necessary concrete adverseness to such litigation so that standing can be conferred on the taxpayer qua taxpayer consistent with the constitutional limitations of Article III.
IV.
The various rules of standing applied by federal courts have not been developed in the abstract. Rather, they have been fashioned with specific reference to the status asserted by the party whose standing is challenged and to the type of question he wishes to have adjudicated. We have noted that, in deciding the question of standing, it is not relevant that the substantive issues in the litigation might be non justiciable. However, our decisions establish that, in ruling on standing, it is both appropriate and necessary to look to the substantive issues for another purpose, namely, to determine whether there is a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated. For example, standing requirements will vary in First Amendment religion cases depending upon whether the party raises an Establishment Clause claim or a claim under the Free Exercise Clause. See McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 429-430 (1961). Such inquiries into the nexus between the status asserted by the litigant and the claim he presents are essential to assure that he is a proper and appropriate party to invoke federal judicial power. Thus, our point of reference in this case is the standing of individuals who assert only the status of federal taxpayers and who challenge the constitutionality of a federal spending program. Whether such individuals have standing to maintain that form of action turns on whether they can demonstrate the necessary stake as taxpayers in the outcome of the litigation to satisfy Article III requirements.
The nexus demanded of federal taxpayers has two aspects to it. 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. This requirement is consistent with the limitation imposed upon state-taxpayer standing in federal courts in Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429 (1952). 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. When both nexuses are established, the litigant will have shown a taxpayer’s stake in the outcome of the controversy and will be a proper and appropriate party to invoke a federal court’s jurisdiction.
The taxpayer-appellants in this case have satisfied both nexuses to support their claim of standing under the test we announce today. Their constitutional challenge is made to an exercise by Congress of its power under Art. I, § 8, to spend for the general welfare, and the challenged program involves a substantial expenditure of federal tax funds. In addition, appellants have alleged that the challenged expenditures violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Our history vividly illustrates that one of the specific evils feared by those who drafted the Establishment Clause and fought for its adoption was that the taxing and spending power would be used to favor one religion over another or to support religion in general. James Madison, who is generally recognized as the leading architect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, observed in his famous Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments that “the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever.” 2 Writings of James Madison 183, 186 (Hunt ed. 1901). The concern of Madison and his supporters was quite clearly that religious liberty ultimately would be the victim if government could employ its taxing and spending powers to aid one religion over another or to aid religion in general. The Establishment Clause was designed as a specific bulwark against such potential abuses of governmental power, and that clause of the First Amendment operates as a specific constitutional limitation upon the exercise by Congress of the taxing and spending power conferred by Art. I, § 8.
The allegations of the taxpayer in Frothingham v. Mellon, supra, were quite different from those made in this case, and the result in Frothingham is consistent with the test of taxpayer standing announced today. The taxpayer in Frothingham attacked a federal spending program and she, therefore, established the first nexus required. However, she lacked standing because her constitutional attack was not based on an allegation that Congress, in enacting the Maternity Act of 1921, had breached a specific limitation upon its taxing and spending power. The taxpayer in Frothingham alleged essentially that Congress, by enacting the challenged statute, had exceeded the general powers delegated to it by Art. I, § 8, and that Congress had thereby invaded the legislative province reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment. To be sure, Mrs. Frothingham made the additional allegation that her tax liability would be increased as a result of the allegedly unconstitutional enactment, and she framed that allegation in terms of a deprivation of property without due process of law. However, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not protect taxpayers against increases in tax liability, and the taxpayer in Frothingham failed to make any additional claim that the harm she alleged resulted from a breach by Congress of the specific constitutional limitations imposed upon an exercise of the taxing and spending power. In essence, Mrs. Frothing-ham was attempting to assert the States’ interest in their legislative prerogatives and not a federal taxpayer’s interest in being free of taxing and spending in contravention of specific constitutional limitations imposed upon Congress’ taxing and spending power.
We have noted that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does specifically limit the taxing and spending power conferred by Art. I, § 8. Whether the Constitution contains other specific limitations can be determined only in the context of future cases. However, whenever such specific limitations are found, we believe a taxpayer will have a clear stake as a taxpayer in assuring that they are not breached by Congress. Consequently, we hold that a taxpayer will have standing consistent with Article III to invoke federal judicial power when he alleges that congressional action under the taxing and spending clause is in derogation of those constitutional provisions which operate to restrict the exercise of the taxing and spending power. The taxpayer’s allegation in such cases would be that his tax money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional protections against such abuses of legislative. power. Such an injury is appropriate for judicial redress, and the taxpayer has established the necessary nexus between his status and the nature of the allegedly unconstitutional action to support his claim of standing to secure judicial review. Under such circumstances, we feel confident that the questions will be framed with the necessary specificity, that the issues will be contested with the necessary adverseness and that the litigation will be pursued with the necessary vigor to assure that the constitutional challenge will be made in a form traditionally thought to be capable of judicial resolution. We lack that confidence in cases such as Frothingham where a taxpayer seeks to employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government or the allocation of power in the Federal System.
While we express no view at all on the merits of appellants’ claims in this case, their complaint contains sufficient allegations under the criteria we have outlined to give them standing to invoke a federal court’s jurisdiction for an adjudication on the merits.
Reversed.
The complaint alleged that one of the appellants “has children regularly registered in and attending the elementary or secondary grades in the public schools of New York.” However, the District Court did not view that additional allegation as being relevant to the question of standing, and appellants have made no effort to justify their standing on that additional ground.
This issue was not raised in the court below, and the Government argued it for the first time in its brief in this Court. The Government claims the inappropriateness of convening a three-judge court became apparent only as the issues in the case have been clarified by appellants. Because the question now presented goes to our jurisdiction on direct appeal, the lateness of the claim is irrelevant to our consideration of it. United States v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 226, 229 (1938).
The Government also seems to argue that, if any administrative action is suspect, it is the action of state officials and not of ap-pellees. For example, the Government describes federal participation in the challenged programs as “remote.” Brief for Appellees 17. The premise for this argument is apparently that, under 20 U. S. C. § 241e, programs of local educational agencies require only the direct approval of state officials to be eligible for grants. However, appellees are given broad powers of supervision over state participation by 20 U. S. C. § 241f, and it is federal funds administered by appellees that finance the local programs. We cannot characterize such federal participation as “remote.”
An. additional requirement for the convening of a three-judge court is that the constitutional question presented be substantial. See Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713 (1962); Ex parte Poresky, 290 U. S. 30 (1933). The Government does not dispute the substantiality of the constitutional attack made by appellants on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. See Flast v. Gardner, 267 F. Supp. 351, 352 (1967).
In at least three cases prior to Frothingham, the Court accepted jurisdiction in taxpayer suits without passing directly on the standing question. Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U. S. 24, 31 (1907); Millard v. Roberts, 202 U. S. 429, 438 (1906); Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U. S. 291, 295 (1899).
The prevailing view of the commentators is that Frothingham announced only a nonconstitutional rule of self-restraint. See, e. g., Jaffe, Standing to Secure Judicial Review: Private Actions, 75 Harv. L. Rev. 255, 302-303 (1961); Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties Conference: Public Aid to Parochial Schools and Standing to Bring Suit, 12 Buffalo L. Rev. 35, 48-65 (1962); Davis, Standing to Challenge Governmental Action, 39 Minn. L. Rev. 353, 386-391 (1955). But see Hearings on S. 2097 before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 465, 467-468 (1966) (statement of Prof. William D. Yalente). The last-cited hearings contain the best collection of recent expression of views on this question.
“Although the Court in the latter part of the opinion used language suggesting that it did not find the elements of a justiciable controversy present in the ease, the case in its central aspect turns on application of the judicially formulated [¿. e., nonconstitutional] rules respecting standing.” Hearings on S. 2097, supra
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.
This case presents the question whether a person indicted for violating a federal statute has standing to challenge its validity on grounds that, by enacting it, Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution, thus intruding upon the sovereignty and authority of the States.
The indicted defendant, petitioner here, sought to argue the invalidity of the statute. She relied on the Tenth Amendment, and, by extension, on the premise that Congress exceeded its powers by enacting it in contravention of basic federalism principles. The statute, 18 U. S. C. § 229, was enacted to comply with a treaty; but petitioner contends that, at least in the present instance, the treaty cannot be the source of congressional power to regulate or prohibit her conduct.
The Court of Appeals held that because a State was not a party to the federal criminal proceeding, petitioner had no standing to challenge the statute as an infringement upon the powers reserved to the States. Having concluded that petitioner does have standing to challenge the federal statute on these grounds, this Court now reverses that determination. The merits of petitioner’s challenge to the statute’s validity are to be considered, in the first instance, by the Court of Appeals on remand and are not addressed in this opinion.
I
This case arises from a bitter personal dispute, leading to the criminal acts charged here. Petitioner Carol Anne Bond lived outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. After discovering that her close friend was pregnant and that the father was Bond’s husband, Bond sought revenge. Bond subjected the woman to a campaign of harassing telephone calls and letters, acts that resulted in a criminal conviction on a minor state charge. Bond persisted in her hostile acts, placing caustic substances on objects the woman was likely to touch, including her mailbox, car door handle, and front doorknob. Bond’s victim suffered a minor burn on her hand and contacted federal investigators, who identified Bond as the perpetrator.
Bond was indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for, among other offenses, two counts of violating §229. Section 229 forbids knowing possession or use of any chemical that “can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals” where not intended for a “peaceful purpose.” §§ 229(a); 229F(1); (7); (8). The statute was enacted as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998,112 Stat. 2681-856, 22 U. S. C. §6701 et seq.; 18 U. S. C. § 229 et seq. The Act implements provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, a treaty the United States ratified in 1997.
In the District Court, Bond moved to dismiss the §229 charges, contending the statute was beyond Congress’ constitutional authority to enact. The District Court denied the motion. Bond entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to appeal the ruling on the validity of the statute. She was sentenced to six years in prison.
In the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Bond renewed her challenge to the statute, citing, among other authorities, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Court of Appeals asked for supplemental briefs on the question whether Bond had standing to raise the Tenth Amendment as a ground for invalidating a federal statute in the absence of a State’s participation in the proceedings.
In its supplemental brief in the Court of Appeals, the Government took the position that Bond did not have standing. The Court of Appeals agreed. 581 F. 3d 128 (2009).
When Bond sought certiorari, the Government advised this Court that it had changed its position and that, in its view, Bond does have standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 229 on Tenth Amendment grounds. See Brief for United States (filed July 9,2010). The Court granted certio-rari, 562 U. S. 960 (2010), and appointed an amicus curiae to defend the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Stephen McAllister, a member of the bar of this Court, filed an ami-cus brief and presented an oral argument that have been of considerable assistance to the Court.
II
To conclude that petitioner lacks standing to challenge a federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States, the Court of Appeals relied on a single sentence from this Court’s opinion in Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U. S. 118 (1939). See 581 F. 3d, at 136-138. As the Court of Appeals noted here, other Courts of Appeals have taken a similar approach. E. g., United States v. Hacker, 565 F. 3d 522, 525-527 (CA8 2009); Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp., 552 F. 3d 965, 971-972 (CA9 2009); Brooklyn Legal Servs. Corp. v. Legal Servs. Corp., 462 F. 3d 219, 234-235 (CA2 2006); Medeiros v. Vincent, 431 F. 3d 25, 33-36 (CA1 2005); United States v. Parker, 362 F. 3d 1279, 1284-1285 (CA10 2004). That approach is in tension, if not conflict, with decisions of some other Courts of Appeals. See Gillesyie v. Indianayolis, 185 F. 3d 693, 700-704 (CA7 1999); Metrolina Family Practice Group, P. A. v. Sullivan, 767 F. Supp. 1314 (WDNC 1989), aff’d, 929 F. 2d 693 (CA4 1991); Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. United States Dept. of Energy, 666 F. 2d 1359, 1368, n. 16 (CA11 1982); see also United States v. Johnson, 632 F. 3d 912, 918-921 (CA5 2011) (reserving issue); Lomont v. O’Neill, 285 F. 3d 9, 14, n. 5 (CADC 2002) (same); Nance v. EPA, 645 F. 2d 701, 716 (CA9 1981) (same).
Tennessee Electric is the appropriate place to begin. It should be clear that Tennessee Electric does not cast doubt on Bond’s standing for purposes of Article Ill’s case-or-controversy requirement. This Court long ago disapproved of the case as authoritative respecting Article III limitations. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 152-154 (1970). In the instant case, moreover, it is apparent — and in fact conceded not only by the Government but also by amicus — that Article III poses no barrier. One who seeks to initiate or continue proceedings in federal court must demonstrate, among other requirements, both standing to obtain the relief requested, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560-561 (1992), and, in addition, an “ongoing interest in the dispute” on the part of the opposing party that is sufficient to establish “concrete adverseness.” Camreta v. Greene, 563 U. S. 692, 701 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). When those conditions are met, Article III does not restrict the opposing party’s ability to object to relief being sought at its expense. The requirement of Article III standing thus had no bearing upon Bond’s capacity to assert defenses in the District Court. As for Bond’s standing to appeal, it is clear Article Ill’s prerequisites are met. Bond’s challenge to her conviction and sentence “satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement, because the incarceration . . . constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U. S. 1, 7 (1998).
To resolve the case, this Court must consider next whether Tennessee Electric is irrelevant with respect to prudential rules of standing as well. The question in Tennessee Electric was whether a group of private power companies could bring suit to enjoin the federally chartered Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) from producing and selling electric power. It was conceded that competition from the TVA would “inflict substantial damage” upon the power companies. 306 U. S., at 137. According to the companies, the federal statute authorizing the creation and operation of the TVA was invalid because, among other reasons, it exceeded the powers of the National Government in violation of the Tenth Amendment.
Declining to reach the merits, the Court concluded the power companies’ lawsuit should be dismissed. It explained that the suit was premised on the principle that a person threatened with injury by conduct “which, but for statutory authority for its performance, would be a violation of his legal rights” could request an injunction from a court of equity and by this means test the validity of the statute. Ibid. But the Court concluded that the TVA, even if it were shorn of congressional statutory authority, had done nothing more than compete as a supplier of electricity. Id., at 138. And since state law did not purport to grant any of the power companies a monopoly, there was no basis for a suit in which the TVA might be forced to invoke its congressional authorization. Id., at 138-143.
In that part of its analysis, and throughout its opinion, the Tennessee Electric Court stated that the problem with the power companies’ suit was a lack of “standing” or a “cause of action.” It treated those concepts as interchangeable. E.g., id., at 139 (no “standing” because no “legal cause of complaint”); id., at 139-140 (no “standing” without “a cause of action or a right to sue”); id., at 142 (“no standing,” no “right to sue for an injunction”); id., at 144 (no Tenth Amendment “standing” and no Ninth Amendment “cause of action” for same reasons); see also Bellia, Article III and the Cause of Action, 89 Iowa L. Rev. 777, 826-830 (2004). ■
Even though decisions since Tennessee Electric have been careful to use the terms “cause of action” and “standing” with more precision, the distinct concepts can be difficult to keep separate. If, for instance, the person alleging injury is remote from the zone of interests a statute protects, whether there is a legal injury at all and whether the particular litigant is one who may assert it can involve similar inquiries. Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 96-97, and n. 2 (1998) (noting that statutory standing and the existence of a cause of action are “closely connected” and “sometimes identical” questions).
Still, the question whether a plaintiff states a claim for relief “goes to the merits” in the typical case, not the justicia-bility of a dispute, id,., at 92, and conflation of the two concepts can cause confusion. This is the case with the Tenth Amendment discussion in Tennessee Electric. The Tennessee Electric Court noted that “[a] distinct ground upon which standing to maintain the suit is said to rest is that the acts of the Authority cannot be upheld without permitting federal regulation of purely local matters reserved to the states or the people by the Tenth Amendment.” 306 U. S., at 143. The Court rejected the argument, however, concluding the Tenth Amendment did not give one business a right to keep another from competing. Id., at 144 (“The sale of government property in competition with others is not a violation of the Tenth Amendment”).
The Court then added the sentence upon which the Court of Appeals relied in the instant case, the sentence that has been the source of disagreement among Courts of Appeals:
“As we have seen there is no objection to the Authority’s operations by the states, and, if this were not so, the appellants, absent the states or their officers, have no standing in this suit to raise any question under the amendment.” Ibid.
The quoted statement was in the context of a decision which held that business competitors had no legal injury, and the word standing can be interpreted in that sense. On this reading, the statement reiterated an earlier point. The statement explained that the States in which the TVA operated exempted it from their public utilities regulations; and that even if the States had not done so and the TVA had violated those regulations, the regulations were for the States to enforce. See id., at 141-142. They conferred no private right of action on business competitors. This reading is consistent with the Tennessee Electric Court’s use of the term “standing” elsewhere in its opinion to refer to the existence of a state-law cause of action. A holding that state utilities regulations did not supply a cause of action against a competitor is of no relevance to the instant case, and we need not explore all of its implications. See also Data Processing, 397 U. S., at 157-158 (cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 702, permits suit based on injury from business competition).
Yet the quoted statement also could be read to refer to standing in the sense of whether the power companies were the proper litigants to raise a Tenth Amendment issue. To the extent that might have been the intention of the Tennessee Electric Court, it is, for reasons to be explained, inconsistent with our later precedents. The sentence from Tennessee Electric that we have quoted and discussed should be deemed neither controlling nor instructive on the issue of standing as that term is now defined and applied.
HH h-H
Amicus contends that federal courts should not adjudicate a claim like Bond’s because of the prudential rule that a party “generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 499, 500 (1975); see also Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U. S. 125, 129-130 (2004). In amicus’ view, to argue that the National Government has interfered with state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment is to assert the legal rights and interests of States and States alone. That, however, is not so. As explained below, Bond seeks to vindicate her own constitutional interests. The individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State.
A
The federal system rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that “freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999). The Framers concluded that allocation of powers between the National Government and the States enhances freedom, first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the people, from whom all governmental powers are derived.
Federalism has more than one dynamic. It is true that the federal structure serves to grant and delimit the prerogatives and responsibilities of the States and the National Government vis-a-vis one another. The allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States. The federal balance is, in part, an end in itself, to ensure that States function as political entities in their own right.
But that is not its exclusive sphere of operation. Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. “State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: ‘Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.’” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181 (1992) (quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 759 (1991) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)).
Some of these liberties are of a political character. The federal structure allows local policies “more sensitive to the diverse needs of a heterogeneous society,” permits “innovation and experimentation,” enables greater citizen “involvement in democratic processes,” and makes government “more responsive by putting the Slates in competition for a mobile citizenry.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 458 (1991). Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power. True, of course, these objects cannot be vindicated by the Judiciary in the absence of a proper case or controversy; but the individual liberty secured by federalism is not simply derivative of the rights of the States.
Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. See ibid. By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake.
The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism. See New York, supra, at 181. An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the National Government and the States when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to vindicate.
The recognition of an injured person's standing to object to a violation of a constitutional principle that allocates power within government is illustrated, in an analogous context, by cases in which individuals sustain discrete, justiciable injury from actions that transgress separation-of-powers limitations. Separation-of-powers principles are intended, in part, to protect each branch of government from incursion by the others. Yet the dynamic between and among the branches is not the only object of the Constitution’s concern. The structural principles secured by the separation of powers protect the individual as well.
In the precedents of this Court, the claims of individuals— not of Government departments — have been the principal source of judicial decisions concerning separation of powers and checks and balances. For example, the requirement that a bill enacted by Congress be presented to the President for signature before it can become law gives the President a check over Congress’ exercise of legislative power. See U. S. Const., Art. I, § 7. Yet individuals, too, are protected by the operations of separation of. powers and checks and balances; and they are not disabled from relying on those principles in otherwise justiciable cases and controversies. In INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919 (1983), it was an individual who successfully challenged the so-called legislative veto — a procedure that Congress used in an attempt to invalidate an executive determination without presenting the measure to the President. The procedure diminished the role of the Executive, but the challenger sought to protect not the prerogatives of the Presidency as such but rather his own right to avoid deportation under an invalid order. Chadha’s challenge was sustained. A cardinal principle of separation of powers was vindicated at the insistence of an individual, indeed one who was not a citizen of the United States but who still was a person whose liberty was at risk.
Chadha is not unique in this respect. Compare Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U. S. 417, 433-436 (1998) (injured parties have standing to challenge Presidential line-item veto), with Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 829-830 (1997) (Congress Members do not); see also, e. g., Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477 (2010); Plant v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211 (1995); Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714 (1986); Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50 (1982); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579 (1952); A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495 (1935). If the constitutional structure of our Government that protects individual liberty is compromised, individuals who suffer otherwise justiciable injury may object.
Just as it is appropriate for an individual, in a proper case, to invoke separation of powers or chocks-and-balancos constraints, so too may a litigant, in a proper case, challenge a law as enacted in contravention of constitutional principles of federalism. That claim need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a State’s constitutional interests, even if a State’s constitutional interests are also implicated.
B
In this regard it is necessary to address a misconception in the position the Government now urges this Court to adopt. As noted, the Government agrees that petitioner has standing to challenge the validity of §229. That concession, however, depends on describing petitioner’s claim in a narrow way. The Government contends petitioner asserts only that Congress could not enact the challenged statute under its enumerated powers. Were she to argue, the Government insists, that the statute “interferes with a specific aspect of state sovereignty,” either instead of or in addition to her enumerated powers contention, the Court should deny her standing. Brief for United States 18 (filed Dec. 3, 2010).
The premise that petitioner does or should avoid making an “interference-with-sovereignty” argument is flawed. Id., at 33. Here she asserts, for example, that the conduct with which she is charged is “local in nature” and “should be left to local authorities to prosecute” and that congressional regulation of that conduct “signals a massive and unjustifiable expansion of federal law enforcement into state-regulated domain.” Record in No. 2:07-cr-00528-JG-l (ED Pa.), Doc. 27, pp. 6, 19. The public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, enacted in its capacity as sovereign, has been displaced by that of the National Government. The law to which petitioner is subject, the prosecution she seeks to counter, and the punishment she must face might not have come about if the matter were left for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to decide. Indeed, petitioner argues that under Pennsylvania law the expected maximum term of imprisonment she could have received for the same conduct was barely more than a third of her federal sentence.
There is no basis to support the Government's proposed distinction between different federalism arguments for purposes of prudential standing rules. The principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment, both are expressed by it. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government, see New York, 505 U. S., at 155-159, and action that exceeds the National Government’s enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 564 (1995). The unconstitutional action can cause concomitant injury to persons in individual cases.
An individual who challenges federal action on these grounds is, of course, subject to the Article III requirements, as well as prudential rules, applicable to all litigants and claims. Individuals have “no standing to complain simply that their Government is violating the law.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 755 (1984). It is not enough that a litigant “suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.” Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923) (decided with Massachusetts v. Mellon). If, in connection with the claim being asserted, a litigant who commences suit fails to show actual or imminent harm that is concrete and particular, fairly traceable to the conduct complained of, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, the Federal Judiciary cannot hear the claim. Lujan, 504 U. S., at 560-561. These requirements must be satisfied before an individual may assert a constitutional claim; and in some instances, the result may be that a State is the only entity capable of demonstrating the requisite injury.
In this case, however, where the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy, she is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of .the federal structure of our Government. Whether the Tenth Amendment is regarded as simply a “ ‘truism/ ” New York, supra, at 156 (quoting United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 124 (1941)), or whether it has independent force of its own, the result here is the same.
There is no basis in precedent or principle to deny petitioner’s standing to raise her claims. The ultimate issue of the statute’s validity turns in part on whether the law can be deemed “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the President’s Article II, § 2, Treaty Power, see U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 18. This Court expresses no view on the merits of that argument. It can be addressed by the Court of Appeals on remand.
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.
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue is the constitutionality of two statutory provisions enacted to protect minors from “indecent” and “patently offensive” communications on the Internet. Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge District Court that the statute abridges “the freedom of speech” protected by the First Amendment.
b — <
The District Court made extensive findings of fact, most of which were based on a detailed stipulation prepared by the parties. See 929 F. Supp. 824, 830-849 (ED Pa. 1996). The findings describe the character and the dimensions of the Internet, the availability of sexually explicit material in that medium, and the problems confronting age verification for recipients of Internet communications. Because those findings provide the underpinnings for the legal issues, we begin with a summary of the undisputed facts.
The Internet
The Internet is an international network of interconnected computers. It is the outgrowth of what began in 1969 as a military program called “ARPANET,” which was designed to enable computers operated by the military, defense contractors, and universities conducting defense-related research to communicate with one another by redundant channels even if some portions of the network were damaged in a war. While the ARPANET no longer exists, it provided an example for the development of a number of civilian networks that, eventually linking with each other, now enable tens of millions of people to communicate with one another and to access vast amounts of information from around the world. The Internet is “a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication.”
The Internet has experienced “extraordinary growth.” The number of “host” computers — those that store information and relay communications — increased from about 300 in 1981 to approximately 9,400,000 by the time of the trial in 1996. Roughly 60% of these hosts are located in the United States. About 40 million people used the Internet at the time of trial, a number that is expected to mushroom to 200 million by 1999.
Individuals can obtain access to the Internet from many different sources, generally hosts themselves or entities with a host affiliation. Most colleges and universities provide access for their students and faculty; many corporations provide their employees with access through an office network; many communities and local libraries provide free access; and an increasing number of storefront “computer coffee shops” provide access for a small hourly fee. Several major national “online services” such as America Online, CompuServe, the Microsoft Network, and Prodigy offer access to their own extensive proprietary networks as well as a link to the much larger resources of the Internet. These commercial online services had almost 12 million individual subscribers at the time of trial.
Anyone with access to the Internet may take advantage of a wide variety of communication and information retrieval methods. These methods are constantly evolving and difficult to categorize precisely. But, as presently constituted, those most relevant to this case are electronic mail (e-mail), automatic mailing list services (“mail exploders,” sometimes referred to as “listservs”), “newsgroups,” “chat rooms,” and the “World Wide Web.” All of these methods can be used to transmit text; most can transmit sound, pictures, and moving video images. Taken together, these tools constitute a unique medium — known to its users as “cyberspace” — located in no particular geographical location but available to anyone, anywhere in the world, with access to the Internet.
E-mail enables an individual to send an electronic message — generally akin to a note or letter — to another individual or to a group of addressees. The message is generally stored electronically, sometimes waiting for the recipient to check her “mailbox” and sometimes making its receipt known through some type of prompt. A mail exploder is a sort of e-mail group. Subscribers can send messages to a common e-mail address, which then forwards the message to the group’s other subscribers. Newsgroups also serve groups of regular participants, but these postings may be read by others as well. There are thousands of such groups, each serving to foster an exchange of information or opinion on a particular topic running the gamut from, say, the music of Wagner to Balkan politics to AIDS prevention to the Chicago Bulls. About 100,000 new messages are posted every day. In most newsgroups, postings are automatically purged at regular intervals. In addition to posting a message that can be read later, two or more individuals wishing to communicate more immediately can enter a chat room to engage in real-time dialogue — in other words, by typing messages to one another that appear almost immediately on the others’ computer screens. The District Court found that at any given time “tens of thousands of users are engaging in conversations on a huge range of subjects.” It is “no exaggeration to conclude that the content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought.”
The best known category of communication over the Internet is the World Wide Web, which allows users to search for and retrieve information stored in remote computers, as well as, in some cases, to communicate back to designated sites. In concrete terms, the Web consists of a vast number of documents stored in different computers all over the world. Some of these documents are simply files containing information. However, more elaborate documents, commonly known as Web “pages,” are also prevalent. Each has its own address — “rather like a telephone number.” Web pages frequently contain information and sometimes allow the viewer to communicate with the page’s (or “site’s”) author. They generally also contain “links” to other documents created by that site’s author or to other (generally) related sites. Typically, the links are either blue or underlined text — sometimes images.
Navigating the Web is relatively straightforward. A user may either type the address of a known page or enter one or more keywords into a commercial “search engine” in an effort to locate sites on a subject of interest. A particular Web page may contain the information sought by the “surfer,” or, through its links, it may be an avenue to other documents located anywhere on the Internet. Users generally explore a given Web page, or move to another, by clicking a computer “mouse” on one of the page’s icons or links. Access to most Web pages is freely available, but some allow access only to those who have purchased the right from a commercial provider. The Web is thus comparable, from the readers’ viewpoint, to both a vast library including millions of readily available and indexed publications and a sprawling mall offering goods and services.
From the publishers’ point of view, it constitutes a vast platform from which to address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers. Any person or organization with a computer connected to the Internet can “publish” information. Publishers include government agencies, educational institutions, commercial entities, advocacy groups, and individuals. Publishers may either make their material available to the entire pool of Internet users, or confine access to a selected group, such as those willing to pay for the privilege. “No single organization controls any membership in the Web, nor is there any single centralized point from which individual Web sites or services can be blocked from the Web.”
Sexually Explicit Material
Sexually explicit material on the Internet includes text, pictures, and chat and “extends from the modestly titillating to the hardest-core.” These files are created, named, and posted in the same manner as material that is not sexually explicit, and may be accessed either deliberately or unintentionally during the course of an imprecise search. “Once a provider posts its content on the Internet, it cannot prevent that content from entering any community.” Thus, for example,
“when the UCR/California Museum of Photography posts to its Web site nudes by Edward Weston and Robert Mapplethorpe to announce that its new exhibit will travel to Baltimore and New York City, those images are available not only in Los Angeles, Baltimore, and New York City, but also in Cincinnati, Mobile, or Beijing — wherever Internet users live. Similarly, the safer sex instructions that Critical Path posts to its Web site, written in street language so that the teenage receiver can understand them, are available not just in Philadelphia, but also in Provo and Prague.”
Some of the communications over the Internet that originate in foreign countries are also sexually explicit.
Though such material is widely available, users seldom encounter such content accidentally. “A document’s title or a description of the document will usually appear before the document itself... and in many cases the user will receive detailed information about a site’s content before he or she need take the step to access the document. Almost all sexually explicit images are preceded by warnings as to the content.” For that reason, the “odds are slim” that a user would enter a sexually explicit site by accident. Unlike communications received by radio or television, “the receipt of information on the Internet requires a series of affirmative steps more deliberate and directed than merely turning a dial. A child requires some sophistication’ and some ability to read to retrieve material and thereby to use the Internet unattended.”
Systems have been developed to help parents control the material that may be available on a home computer with Internet access. A system may either limit a computer’s access to an approved list of sources that have been identified as containing no adult material, it may block designated inappropriate sites, or it may attempt to block messages containing identifiable objectionable features. “Although parental control software currently can screen for certain suggestive words or for known sexually explicit sites, it cannot now screen for sexually explicit images.” Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that “a reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent their children from accessing sexually explicit and other material which parents may believe is inappropriate for their children will soon be widely available.”
Age Verification
The problem of age verification differs for different uses of the Internet. The District Court categorically determined that there “is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is accessing material through e-mail, mail exploders, newsgroups or chat rooms.” The Government offered no evidence that there was a reliable way to screen recipients and participants in such forums for age. Moreover, even if it were technologically feasible to block minors’ access to newsgroups and chat rooms containing discussions of art, politics, or other subjects that potentially elicit “indecent” or “patently offensive” contributions, it would not be possible to block their access to that material and “still allow them access to the remaining content, even if the overwhelming majority of that content was not indecent.”
Technology exists by which an operator of a Web site may condition access on the verification of requested information such as a credit card number or an adult password. Credit card verification is only feasible, however, either in connection with a commercial transaction in which the card is used, or by payment to a verification agency. Using credit card possession as a surrogate for proof of age would impose costs on noncommercial Web sites that would require many of them to shut down. For that reason, at the time of the trial, credit card verification was “effectively unavailable to a substantial number of Internet content providers.” 929 F. Supp., at 846 (finding 102). Moreover, the imposition of such a requirement “would completely bar adults who do not have a credit card and lack the resources to obtain one from accessing any blocked material.”
Commercial pornographic sites that charge their users for access have assigned them passwords as a method of age verification. The record does not contain any evidence concerning the reliability of these technologies. Even if passwords are effective for commercial purveyors of indecent material, the District Court found that an adult password requirement would impose significant burdens on noncommercial sites, both because they would discourage users from accessing their sites and because the cost of creating and maintaining such screening systems would be “beyond their reach.”
In sum, the District Court found:
“Even if credit card verification or adult password verification were implemented, the Government presented no testimony as to how such systems could ensure that the user of the password or credit card is in fact over 18. The burdens imposed by credit card verification and adult password verification systems make them effectively unavailable to a substantial number of Internet content providers.” Ibid. (finding 107).
II
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, was an unusually important legislative enactment. As stated on the first of its 103 pages, its primary purpose was to reduce regulation and encourage “the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.” The major components of the statute have nothing to do with the Internet; they were designed to promote competition in the local telephone service market, the multichannel video market, and the market for over-the-air broadcasting. The Act includes seven Titles, six of which are the product of extensive committee hearings and the subject of discussion in Reports prepared by Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. By contrast, Title V — known as the “Communications Decency Act of 1996” (CDA) — contains provisions that were either added in executive committee after the hearings were concluded or as amendments offered during floor debate on the legislation. An amendment offered in the Senate was the source of the two statutory provisions challenged in this case. They are informally described as the “indecent transmission” provision and the “patently offensive display” provision.
The first, 47 U. S. C. § 223(a) (1994 ed., Supp. II), prohibits the knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages to any recipient under 18 years of age. It provides in pertinent part:
“(a) Whoever—
“(1) in interstate or foreign communications—
“(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
“(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
“(ii) initiates the transmission of,
“any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
“(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,
“shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
The second provision, § 223(d), prohibits the knowing sending or displaying of patently offensive messages in a manner that is available to a person under 18 years of age. It provides:
“(d) Whoever—
“(1) in interstate or foreign communications knowingly—
“(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or “(B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, “any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the communication; or
“(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person’s control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,
“shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
The breadth of these prohibitions is qualified by two affirmative defenses. See § 223(e)(5). One covers those who take “good faith, reasonable, effective, and appropriate actions” to restrict access by minors to the prohibited communications. § 223(e)(5)(A). The other covers those who restrict access to covered material by requiring certain designated forms of age proof, such as a verified credit card or an adult identification number or code. § 223(e)(5)(B).
I — I HH
On February 8, 1996, immediately after the President signed the statute, 20 plaintiffs filed suit against the Attorney General of the United States and the Department of Justice challenging the constitutionality of §§ 223(a)(1) and 223(d). A week later, based on his conclusion that the term “indecent” was too vague to provide the basis for a criminal prosecution, District Judge Buckwalter entered a temporary restraining order against enforcement of § 223(a)(1)(B)(ii) insofar as it applies to indecent communications. A second suit was then filed by 27 additional plaintiffs, the two cases were consolidated, and a three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to § 561 of the CDA. After an evidentiary hearing, that court entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of both of the challenged provisions. Each of the three judges wrote a separate opinion, but their judgment was unanimous.
Chief Judge Sloviter doubted the strength of the Government’s interest in regulating “the vast range of online material covered or potentially covered by the CDA,” but acknowledged that the interest was “compelling” with respect to some of that material. 929 F. Supp.,' at 853. She concluded, nonetheless, that the statute “sweeps more broadly than necessary and thereby chills the expression of adults” and that the terms “patently offensive” and “indecent” were “inherently vague.” Id., at 854. She also determined that the affirmative defenses were not “technologically or economically feasible for most providers,” specifically considering and rejecting an argument that providers could avoid liability by “tagging” their material in a manner that would allow potential readers to screen out unwanted transmissions. Id., at 856. Chief Judge Sloviter also rejected the Government’s suggestion that the scope of the statute could be narrowed by construing it to apply only to commercial pornographers. Id., at 854-855.
Judge Buckwalter concluded that the word “indecent” in § 223(a)(1)(B) and the terms “patently offensive” and “in context” in § 223(d)(1) were so vague that criminal enforcement of either section would violate the “fundamental constitutional principle” of “simple fairness,” id., at 861, and the specific protections of the First and Fifth Amendments, id., at 858. He found no statutory basis for the Government’s argument that the challenged provisions would be applied only to “pornographic” materials, noting that, unlike obscenity, “indecency has not been defined to exclude works of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” Id., at 863. Moreover, the Government’s claim that the work must be considered patently offensive “in context” was itself vague because the relevant context might “refer to, among other things, the nature of the communication as a whole, the time of day it was conveyed, the medium used, the identity of the speaker, or whether or not it is accompanied by appropriate warnings.” Id., at 864. He believed that the unique nature of the Internet aggravated the vagueness of the statute. Id., at 865, n. 9.
Judge Dalzell’s review of “the special attributes of Internet communication” disclosed by the evidence convinced him that the First Amendment denies Congress the power to regulate the content of protected speech on the Internet. Id., at 867. His opinion explained at length why he believed the CDA would abridge significant protected speech, particularly by noncommercial speakers, while “[p]erversely, commercial pornographers would remain relatively unaffected.” Id., at 879. He construed our cases as requiring a “medium-specific” approach to the analysis of the regulation of mass communication, id., at 873, and concluded that the Internet — as “the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed,” id., at 883 — is entitled to “the highest protection from governmental intrusion,” ibid.
The judgment of the District Court enjoins the Government from enforcing the prohibitions in § 223(a)(1)(B) insofar as they relate to “indecent” communications, but expressly preserves the Government’s right to investigate and prosecute the obscenity or child pornography activities prohibited therein. The injunction against enforcement of §§ 223(d)(1) and (2) is unqualified because those provisions contain no separate reference to obscenity or child pornography.
The Government appealed under the CDA’s special review provisions, § 561, 110 Stat. 142-143, and we noted probable jurisdiction, see 519 U. S. 1025 (1996). In its appeal, the Government argues that the District Court erred in holding that the CDA violated both the First Amendment because it is overbroad and the Fifth Amendment because it is vague. While we discuss the vagueness of the CDA because of its relevance to the First Amendment overbreadth inquiry, we conclude that the judgment should be affirmed without reaching the Fifth Amendment issue. We begin our analysis by reviewing the principal authorities on which the Government relies. Then, after describing the overbreadth of the CDA, we consider the Government’s specific contentions, including its submission that we save portions of the statute either by severance or by fashioning judicial limitations on the scope of its coverage.
IV
In arguing for reversal, the Government contends that the CDA is plainly constitutional under three of our prior decisions: (1) Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968); (2) FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978); and (3) Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41 (1986). A close look at these cases, however, raises — rather than relieves— doubts concerning the constitutionality of the CDA.
In Ginsberg, we upheld the constitutionality of a New York statute that prohibited selling to minors under 17 years of age material that was considered obscene as to them even if not obscene as to adults. We rejected the defendant’s broad submission that “the scope of the constitutional freedom of expression secured to a citizen to read or see material concerned with sex cannot be made to depend on whether the citizen is an adult or a minor.” 390 U. S., at 636. In rejecting that contention, we relied not only on the State’s independent interest in the well-being of its youth, but also on our consistent recognition of the principle that “the parents’ claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society.”
In four important respects, the statute upheld in Ginsberg was narrower than the CDA. First, we noted in Ginsberg that “the prohibition against sales to minors does not bar parents who so desire from purchasing the magazines for their children.” Id., at 639. Under the CDA, by contrast, neither the parents’ consent — nor even their participation— in the communication would avoid the application of the statute. Second, the New York statute applied only to commercial transactions, id., at 647, whereas the CDA contains no such limitation. Third, the New York statute cabined its definition of material that is harmful to minors with the requirement that it be “utterly without redeeming social importance for minors.” Id., at 646. The CDA fails to provide us with any definition of the term “indecent” as used in § 223(a)(1) and, importantly, omits any requirement that the “patently offensive” material covered by § 223(d) lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Fourth, the New York statute defined a minor as a person under the age of 17, whereas the CDA, in applying to all those under 18 years, includes an additional year of those nearest majority.
In Pacifica, we upheld a declaratory order of the Federal Communications Commission, holding that the broadcast of a recording of a 12-minute monologue entitled “Filthy Words” that had previously been delivered to a live audience “could have been the subject of administrative sanctions.” 438 U. S., at 730 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Commission had found that the repetitive use of certain words referring to excretory or sexual activities or organs “in an afternoon broadcast when children are in the audience was patently offensive” and concluded that the monologue was indecent “as broadcast.” Id., at 735. The respondent did not quarrel with the finding that the afternoon broadcast was patently offensive, but contended that it was not “indecent” within the meaning of the relevant statutes because it contained no prurient appeal. After rejecting respondent’s statutory arguments, we confronted its two constitutional arguments: (1) that the Commission’s construction of its authority to ban indecent speech was so broad that its order had to be set aside even if the broadcast at issue was unprotected; and (2) that since the recording was not obscene, the First Amendment forbade any abridgment of the right to broadcast it on the radio.
In the portion of the lead opinion not joined by Justices Powell and Blackmun, the plurality stated that the First Amendment does not prohibit all governmental regulation that depends on the content of speech. Id., at 742-743. Accordingly, the availability of constitutional protection for a vulgar and offensive monologue that was not obscene depended on the context of the broadcast. Id., at 744-748. Relying on the premise that “of all forms of communication” broadcasting had received the most limited First Amendment protection, id., at 748-749, the Court concluded that the ease with which children may obtain access to broadcasts, “coupled with the concerns recognized in Ginsberg,” justified special treatment of indecent broadcasting. Id., at 749-750.
As with the New York statute at issue in Ginsberg, there are significant differences between the order upheld in Pa-cifica and the CDA. First, the order in Pacifica, issued by an agency that had been regulating radio stations for decades, targeted a specific broadcast that represented a rather dramatic departure from traditional program content in order to designate when — rather than whether — it would be permissible to air such a program in that particular medium. The CDA’s broad categorical prohibitions are not limited to particular times and are not dependent on any evaluation by an agency familiar with the unique characteristics of the Internet. Second, unlike the CDA, the Commission’s declaratory order was not punitive; we expressly refused to decide whether the indecent broadcast “would justify a criminal prosecution.” 438 U. S., at 750. Finally, the Commission’s order applied to a medium which as a matter of history had “received the most limited First Amendment protection,” id., at 748, in large part because warnings could not adequately protect the listener from unexpected program content. The Internet, however, has no comparable history. Moreover, the District Court found that the risk of encountering indecent material by accident is remote because a series of affirmative steps is required to access specific material.
In Renton, we upheld a zoning ordinance that kept adult movie theaters out of residential neighborhoods. The ordinance was aimed, not at the content of the films shown in the theaters, but rather at the “secondary effects” — such as crime and deteriorating property values — that these theaters fostered: “Tt is th[e] secondary effect which these zoning ordinances attempt to avoid, not the dissemination of “offensive” speech.’” 475 U. S., at 49 (quoting Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50, 71, n. 34 (1976)). According to the Government, the CDA is constitutional because it constitutes a sort of “cyberzoning” on the Internet. But the CDA applies broadly to the entire universe of cyberspace. And the purpose of the CDA is to protect children from the primary effects of “indecent” and “patently offensive” speech, rather than any “secondary” effect of such speech. Thus, the CDA is a content-based blanket restriction on speech, and, as such, cannot be “properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner regulation.” 475 U. S., at 46. See also Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 812, 321 (1988) (“Regulations that focus on the direct impact of speech on its audience” are not properly analyzed under Renton); Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U. S. 123, 134 (1992) (“Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation”).
These precedents, then, surely do not require us to uphold the CDA and are fully consistent with the application of the most stringent review of its provisions.
V
In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546, 557 (1975), we observed that “[e]ach medium of expression... may present its own problems.” Thus, some of our cases have recognized special justifications for regulation of the broadcast media that are not applicable to other speakers, see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978). In these cases, the Court relied on the history of extensive Government regulation of the broadcast medium, see, e. g., Red Lion, 395 U. S., at 399-400; the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, see, e. g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 637-638 (1994); and its “invasive” nature, see Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115, 128 (1989).
Those factors are not present in cyberspace. Neither before nor after the enactment of the CDA have the vast democratic forums of the Internet been subject to the type of government supervision and regulation that has attended the broadcast industry. Moreover, the Internet is not as “invasive” as radio or television. The District Court specifically found that “[cjommunications over the Internet do not ‘invade’ an individual’s home or appear on one’s computer screen unbidden. Users seldom encounter content ‘by accident.’ ” 929 F. Supp., at 844 (finding 88). It also found that “[ajlmost all sexually explicit images are preceded by warnings as to the content,” and cited testimony that “ ‘odds are slim’ that a user would come across a sexually explicit sight by accident.” Ibid.
We distinguished Pacifica in Sable, 492 U. S., at 128, on just this basis. In Sable, a company engaged in the business of offering sexually oriented prerecorded telephone messages (popularly known as “dial-a-porn”) challenged the constitutionality of an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934 that imposed a blanket prohibition on indecent as well as obscene interstate commercial telephone messages. We held that the statute was constitutional insofar as it applied to obscene messages but invalid as applied to indecent messages. In attempting to justify the complete ban and criminalization of indecent commercial telephone messages, the Government relied on Pacifica, arguing that the ban was necessary to prevent children from gaining access to such messages. We agreed that “there is a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors” which extended to shielding them from indecent messages that are not obscene by adult standards, 492 U. S., at 126, but distinguished our “emphatically narrow holding” in Pacifica because it did not involve a complete ban and because it involved a different medium of communication, id., at 127. We explained that “the dial-it medium requires the listener to take affirmative steps to receive the communication.” Id., at 127-128. “Placing a telephone call,” we continued, “is not the same as turning on a radio and being taken by surprise by an indecent message.” Id., at 128.
Finally, unlike the conditions that prevailed when Congress first authorized regulation of the broadcast spectrum, the Internet can hardly be considered a “scarce” expressive commodity. It provides relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds. The Government estimates that “[a]s many as 40 million people use the Internet today, and that figure is expected to grow to 200 million by 1999.” This dynamic, multifaceted category of communication includes not only traditional print and news services, but also audio, video, and still images, as well as interactive, real-time dialogue. Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer. As the District Court found, “the content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought.” 929 F. Supp., at 842 (finding 74). We agree with its conclusion that our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.
H-i >
Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it violates the Fifth Amendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of its coverage render it problematic for purposes of the First Amendment. For instance, each of the two parts of the CDA uses a different linguistic form. The first uses the word “indecent,” 47 U. S. C. § 223(a) (1994 ed., Supp. II), while the second speaks of material that “in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs,” § 223(d). Given the absence of a definition of either term, this difference in language will provoke uncertainty among speakers about how the two standards relate to each other and just what they mean. Could a speaker confidently assume that a serious discussion about birth control practices, homosexuality, the First Amendment issues raised by the Appendix to our Pacifica opinion, or the consequences of prison rape would not violate the CDA? This uncertainty undermines the likelihood that the CDA has been carefully tailored to the congressional goal of protecting minors from potentially harmful materials.
The vagueness of the CDA is a matter of special concern for two reasons. First, the CDA is a content-based regulation of speech. The vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech. See, e. g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U. S. 1030, 1048-1051 (1991). Second, the CDA is a criminal statute. In addition to the opprobrium and stigma of a criminal conviction, the CDA threatens violators with penalties including up to two years in prison for each act of violation. The severity of criminal sanctions may well cause speakers to remain silent rather than communicate even arguably unlawful words, ideas, and images. See, e. g., Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 494 (1965). As a practical matter, this increased deterrent effect, coupled with the “risk of discriminatory enforcement” of vague regulations, poses greater First Amendment concerns than those implicated by the civil regulation reviewed in Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727 (1996).
The Government argues that the statute is no more vague than the obscenity standard this Court established in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973). But that is not so. In Miller, this Court reviewed a criminal conviction against a commercial vendor who mailed brochures containing pictures of sexually explicit activities to individuals who had not requested such materials. Id., at 18. Having struggled for some time to establish a definition of obscenity, we set forth in Miller the test for obscenity that controls to this day:
“(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Id., at 24 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Because the CDA’s “patently offensive” standard (and, we assume, arguendo, its synonymous “indecent” standard) is one part of the three-prong Miller test, the Government reasons, it cannot
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent airline discharged the six individual petitioners in April 1958 after they refused to attend disciplinary hearings without having a union representative present. The petitioning union and the employees initiated grievances over these discharges, which were not settled between the parties and which were presented to the system board of adjustment, established by agreement between the union and the airline according to the Railway Labor Act, 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. §§ 151-188. The four-man board of adjustment deadlocked, a neutral referee was appointed by the National Mediation Board, and an award was then rendered ordering the individual petitioners reinstated without loss of seniority and with back pay. Central refused to comply and petitioners filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for enforcement of the award.
The complaint recited the certification of the union as the collective bargaining agent by the National Mediation Board pursuant to an election held under the Railway Labor Act, disclosed the execution of a collective bargaining contract with the company, and attached as an exhibit a copy of another contract with Central establishing a system board of adjustment. This contract stated, “In compliance with Section 204, Title II of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, there is hereby established a system board of adjustment for the purpose of adjusting and deciding disputes . . . Under the express terms of the contract, “decisions of the Board in all cases properly referable to it shall be final and binding upon the parties” and, when a neutral referee is sitting with the board, “a majority vote of the Board shall be final, binding, and conclusive between the Company and the Association and anyone they may represent- having an interest in the dispute.” The complaint set out in some detail the action and decision of the system board and a copy of its award was attached. Alleging that Central had refused to comply with the terms of the award and that the suit “arises under the laws of the United States, specifically under the Railway Labor Act as set out more particularly hereinabove,” petitioners requested the “enforcement of the aforesaid System Board Award . . . and that judgment be entered ordering defendant to comply with said award . . . .”
Although the gist of the complaint was that Central was obliged to comply with the award by reason of the Railway Labor Act, the District Court granted Central’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that there was no diversity of citizenship (which was not disputed) and that the case did not arise under the laws of the United States as required by 28 U. S. C. § 1331. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the authority of its previous decision in Metcalf v. National Airlines, 271 F. 2d 817, ruling that the complaint did not disclose “affirmatively a federally-created cause of action” and that “this suit is nothing more than a state-created action to construe a contract.” 295 F. 2d 209. Certiorari was granted to consider the important question of whether a suit to enforce an award of an airline system board of adjustment is a suit arising under the laws of the United States under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 or a suit arising under a law regulating commerce under 28 U. S. C. § 1337. 369 U. S. 802. We have concluded that this question must be answered in the affirmative and that the District Court has jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
I.
In 1936, Congress extended the Railway Labor Act to cover the then small-but-growing air transportation industry. 49 Stat. 1189, 45 U. S. C. §§ 181-188. Its general aim was to extend to air carriers and their employees the same benefits and obligations available and applicable in the railroad industry. But there was to be a significant variation. The 1936 amendments made applicable to the airlines all of the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, excepting § 3, 45 U. S. C. § 153, dealing with the National Railroad Adjustment Board; but including § 1, 45 U. S. C.. § 151, containing definitions; § 2, 45 U. S. C. § 151a, the Act’s statement of purposes; §§ 4 and 5, 45 U. S. C. §§ 154-155, relative to the National Mediation Board and its functions; and §§ 7, 8 and 9, 45 U. S. C. §§ 157-159, relating to voluntary arbitration and emergency boards. § 202, 45 U. S. C. § 182. In the place of § 3, Congress provided in § 205, 45 U. S. C. § 185, that the creation of a National Air Transport Board would be postponed until “in the judgment of the National Mediation Board, it shall be necessary to have a permanent national board of adjustment Until the establishment of the national board for the airlines industry, § 204, 45 U. S. C. § 184, required the formation of system, group, or regional boards of adjustment:
“It shall be the duty of every carrier and of its employees, acting through their representatives, selected in accordance with the provisions of sections 181-188 of this title, to establish a board of adjustment of jurisdiction not exceeding the jurisdiction which may be lawfully exercised by system, group, or regional boards of adjustment, under the authority of section 153 of this title.”
The duty imposed upon the parties to create adjustment boards to settle grievances was more than a casual suggestion to the air industry. The original version of S. 2496, which, as amended, became law, provided for voluntary boards of adjustment as in the case of the railroads and extended the jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board to minor as well as major disputes. But upon the suggestion of the National Mediation Board, its jurisdiction was not expanded, and the law as finally passed made compulsory the establishment of the adjustment boards. Until and unless the National Mediation Board determined to create a national board, the parties were placed under the statutory duty of establishing and utilizing system, group, or regional boards of adjustment for the purpose of adjusting and deciding disputes arising under existing contracts.
The obligation which § 204 fastened upon the carriers and their employees cannot be read in isolation. Its true significance must be drawn from its context as part of the Railway Labor Act which itself draws meaning from its history. See Romero v. International Term. Co., 358 U. S. 354, 360.
Congress has long concerned itself with minimizing interruptions in the Nation’s transportation services by strikes and labor disputes and has made successive attempts to establish effective machinery to resolve disputes not only as to wages, hours, and working conditions, the so-called major disputes connected with a negotiation of contracts or alterations in them, but also as to the interpretation and application of existing contracts, the minor disputes of the type involved in this case. In 1920, the latter category was dealt with by providing that the parties “may” create boards of adjustment to handle these grievances which, however, if unresolved by these boards were to be referred to the Railway Labor Board whose decisions were not legally enforceable. The results were highly unsatisfactory, and in 1926 Congress required that “boards of adjustment shall be created by agreement.” The boards were to be composed of an equal number of employee and employer representatives and their decisions were to “be final and binding on both parties to the dispute; and it shall be the duty of both to abide by such decisions.”
In spite of the mandate of the 1926 Act, creation of adjustment boards did not automatically follow. Furthermore, there was no provision in the Act for breaking deadlocks of the board, which were frequent and which resulted in a myriad of minor disputes going unresolved. As a result, see Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711, 725-726, in 1934 the Act was amended to create the National Railroad Adjustment Board, the divisions of which were to hear disputes referred by either party and “growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.” § 3, 45 U. S. C. § 153 First (i). In the event of deadlocks in a division, the National Mediation Board was required to name a neutral referee to sit with the appropriate division of the Board to determine the case. § 3 First (1). It was provided in § 3 First (m) that “the awards of the several divisions of the Adjustment Board shall be stated in writing . . . and the awards shall be final and binding upon both parties to the dispute, except insofar as they shall contain a money award. . . .” Section 3 First (p) provided for a suit in the United States District Courts to enforce certain awards.
While thus establishing a National Adjustment Board with power to make final awards with the help of neutral persons where necessary, Congress also provided in § 3 Second for voluntary system boards:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any individual carrier, system, or group of carriers and any class or classes of its or their employees, all acting through their representatives, selected in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, from mutually agreeing to the establishment of system, group, or regional boards of adjustment for the purpose of adjusting and deciding disputes of the character specified in this section. In the event that either party to such a system, group, or regional board of adjustment is dissatisfied with such arrangement, it may upon ninety days’ notice to the other party elect to come under the jurisdiction of the Adjustment Board.” 45 U. S. C. § 153 Second.
This machinery was designed to serve the stated purposes of the Act which were, among others: “To avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier engaged therein” and “to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.” § 2, 45 U. S. C. § 151a. Implementing such goals, § 2 First, 45 U. S. C. § 152 First, made it “the duty of all carriers, their officers, agents, and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements . . . and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements, or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce.” The statute directed that minor disputes be handled on the property in the usual manner, but failing adjustment either party could take the matter to the adjustment board, which was to hear and decide it. This provision is applicable both to rail (§3 Second) and air (§ 204) carriers.
II.
In view of the clearly stated purposes of the Act and of its history, reflecting as it does a steady congressional intent to move toward a reliable and effective system for the settlement of grievances, we believe Congress intended no hiatus in the statutory scheme when it postponed the establishment of a National Air Transport Adjustment Board and instead provided for compulsory system, group, or regional boards. Although the system boards were expected to be temporary arrangements, we cannot believe that Congress intended an interim period of confusion and chaos or meant to leave the establishment of the Boards to the whim of the parties. Instead, it intended the statutory command to be legally enforceable in the courts and the boards to be organized and operated consistent with the purposes of the Act.
We have held other duties imposed upon the carriers and their employees by the Railway Labor Act binding and their breach redressable in the federal courts, such as the duty to bargain, Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation, 300 U. S. 515, 545, and the duty of a certified bargaining representative to represent all members of the craft without discrimination, Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U. S. 192. We take a similar view of the duty to establish adjustment boards under §204; and as the Court said in Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Enginemen, 323 U. S. 210, 213, quoting from Deitrick v. Greaney, 309 U. S. 190, 200-201, “the extent and nature of the legal consequences” of this duty “though left by the statute to judicial determination, are nevertheless to be derived from it and the federal policy which it has adopted.”
It is therefore the statute and the federal law which must determine whether the contractual arrangements made by the parties are sufficient to discharge the mandate of § 204 and are consistent with the Act and its purposes. It is federal law which would determine whether a § 204 contract is valid and enforceable according to its terms. If these contracts are to serve this function under § 204, their validity, interpretation, and enforceability cannot be left to the laws of the many States, for it would be fatal to the goals of the Act if a contractual provision contrary to the federal command were nevertheless enforced under state law or if a contract were struck down even though in furtherance of the federal scheme. The needs of the subject matter manifestly call for uniformity. Compare Teamsters Union v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, 103-104.
The contracts and the adjustment boards for which they provide are creations of federal law and bound to the statute and its policy. If any provision contained in a § 204 contract is enforceable, it is because of congressional sanction: “[T]he federal statute is the source of the power and authority .... The enactment of the federal statute ... is the governmental action . . . though it takes a private agreement to invoke the federal sanction. ... A union agreement made pursuant to the Railway Labor Act has, therefore, the imprimatur of the federal law upon it . . . .” Railway Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225, 232. That is, the § 204 contract, like the Labor Management Relations Act § 301 contract, is a federal contract and is therefore governed and enforceable by federal law, in the federal courts. The situation presented here is analogous to that in American Surety Co. v. Shulz, 237 U. S. 159, a suit on a supersedeas bond in an appeal from a District Court to the Court of Appeals. When the judgment against the appellant was affirmed and he failed to pay it, the appellee sued the surety in the District Court. This Court held that there was “arising under” jurisdiction, since the bond had been given pursuant to the federal statute requiring one when appeals were taken; the construction of the bond and the extent of the surety company’s liability under it were said to be federal questions which the federal courts had jurisdiction to determine.
More specifically, the provisions of a § 204 contract, such as those governing the composition of the adjustment board, the procedures to be employed as to notice and hearing or for breaking deadlocks, or the finality to be accorded board awards, are to be judged against the Act and its purposes and enforced or invalidated in a fashion consistent with the statutory scheme. There may be, for example, any number of provisions with regard to the finality of an award that would satisfy the requirements of § 204 but we are quite sure that some such provision is requisite to a § 204 contract and that the federal law would look with favor upon contractual provisions affording some degree of finality to system board awards. Congress has long since abandoned the approach of the completely unenforceable award which was used in the 1920 Act. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, supra. Adjustment board decisions were expressly made final and binding in the 1926 Act, the National Railroad Adjustment Board awards were made enforceable in the federal courts by the 1934 amendments, and the awards under voluntary arbitration agreements were likewise made expressly enforceable by the statute. There is no reason to believe that in 1936 Congress discarded for an entire industry an element essential to a reliable system of settling disputes under existing contracts or that it contemplated awards by adjustment boards the enforceability of which depended entirely upon the desires of the parties or upon state statutes or court decisions. Quite the contrary, the Act, its history, and its purposes lead us to conclude that when Congress ordered the establishment of system boards to hear and decide airline contract disputes, it “intended the Board to be and to act as a public agency, not as a private go-between; its awards to have legal effect, not merely that of private advice.” Bower v. Eastern Airlines, 214 F. 2d 623, 626 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Washington Term. Co. v. Boswell, 75 U. S. App. D.. C. 1, 10, 124 F. 2d 235, 244.
III.
The contract of the parties here was executed under § 204 and declares a system board award to be final, binding, and conclusive. The claim stated in the complaint is based upon the award and demands that it be enforced. Whether Central must comply with the award or whether, instead, it is impeachable, are questions controlled by federal law and are to be answered with due regard for the statutory scheme and purpose. To the extent that the contract imposes a duty consistent with the Act to comply with the awards, that duty is a federal requirement. If Central must comply, it is because federal law requires its compliance.
In the circumstances we have here, we are not dealing with a suit involving an aspect of federal law which is only collateral or remote or a case where state and federal laws are so blended as to present a serious question of the scope of the arising-under provision of § 1331 or § 1337. See Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U. S. 180; Gully v. First Nat. Bank, 299 U. S. 109; Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U. S. 667; Romero v. International Term. Co., 358 U. S. 354, 393, n. 4 (dissenting and concurring opinion). In our view the complaint in this case, for jurisdictional purposes, presented a substantial claim having its source in and arising under the Railway Labor Act and the District Court therefore has jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 if the jurisdictional amount is satisfied and in any case under § 1337. Romero v. International Term. Co., 358 U. S. 354; Montana-Dakota Co. v. Northwestern P. S. Co., 341 U. S. 246, 249; American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U. S. 257, 260.
Reversed and remanded.
28 U. S. C. §1331:
“(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
“(b) Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where the plaintiff is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $10,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interests and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.”
28 U. S. C. § 1337:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies.”
Petitioners’ complaint mentioned only § 1331, but reliance has subsequently been placed on § 1337 as well, since there is a dispute concerning the existence of the jurisdictional amount required by § 1331. This is permissible. American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582, 589-591.
See Hearings on S. 2496 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 26-27.
Id., at 1-2.
Id., at 11.
See generally Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation, 300 U. S. 515; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 548; Garrison, The National Railroad Adjustment Board, 46 Yale L. J. 567; Note, 72 Yale L. J. 803.
The Court has many times reviewed the history of the railway labor laws. For example, see Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711; Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U. S. 239; Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Chicago R. & I. R. Co., 353 U. S. 30; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Price, 360 U. S. 601; Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740.
41 Stat. 469, 474.
Pennsylvania Federation v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 267 U. S. 203. See Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Labor Board, 261 U. S. 72.
See Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Chicago R. & I. R. Co., 353 U. S. 30.
44 Stat. 578.
§ 3 First (e), id,., at 579.
The absence of a specific statute conferring jurisdiction, in addition to §§ 1331 and 1337, was of no moment in such cases. See Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Enginemen, 323 U. S. 210, 213; Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U. S. 184, 189-190. These cases, and the one at bar, are unlike such cases as Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, 320 U. S. 297, and General Committee v. M.-K.-T. B. Co., 320 U. S. 323, where Congress intended no judicial review and its denial impaired no federal rights.
See also Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, 320 U. S. 297; General Committee v. M.-K.-T. R. Co., 320 U. S. 323; General Committee v. Southern Pac. Co., 320 U. S. 338; Brotherhood of Clerks v. United Transport Service Employees, 320 U. S. 715, 816; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 548; Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation, 300 U. S. 515.
As the dissenting judge below remarked, 295 F. 2d, at 221-222: “. . . Congress in 1936 could not . . . have thought that stability and continuity to interstate air commerce would come from the undulating policies ... of the legislatures and courts (or both) of 48 states in the enforcement of anything thought so essential to industrial peace as this system of governmentally compelled arbitration.” The dissenting opinion also points out the difficult conflict of laws problems which applying state law would raise, 295 F. 2d, at 223:
“Not the least of the absurdities is that an airplane flies from state to state. What state is to be the forum? What state was the parent of this creature — the consensual contract containing the agreement to arbitrate? May any or all of the states beneath the route or routes traveled by the airline be resorted to? Is the continuity of essential air traffic to be at the plaintiff’s choice of forum? What is to happen when several plaintiffs bring several suits in several states ? Is effective federal control of an operational activity deemed so essential to national welfare to be precariously dependent upon the accident of diversity of citizenship?”
To be sure, different airlines may use different contracts, and any one may have different agreements for different crafts, but such lack of uniformity represents a minimal burden on commerce. The lack of uniformity created by dividing everything by 50 (or however many States the system spans) would multiply the burden by a substantial factor and aggravate the problem to an intolerable degree.
The Shulz case followed a line of authority involving suits on bonds given by federal officers to ensure their faithful performance of their federal duties, in which the .Court had held that there was federal jurisdiction for suits by an aggrieved party seeking to collect from the surety. Bock v. Perkins, 139 U. S. 628 (suit for tort of U. S. marshal committed in performance of duty); Sonnentheil v. Moerlein Co., 172 U. S. 401 (same); see Feibelman v. Packard, 109 U. S. 421 (same, removal case); Howard v. United States, 184 U. S. 676 (suit against surety of clerk of court brought ex rel. United States to recover for clerk’s appropriation of money paid into federal court). The same rule that federal law applies to federal contracts has been applied, in a choice of substantive law rather than jurisdictional context, in cases involving rights and obligations arising on commercial paper issued by the United States. See, e. g., Metropolitan Bank v. United States, 323 U. S. 454; Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363, 366. See also Royal Indem. Co. v. United States, 313 U. S. 289, 296 (general law rather than local law governs whether Government may collect interest on surety bond given to secure collection of taxes); American Pipe & Steel Corp. v. Firestone Co., 292 F. 2d 640, 643-644 (C. A. 9th Cir.) (construction of subcontract governed by federal law in suit between prime and sub on government contract); Girard Trust Co. v. United States, 149 F. 2d 872 (C. A. 3d Cir.) (federal law governs rights of parties in lease where Government is lessee, Tucker Act suit); Woodward v. United States, 167 F. 2d 774 (C. A. 8th Cir.) (federal law governs interpretation of National Service Life Insurance policy, suit against Government on policy). Although these decisions did not involve federal jurisdiction as such, since jurisdiction was conferred by specific statutes and recourse to the “arising under” statute was unnecessary, they are suggestive since they hold federal law determinative of the merits of the claim. Also highly suggestive, for the same reason, is this Court’s language in Sola Elec. Co. v. Jefferson Elec. Co., 317 U. S. 173, 176, a case involving both federal patent-antitrust policies and. conflicting state contract law policies of estoppel:
“[T]he doctrine of that case [Erie] is inapplicable to those areas of judicial decision within which the policy of the law is so dominated by the sweep of federal statutes that legal relations which they affect must be deemed governed by federal law having its source in those statutes, rather than by local law.”
Thus in cases involving adjustment board procedures or awards, the federal courts have applied federal substantive law to the determination of the validity of the award and the procedures for securing it, irrespective of whether the case was brought into the federal court system on the basis of diversity. See International Assn. of Machinists v. Northwest Airlines, 304 F. 2d 206 (C. A. 8th Cir.) ; Flight Engineers v. American Airlines, 303 F. 2d 5 (C. A. 5th Cir.) ; Woolley v. Eastern Air Lines, 250 F. 2d 86, 90-91 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Sigfred v. Pan American World Airways, 230 F. 2d 13 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Bower v. Eastern Airlines, 214 F. 2d 623, 625-627 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Pan American World Airways, Inc., v. Division of Labor Law Enforcement, 203 F. Supp. 324 (N. D. Cal.); Edwards v. Capital Airlines, 84 U. S. App. D. C. 346, 176 F. 2d 755; Crusen v. United Air Lines, 141 F. Supp. 347 (D. Colo.), aff’d, per curiam, 239 F. 2d 863 (C. A. 10th Cir.); Farris v. Alaska Airlines, 113 F. Supp. 907 (W. D. Wash.); American Airlines v. Air Line Pilots Assn., 91 F. Supp. 629 (E. D. N. Y.); United Automobile Workers v. Delta Air Lines, 83 F. Supp. 63 (N. D. Ga.).
See also Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Chicago R. & I. R. Co., 353 U. S. 30, brought under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331, 1337. (R. 4, 47.)
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 Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this ease is whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) possesses the legal authority to require federal agencies to pay compensatory damages when they discriminate in employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 84 Stat. 121, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. We conclude that the EEOC does have that authority.
I
A
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination. In 1972 Congress extended Title VII so that it applies not only to employment in the private sector, but to employment in the Federal Government as well. See Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. Ill, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-16. This 1972 Title VII extension, found in §717 of Title VII, has three relevant subsections.
The first subsection, § 717(a), sets forth the basic Federal Government employment antidiscrimination standard. It says that
“[a]ll personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment [of specified Government agencies and departments] shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16(a).
The second subsection, § 717(b), provides the EEOC with the power to enforce the standard. It says (among other things) that
“the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall have authority to enforce the provisions of subsection (a) .. . through appropriate remedies, including reinstatement or hiring of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this section ....” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16(b) (emphasis added).
The third subsection, § 717(c), concerns a court’s authority to enforce the standard. It says that, after an agency or the EEOC takes final action on a complaint (or fails to take action within a certain time),
“an employee or applicant [who is still] aggrieved . . . may file a civil action as provided in section [706, dealing with discrimination by private employers], in which civil action the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16(e).
In 1991 Congress again amended Title VIL The amendment relevant here permits victims of intentional employment discrimination (whether within the private sector or the Federal Government) to recover compensatory damages. See Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 1072, 42 U. S. C. § 1981a(a)(1). The relevant portion of that amendment, which we shall call the Compensatory Damages Amendment (CDA), says:
“In an action brought by a complaining party under section 706 [dealing with discrimination by private employers] or 717 [dealing with discrimination by the Federal Government] against a respondent who engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination ... , the complaining party may recover compensatory... damages-” 42 U.S. C. § 1981a(a)(1).
The CDA also sets forth certain conditions and exceptions. It imposes, for example, a cap on compensatory damages (of up to $300,000 for large employers, § 1981a(b)(3)(D)). And it adds: “If a complaining party seeks compensatory .. . damages under this section ... any party may demand a trial by jury . . . §1981a(c). Once the CDA became law, the EEOC began to grant compensatory damages awards in Federal Government employment discrimination cases. Compare 29 CFR pt. 1613, App. A (1990) (no reference to compensatory damages in preamendment list of EEOC remedies), with, e. g., Jackson v. Runyon, EEOC Appeal No. 01923399, p. 3 (Nov. 12, 1992) (“[T]he Civil Rights Act of 1991... makes compensatory damages available to federal sector complainants in the administrative process”).
B
Respondent, Michael Gibson, filed a complaint with the Department of Veterans Affairs charging that the Department had discriminated against him by denying him a promotion on the basis of his gender. The Department found against Gibson. The EEOC, however, subsequently found in Gibson’s favor and awarded the promotion plus backpay. Three months later Gibson filed a complaint in Federal District Court, asking the court to order the Department to comply immediately with the EEOC’s order and also to pay compensatory damages. Complaint ¶ 17 (App. 28). The Department then voluntarily complied with the EEOC’s order, but it continued to oppose Gibson’s claim for compensatory damages.
Eventually, the District Court dismissed Gibson’s compensatory damages claim. On appeal, the Department supported the District Court’s dismissal with the argument that Gibson had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in respect to his compensatory damages claim; hence, he could not bring that claim in court. Gibson v. Brown, 137 F. 3d 992, 994 (CA7 1998). The Seventh Circuit, however, reversed the District Court’s dismissal. It rejected the Department’s argument because, in its view, the EEOC lacked the legal power to award compensatory damages; consequently there was no administrative remedy to exhaust. Id., at 995-998.
Because the Circuits have disagreed about whether the EEOC has the power to award compensatory damages, compare Fitzgerald v. Secretary, Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 121 F. 3d 203, 207 (CA5 1997) (EEOC may award compensatory damages), with Crawford v. Babbitt, 148 F. 3d 1318, 1326 (CA11 1998) (EEOC cannot award compensatory damages), and 137 F. 3d, at 996-998 (same), we granted certiorari in order to decide that question.
II
The language, purposes, and history of the 1972 Title VII extension and the 1991 CDA convince us that Congress has authorized the EEOC to award compensatory damages in Federal Government employment discrimination cases. Read literally, the language of the statutes is consistent with a grant of that authority. The relevant portion of the Title VII extension, namely, § 717(b), says that the EEOC “shall have authority” to enforce § 717(a) “through appropriate remedies, including reinstatement or hiring of employees with or without back pay.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16(b). After enactment of the 1991 CDA, an award of compensatory damages is a “remedy” that is “appropriate.”
We recognize that § 717(b) explicitly mentions certain equitable remedies, namely, reinstatement, hiring, and back-pay, and it does not explicitly refer to compensatory damages. But the preceding word “including” makes clear that the authorization is not limited to the specified remedies there mentioned; and the 1972 Title VII extension’s choice of examples is not surprising, for in 1972 (and until 1991) Title VII itself authorized only equitable remedies. See Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 261, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(g) (private sector discrimination); Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 111, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-16 (federal sector discrimination).
Section 717’s language, however, does not freeze the scope of the word “appropriate” as of 1972. Words in statutes can enlarge or contract their scope as other changes, in law or in the world, require their application to new instances or make old applications anachronistic. See, e. g., Browder v. United States, 312 U. S. 335, 339-340 (1941) (new, unforeseen “use” of passport); see also United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U. S. 157, 172-173 (1968) (cable television as “communications”); Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U. S. 390, 395-396 (1968) (old statutory language read to reflect technological change).
The meaning of the word “appropriate” permits its scope to expand to include Title VII remedies that were not appropriate before 1991, but in light of legal change are appropriate now. The word “including” makes clear that “appropriate remedies” are not limited to the examples that follow that word. See Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U. S. 177, 189 (1941). And in context the word “appropriate” most naturally refers to forms of relief that Title VII itself authorizes — at least where that relief is of a kind that agencies typically can provide. Thus, Congress’ decision in the 1991 CDA to permit a “complaining party” to “recover compensatory damages” in “an action brought under section ... 717,” by adding compensatory damages to Title VII’s arsenal of remedies, could make that form of relief “appropriate” under § 717(b) as well.
An examination of the purposes of the 1972 Title VII extension shows that this permissible reading of the language is also the correct reading. Section 717’s general purpose is to remedy discrimination in federal employment. It does so in part by creating a dispute resolution system that requires a complaining party to pursue administrative relief prior to court action, thereby encouraging quicker, less formal, and less expensive resolution of disputes within the Federal Government and outside of court. See 42 U. S. C. §2000e-16(c) (court action permitted only where complainant disagrees with final agency disposition or, if complainant pursued discretionary appeal to EEOC, with EEOC disposition; or if either agency or EEOC disposition is delayed); Brown v. GSA, 425 U. S. 820, 833 (1976) (discussing § 717’s “rigorous administrative exhaustion requirements”); see also 29 CFR § 1614.105(a) (1998) (requiring complainant initially to notify agency and make effort to resolve matter informally); § 1614.106(d)(2) (requiring agency investigation prior to EEOC consideration).
To deny that an EEOC compensatory damages award is, statutorily speaking, “appropriate” would undermine this remedial scheme. It would force into court matters that the EEOC might otherwise have resolved. And by preventing earlier resolution of a dispute, it would increase the burdens of both time and expense that accompany efforts to resolve hundreds, if not thousands, of such disputes each year. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal Sector Report on EEC Complaints Processing and Appeals by Federal Agencies for Fiscal Year 1997, pp. 19, 61 (1998) (28,947 Federal Government employment discrimination claims filed in 1997; 7,112 claims appealed to EEOC); Reply Brief for Petitioner 12-13, n. 9 (estimating “hundreds” of cases each year that involve claims for compensatory damages).
The history of the CDA reinforces this point. The CDA’s sponsors and supporters spoke frequently of the need to create a new remedy in order, for example, to “help make victims whole.” H. R. Rep. No. 102-40, pt. 1, pp. 64-65 (1991); see also Civil Rights Act of 1991, §2, 105 Stat. 1071, 42 U. S. C. §1981 note (congressional finding that “additional remedies under Federal law are needed to deter . . . intentional discrimination in the workplace”); id., §3 (one purpose of Act is “to provide appropriate remedies for intentional discrimination ... in the workplace”); 137 Cong. Rec. 28636-28638, 28663-28667, 28676-28680 (1991) (introduction and discussion of Danforth/Kennedy Amendment No. 1274, in relevant part permitting recovery of compensatory damages); id., at 28880-28881 (statements of Sen. Warner and Sen. Kennedy) (clarifying that Danforth/Kennedy amendment covers federal employees and suggesting amendment to this effect). But the CDA’s sponsors and supporters said nothing about limiting the EEOC’s ability to use the new Title VII remedy or suggesting that it would be desirable to distinguish the new Title VII remedy from old Title VII remedies in that respect. This total silence is not surprising. What reason could there be for Congress, anxious to have the EEOC consider as a preliminary matter every other possible remedy, not to want the EEOC similarly to consider compensatory damages as well?
Respondent makes three important arguments in favor of a more limited interpretation of the statutes — an interpretation that would deprive the EEOC of the power to award compensatory damages. First, respondent points out that the CDA says nothing about the EEOC, or EEOC proceedings, but rather states only that a complaining party may recover compensatory damages “in an action brought under section ... 717.” 42 U. S. C. § 1981a(a)(1) (emphasis added). And the word “action” often refers to judicial cases, not to administrative “proceedings.” See New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U. S. 54,60-62 (1980) (distinguishing civil “actions” from administrative “proceedings”).
Had Congress thought it important so to limit the scope of the CDA, however, it could easily have cross-referenced § 717(c), the civil action subsection itself, rather than cross-referencing the whole of § 717, which includes authorization for the EEOC to enforce the section through “appropriate remedies.” Regardless, the question, as we see it, is whether, by using the word “action,” Congress intended to deny that compensatory damages is “appropriate” administrative relief within the terms of § 717(b). In light of the previous discussion, see supra, at 217-220, we do not believe the simple use of the word “action” in the context of a cross-reference to the whole of §717 indicates an intent to deprive the EEOC of that authority.
Second, in an effort to explain why Congress might have wanted to impose a special EEOC-related limitation in respect to compensatory damages, respondent points to the language in the CDA that says: “If a complaining party seeks compensatory ... damages under this section ... any party may demand a trial by jury.” 42 U. S. C. § 1981a(c) (emphasis added). Respondent notes that an EEOC compensatory damages award would not involve a jury. And an agency cannot proceed to court under § 717(c) because that subsection makes a court action available only to an aggrieved complaining party, not to the agency. §2000e-16(e). Thus, respondent concludes that the CDA must implicitly forbid any such EEOC award, for that award would take place without the jury trial that § 1981a(c) guarantees.
This argument, however, draws too much from too little. One easily can read the jury trial provision in § 1981a(c) as simply guaranteeing either party a jury trial in respect to compensatory damages if a complaining party proceeds to court under § 717(c). The words “under this section” in § 1981a(c) support that interpretation, for “this section,” § 1981a, refers primarily to court proceedings. And there is no reason to believe Congress intended more. The history of the jury trial provision suggests that Congress saw the provision primarily as a benefit to complaining parties, not to the Government. See, e. g., 137 Cong. Rec., at 29051-29052 (statement of Sen. Leahy) (for “the first time, women and the disabled could recover damages and have jury trials for claims of intentional discrimination”); id., at 30668 (statement of Rep. Ford) (provision will “provid[e] all victims of intentional discrimination a right to trial by jury”); see also, e. g., id., at 29053-29054 (statement of Sen. Wallop) (discussing “economically devastating lawsuits”); id., at 29041 (statement of Sen. Bumpers) (relating fears about “runaway juries]”). The fact that Congress permits an employee to file a complaint in court, but forbids the agency to challenge an adverse EEOC decision in court, also suggests that Congress was not inordinately and unusually concerned -with invoking special judicial safeguards to protect the Government.
Finally, respondent argues that insofar as the law permits the EEOC to award compensatory damages, it waives the Government’s sovereign immunity, and we must construe any such waiver narrowly. See Lane v. Peña, 518 U. S. 187, 192 (1996); Lehman v. Nakshian, 458 U. S. 156, 160-161 (1981). There is no dispute, however, that the CDA waives sovereign immunity in respect to an award of compensatory damages. Whether, in light of that waiver, the CDA permits the EEOC to consider the same matter at an earlier phase of the employment discrimination claim is a distinct question concerning how the waived damages remedy is to be administered. Because the relationship of this kind of administrative question to the goals and purposes of the doctrine of sovereign immunity may be unclear, ordinary sovereign immunity presumptions may not apply. In the Secretary’s view here, for example, the EEOC’s preliminary consideration, by lowering the costs of resolving disputes, does not threaten, but helps to protect, the public fisc. Regardless, if we must apply a specially strict standard in such a case, which question we need not decide, that standard is met here. We believe that the statutory language, taken together with statutory purposes, history, and the absence of any convincing reason for denying the EEOC the relevant power, produce evidence of a waiver that satisfies the stricter standard.
For these reasons, we conclude that the EEOC possesses the legal authority to enforce § 717 through an award of compensatory damages.
III
Respondent asks us to affirm on alternative grounds the Seventh Circuit’s judgment permitting his case to proceed in the District Court. The Seventh Circuit considered whether Gibson had “asked the EEOC for compensatory damages.” 137 F. 3d, at 994. It added that if “he did, then the government’s failure-to-exhaust argument obviously is a non-starter.” Ibid. But the Court of Appeals concluded that Gibson did not “put the EEOC on notice that he was seeking compensatory damages.” Ibid. Respondent claims that he can proceed in District Court because he did satisfy the law’s exhaustion requirements, even if the EEOC has the legal power to award compensatory damages and even if he did not give notice to the EEOC that he sought compensatory damages. He argues that is so because (1) the requirement of notice for exhaustion purposes is unusually weak in respect to compensatory damages, (2) he did request a “monetary cash award,” and (3) special circumstances estop the Government from asserting a “no exhaustion” claim in this case.
These matters fall outside the scope of the question presented in the Government’s petition for certiorari. See Roberts v. Galen of Va., Inc., 525 U. S. 249, 253-254 (1999) (per curiam). We remand the case so that the Court of Appeals can determine whether these questions have been properly raised and, if so, decide them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 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: | 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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States seeks to impound 2.4 million acre-feet of water from California’s Stanislaus River as part of its Central Valley Project. The California State Water Resources Control Board ruled that the water could not be allocated to the Government under state law unless it agreed to and complied with various conditions dealing with the water’s use. The Government then sought a declaratory judgment in the District Court for the Eastern District of California to the effect that the United States can impound whatever unappropriated water is necessary for a federal reclamation project without complying with state' law. The District Court held that, as a matter of comity, the United States must apply to the State for an appropriation permit, but that the State must issue the permit without condition if there is sufficient unappropriated water. 403 F. Supp. 874 (1975). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, but held that § 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, 32 Stat. 390, as codified, 43 U. S. C. §§ 372, 383, rather than comity, requires the United States to apply for the permit. 558 F. 2d 1347 (1977). We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it holds that California cannot condition its allocation of water to a federal reclamation project. 434 U. S. 984 (1977). We now reverse.
I
Principles of comity and federalism, which the District Court and the Court of Appeals referred to and which have received considerable attention in our decisions, are as a legal matter based on the Constitution of the United States, statutes enacted by Congress, and judge-made law. But the situations invoking the application of these principles have contributed importantly to their formation. Just as it has been truly said that the life of the law is not logic but experience, see 0. Holmes, The Common Law 1 (1881), so may it be said that the life of the law is not political philosophy but experience.
The very vastness of our territory as a Nation, the different times at which it was acquired and settled, and the varying physiographic and climatic regimes which obtain in its different parts have all but necessitated the recognition of legal distinctions corresponding to these differences. Those who first set foot in North America from ships sailing the tidal estuaries of Virginia did not confront the same problems as those who sailed flat boats down the Ohio River in search of new sites to farm. Those who cleared the forests in the old Northwest Territory faced totally different physiographic problems from those who built sod huts on the Great Plains. The final expansion of our Nation in the 19th century into the arid lands beyond the hundredth meridian of longitude, which had been shown on early maps as the “Great American Desert,” brought the participants in that expansion face-to face with the necessity for irrigation in a way that no previous territorial expansion had.
In order to correctly ascertain the meaning of the Reclamation Act of 1902, we must recognize the obvious truth that the history of irrigation and reclamation before that date was much fresher in the minds of those then in Congress than it is to us today. “[T]he afternoón of July 23, 1847, was the true date of the beginning of modern irrigation. It was on that afternoon that the first band of Mormon pioneers built a small dam across City Creek near the present site of the Mormon Temple and diverted sufficient water to saturate some 5 acres of exceedingly dry land. Before the day was over they had planted potatoes to preserve the seed.” During the subsequent half century, irrigation expanded throughout the arid States of the West, supported usually by private enterprise or the local community. By the turn of the century, however, most of the land which could be profitably irrigated by such small-scale projects had been put to use. Pressure mounted on the Federal Government to provide the funding for the massive projects that would be needed to complete the reclamation, culminating in the Reclamation Act of 1902.
The arid lands were not all susceptible of the same sort of reclamation. The climate and topography of the lands that constituted the “Great American Desert” were quite different from the climate and topography of the Pacific Coast States. As noted in both United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725 (1950), and Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 357 U. S. 275 (1958), the latter States not only had a more pronounced seasonal variation and precipitation than the intermountain States, but the interior portions of California had climatic advantages which many of the intermountain States did not.
“The prime value in our national economy of the lands of summer drought on the Pacific coast is as a source of plant products that require mild winters and long growing seasons. Citrus fruits, the less hardy deciduous fruits, fresh vegetables in winter — these are their most important contributions at present. Rainless summers make possible the inexpensive drying of fruits, which puts into the market prunes, raisins, dried peaches, and apricots. In its present relation to American economy in general, the primary technical problem of agriculture in the Pacific Coast States is to make increasingly more effective use of the mild winters and the long growing season in the face of the great obstacle presented by the rainless summers. To overcome that obstacle supplementary irrigation is necessary. Hence the key position of water in Pacific Coast agriculture.”
If the term “cooperative federalism” had been in vogue in 1902, the Reclamation Act of that year would surely have qualified as a leading example of it. In that Act, Congress set forth on a massive program to construct and operate dams, reservoirs, and canals for the reclamation of the arid lands in 17 Western States. Reflective of the “cooperative federalism” which the Act embodied is § 8, whose exact meaning and scope are the critical inquiries in this case:
“[N]othing in this Act shall he construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigar tion, or any vested right acquired thereunder, and the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall proceed in conformity with such laws, and nothing herein shall in any way affect any right of any State or of the Federal Government or of any landowner, appropriator, or user of water in, to, or from any interstate stream or the waters thereof: Provided, that the right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right.” 32 Stat. 390 (emphasis added).
Perhaps because of the cooperative nature of the legislation, and the fact that Congress in the Act merely authorized the expenditure of funds in States whose citizens were generally anxious to have them expended, there has not been a great deal of litigation involving the meaning of its language. Indeed, so far as we can tell, the first case to come to this Court involving the Act at all was Ickes v. Fox, 300 U. S. 82 (1937), and the first case to require construction of § 8 of the Act was United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., supra, decided nearly half & century after the enactment of the 1902 statute.
The New Melones Dam, which this litigation concerns, is part of the California Central Valley Project, the largest reclamation project yet authorized under the 1902 Act. The Dam, which will impound 2.4 million acre-feet of water of California's Stanislaus River, has the multiple purposes of flood control, irrigation, municipal use, industrial use, power, recreation, water-quality control, and the protection of fish and wildlife. The waters of the Stanislaus River that will be impounded behind the New Melones Dam arise and flow solely in California.
The United States Bureau of Reclamation, as it has with every other federal reclamation project, applied for a permit from the appropriate state agency, here the California State Water Resources Control Board, to appropriate the water that would be impounded by the Dam and later used for reclamation. After lengthy hearings, the State Board found that unappropriated water was available for the New Melones Dam during certain times of the year. Although it therefore approved the Bureau's applications, the State Board attached 25 conditions to the permit. California State Water Resources Control Board, Decision 1422 (Apr. 14, 1973). The most important conditions prohibit full impoundment until the Bureau is able to show firm commitments, or at least a specific plan, for the use of the water. The State Board concluded that without such a specific plan of beneficial use the Bureau had failed to meet the California statutory requirements for appropriation.
“The limited unappropriated water resources of the State should not be committed to an applicant in the absence of a showing of his actual need for the water within a reasonable time in the future. When the evidence indicates, as it does here, that an applicant already has a right to sufficient water to meet his needs for beneficial use within the foreseeable future, rights to additional water should be withheld and that water should be reserved for other beneficial uses.” Id., at 16.
II
The history of the relationship between the Federal Government and the States in the reclamation of the arid lands of the Western States is both long and involved, but through it runs the consistent thread of purposeful and continued deference to state water law by Congress. The rivers, streams, and lakes of California were acquired by the United States under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with the Republic of Mexico, 9 Stat. 922. Within a year of that treaty, the California gold rush began, and the settlers in this new land quickly realized that the riparian doctrine of water rights that had served well in the humid regions of the East would not work in the arid lands of the West. Other settlers coming into the intermountain area, the vast basin and range country which lies between the Rocky Mountains on the east and the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges on the west, were forced to the same conclusion. In its place, the doctrine of prior appropriation, linked to beneficial use of the water, arose through local customs, laws, and judicial decisions. Even in this early stage of the development of Western water law, before many of the Western States had been admitted to the Union, Congress deferred to the growing local law. Thus, in Broder v. Water Co., 101 U. S. 274 (1879), the Court observed that local appropriation rights were “rights which the government had, by its conduct, recognized and encouraged and was bound to protect.” Id., at 276.
In 1850, California was admitted as a State to the Union “on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.” 9 Stat. 452. While § 3 of the Act admitting California to the Union specifically reserved to the United States all “public lands” within the limits of California, no provision was made for the unappropriated waters in California's streams and rivers. One school of legal commentators held the view that, under the equal-footing doctrine, the Western States, upon their admission to the Union, acquired exclusive sovereignty over the unappropriated waters in their streams. In 1903, for example, one leading expert on reclamation and water law observed that “[i]t has heretofore been assumed that the authority of each State in the disposal of the water-supply within its borders was unquestioned and supreme, and two of the States have constitutional provisions asserting absolute ownership of all water-supplies within their bounds.” E. Mead, Irrigation Institutions 372 (1903). Such commentators were not without some support from language in contemporaneous decisions of this Court. See S. Wiel, Water Nights in the Western States §§ 40-43, pp. 84t-95 (2d ed. 1908). Thus, in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46 (1907), the Court noted:
“While arid lands are to be found mainly, if not only in the Western and newer States, yet the powers of the National Government within the limits of those States are the same (no greater and no less) than those within the limits of the original thirteen.
“In the argument on the demurrer counsel for plaintiff endeavored to show that Congress had expressly imposed the common law on all this territory prior to its formation into States.... But when the States of Kansas and Colorado were admitted into the Union they were admitted with the full powers of local sovereignty which belonged to other States, Pollard v. Hagan, [3 How. 212]; Shively v. Bowlby, [152 U. S. 1]; Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U. S. 508, 519; and Colorado by its legislation has recognized the right of appropriating the flowing waters to the purposes of irrigation.” Id., at 92 and 95.
And see United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co., 174 U. S. 690, 702-703, and 709 (1899).
As noted earlier, reclamation of the arid lands began almost immediately upon the arrival of pioneers to the Western States. Huge sums of private money were invested in systems to transport water vast distances for mining, agriculture, and ordinary consumption. Because a very high percentage of land in the West belonged to the Federal Government, the canals and ditches that carried this water frequently crossed federal land. In 1862, Congress opened the public domain to homesteading. Homestead Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 392. And in 1866, Congress for the first time expressly opened the mineral lands of the public domain to exploration and occupation by miners. Mining Act of 1866, ch. 262, 14 Stat. 251. Because of the fear that these Acts might in some way interfere with the water rights and systems that had grown up under state and local law, Congress explicitly recognized and acknowledged the local law:
“[WJhenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same.” § 9, 14 Stat. 253.
The Mining Act of 1866 was not itself a grant of water rights pursuant to federal law. Instead, as this Court observed, the Act was “ ‘a voluntary recognition of a preexisting right of possession, constituting a valid claim to its continued use.’ ” United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co., supra, at 705. Congress intended “to recognize as valid the customary law with respect to the use of water which had grown up among the occupants of the public land under the peculiar necessities of their condition.” Basey v. Gallagher, 20 Wall. 670, 684 (1875). See Broder v. Water Co., supra, at 276; Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U. S. 453, 459-461 (1879).
In 1877, Congress took its first step toward encouraging the reclamation and settlement of the public desert lands in the West and made it clear that such reclamation would generally follow state water law. In the Desert Land Act of 1877, Congress provided for the homesteading of arid public lands in larger tracts
“by [the homesteader’s] conducting water upon the same, within the period of three years [after filing a declaration to do so], Provided however that the right to the use of water by the person so conducting the same... shall not exceed the amount of water actually appropriated, and necessarily used for the purpose of irrigation and reclamation: and all surplus water over and above such actual appropriation and use, together with the water of all, lakes, rivers and other sources of water supply upon the public lands and not navigable, shall remain and be held free for the appropriation and use of the public for irrigation, mining and manufactuing purposes subject to existing rights.” Ch. 107, 19 Stat. 377 (emphasis added).
This Court has had an opportunity to construe the 1877 Desert Land Act before. In California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U. S. 142 (1935), Mr. Justice Sutherland explained that, through this language, Congress “effected a severance of all waters upon the public domain, not theretofore appropriated, from the land itself.” Id., at 158. The nonnavigable waters thereby severed were “reserved for the use of the public under the laws of the states and territories.” Id., at 162. Congress’ purpose was not to federalize the prior-appropriation doctrine already evolving under local law. Quite the opposite:
“What we hold is that following the act of 1877, if not before, all non-navigable waters then a part of the public domain became publici juris, subject to the plenary control of the designated states, including those since created out of the territories named, with the right in each to determine for itself to what extent the rule of appropriation or the common-law rule in respect of riparian rights should obtain. For since ‘Congress cannot enforce either rule upon any state,’ Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 94, the full power of choice must remain with the state. The Desert Land Act does not bind or purport to bind the states to any policy. It simply recognizes and gives sanction, in so far as the United States and its future grantees are concerned, to the state and local doctrine of appropriation, and seeks to remove what otherwise might be an impediment to its full and successful operation. See Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419, 465.” Id., at 163-164.
See also Gutierres v. Albuquerque Land & Irrig. Co., 188 U. S. 545, 552-553 (1903); Ickes v. Fox, 300 U. S. 82, 95 (1937) ; Brush v. Commissioner, 300 U. S. 352, 367 (1937).
Congress next addressed the task of reclaiming the arid lands of the West 11 years later. The opening of the arid lands to homesteading raised the specter that settlers might claim lands more suitable for reservoir sites or other irrigation works, impeding future reclamation efforts. Congress addressed this problem in the Act of Oct. 2, 1888, 25 Stat. 527, which provided:
“[A] 11 the lands which may hereafter be designated or selected by such United States surveys for sites for reservoirs, ditches or canals for irrigation purposes and all the lands made susceptible of irrigation by such reservoirs, ditches or canals are from this time henceforth hereby reserved from sale as the property of the United States, and shall not be subject after the passage of this act, to entry, settlement or occupation until further provided by law.”
Unfortunately, this language, which had been hastily drafted and passed, had the practical effect of reserving all of the public lands in the West from settlement. As a result, “there came a perfect storm of indignation from the people of the West, which resulted in the prompt repeal of the extraordinary [1888] provision.” 29 Cong. Rec. 1955 (1897) (statement of Cong. McRae). In the Act of Aug. 30, 1890, 26 Stat. 391, Congress repealed the 1888 provision except insofar as it reserved reservoir sites. Then, in the Act of Mar. 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1101, as amended, 43 U. S. C. § 946, Congress provided for rights-of-way across the public lands to be used by “any canal or ditch company formed for the purpose of irrigation.” The apparent purpose of the 1890 and 1891 Acts was to reserve reservoir sites from settlement but to open them for use in reclamation projects. As before, Congress expressly indicated that the reclamation would be controlled by state water law:
“[T]he right of way through the public lands and reservations of the United States is hereby granted... for the purpose of irrigation..., to the extent of the ground occupied by the water of the reservoir and of the canal and its laterals... ; Provided, That... the privilege herein granted shall not be construed to interfere with the control of water for irrigation and other purposes under authority of the respective States or Territories.” 26 Stat. 1101 (emphasis added).
The Secretary of the Interior, unfortunately, interpreted the 1890 and 1891 Acts as reserving governmentally surveyed reservoir sites from use rather than for use. Congress rectified this interpretation in the Act of Feb. 26, 1897, ch. 335, 29 Stat. 599, which provided:
“[A] 11 reservoir sites reserved or to be reserved shall be open to use and occupation under the right-of-way Act of March third, eighteen hundred and ninety-one. And any State is hereby authorized to improve and occupy such reservoir sites to the same extent as an individual or private corporation, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe: Provided, That the charges for water coming in whole or part from reservoir sites used or occupied under the provisions of this Act shall always be subject to the control and regulation of the respective States and Territories in which such reservoirs are in whole or part situate.”
The final provision of the 1897 Act was proposed as a floor amendment by Representative, later Speaker, Cannon to expressly preserve States’ control over reclamation within their borders. It was clearly the opinion of a majority of the Congressmen who spoke on the bill, however, that such an amendment was unnecessary except out of an excess of caution. According to Congressman Lacey, Chairman of the House Committee on Public Lands and a principal sponsor of the 1897 Act, the water through which the reclamation would be accomplished
“does not belong to the [Federal] Government. The reservoirs in which the water is stored belong to the Government, but the water belongs to the States and will be controlled by them. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Cannon] relieves this measure from all possible doubt upon that subject. I think there could be no doubt anyhow, but this amendment takes away the possibility of any question being raised as to the right of the States and Territories to regulate and control the management and the price of the water.” 29 Cong. Rec. 1952 (1897).
Congressman Lacey’s statement found reflection in contemporaneous decisions of this Court holding that, with limited exceptions not relevant to reclamation, authority over intrastate waterways lies with the States. In United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co., for example, New Mexico’s authority to adopt a prior appropriation system of water rights for the Rio Grande River was challenged. The Court unhesitatingly held that “as to every stream within its dominion a State may change [the] common law rule and permit the appropriation of the flowing waters for such purposes as it deems wise.” 174 U. S., at 702-703. The Court noted that there are two limitations to the State’s exclusive control of its streams — reserved rights “so far at least as may be necessary for the beneficial uses of the government property,” id., at 703, and the navigation servitude. The Court, however, was careful to emphasize with respect to these limitations on the States’ power that, except where the reserved rights or navigation servitude of the United States are invoked, the State has total authority over its internal waters. “Unquestionably the State... has a right to appropriate its waters, and the United States may not question such appropriation, unless thereby the navigability of the '[river] be disturbed.” Id., at 709.
Similarly, in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46 (1907), the United States claimed that it had a right in the Arkansas River superior to that of Kansas and Colorado stemming from its power “to control the whole system of the reclamation of arid lands.” The Court disagreed and held that state reclamation law must prevail. The United States, of course, could appropriate water and build projects to reclaim its own public lands. “As to those lands within the limits of the States, at least of the Western States, the National Government is the most considerable owner and has power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting its property.” Id., at 92. But federal legislation could not “override state laws in respect to the general subject of reclamation.” Ibid. “[E]ach State has full jurisdiction over the lands within its borders, including the beds of streams and other waters.” Id., at 93. With respect to the question that had been presented in Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co., the Court reaffirmed that each State “may determine for itself whether the common law rule in respect to riparian rights or that doctrine which obtains in the arid regions of the West of the appropriation of waters for the purposes of irrigation shall control. Congress cannot enforce either rule upon any State.” 206 U. S., at 94.
Ill
It is against this background that Congress passed the Reclamation Act of 1902. With the help of the 1891 and 1897 Acts, private and state reclamation projects had gone far toward reclaiming the arid lands, but massive projects were now needed to complete the goal and these were beyond the means of private companies and the States. In 1900, therefore, all of the major political parties endorsed federal funding of reclamation projects. While the Democratic Party’s platform specified none of the attributes of a federal program other than to recommend that it be “intelligent,” K. Porter & D. Johnson, National Party Platforms 115 (2d ed. 1961), the Republicans specifically recommended that the reclamation program “reserv[e] control of the distribution of water for irrigation to the respective States and territories.” Id., at 123. In his first message to Congress after assuming the Presidency, Theodore Roosevelt continued the cry for national funding of reclamation and again recommended that state law control the distribution of water.
As a result of the public demand for federal reclamation funding, a bill was introduced into- the 57th Congress to use the money from the sale of public lands in the Western States to build reclamation projects in those same States. The projects would be built on federal land and the actual construction and operation of the projects would be in the hands'of the Secretary of the Interior. But the Act clearly provided that state water law would control in the appropriation and later distribution of the water. As originally introduced, § 8 of the Reclamation Act provided:
“[N]othing in this act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation; but State and Territorial laws shall govern and control in the appropriation, use, and distribution of the waters rendered available by the works constructed under the provisions of this act: Provided, That the right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right.”
From the legislative history of the Reclamation Act of 1902, it is clear that state law was expected to control in two important respects. First, and of controlling importance to this case, the Secretary would have to appropriate, purchase, or condemn necessary water rights in strict conformity with state law. According to Representative Mondell, the principal sponsor of the reclamation bill in the House, once the Secretary determined that a reclamation project was feasible and that there was an adequate supply of water for the project, “the Secretary of the Interior would proceed to make the appropriation of the necessary water by giving the notice and complying with the forms of law of the State or Territory in which the works were located.” 35 Cong. Rec. 6678 (1902) (emphasis added). The Secretary of the Interior could not take any action in appropriating the waters of the state streams “which could not be undertaken by an individual or corporation if it were in the position of the Government as regards the ownership of its lands.” H. R. Rep. No. 794, 57th Cong., 1st Sess., 7-8 (1902). Thus, in response to the statement of an opponent to the bill that the Secretary would be allowed to condemn water even if in violation of state law, Representative Mondell briskly responded:
“Whereabouts does the gentleman find any such provision as he is arguing? Whereabouts in the bill is there anything that attempts to give the Federal Government any right to condemn or to take any water right or do anything which an individual could not do? Will the gentleman point out any place or any provision for the Federal Government to do anything that I could not do if I owned the public land?
“Mr. RAY of New York. Do you say there is nothing in this bill that provides for condemnation?
“Mr. MONDELL. The bill provides explicitly that even an appropriation of water can not be made except under State law.” 35 Cong. Rec. 6687 (1902) (emphasis added).
Second, once the waters were released from the Dam, their distribution to individual landowners would again be controlled by state law. As explained by Senator Clark of Wyoming, one of the principal supporters of the reclamation bill in the Senate, “the control of waters after leaving the reservoirs shall be vested in the States and Territories through which such waters flow.” Id., at 2222. As Senator Clark went on to explain:
“[I]t is right and proper that the various States and Territories should control in the distribution. The conditions in each and every State and Territory are different. What would be applicable in one locality is totally and absolutely inapplicable in another.... In each and every one of the States and Territories affected, after a long series of experiments, after a due consideration of conditions, there has arisen a set of men who are especially qualified to deal with local conditions.
“Every one of these States and Territories has an accomplished and experienced corps of engineers who for years have devoted their energies and their learning to a solution of this problem of irrigation in their individual localities. To take from these experienced men, to take from the legislatures of the various States and Territories, the control of this question at the present time would be something little less than suicidal. They are the men qualified to deal with the question, the laws are written upon their statute books and read of all men, and in every one of these States and Territories the laws have been passed that most diligently regard the rights of the settler and of the farmer....” Ibid.
As Representative Sutherland, later to be a Justice of this Court, succinctly put it, “if the appropriation and use were not under the provisions of the State law the utmost confusion would prevail.” Id., at 6770. Different water rights in the same State would be governed by different laws and would frequently conflict.
A principal motivating factor behind Congress’ decision to defer to state law was thus the legal confusion that would arise if federal water law and state water law reigned side by side in the same locality. Congress also intended to “folio [w] the well-established precedent in national legislation of recognizing local and State laws relative to the appropriation and distribution of water.” Id., at 6678 (Cong. Mondell). As Representative Mondell noted after reviewing the legislation discussed in Part II of this opinion: “Every act since that of April 26, 1866, has recognized local laws and customs appertaining to the appropriation and distribution of water used in irrigation, and it has been deemed wise to continue our policy in this regard.” Id., at 6679.
Both sponsors and opponents of the Reclamation Act also expressed constitutional doubts as to Congress' power to override the States’ regulation of waters within their borders. Congress was fully aware that the Supreme Court had “in several decisions recognized the right of the State to regulate and control the use of water within its borders.” Ibid. (Cong. Mondell). According to the House Report, “Section 8 recognizes State control over waters of nonnavigable streams such as are used in irrigation.” H. R. Rep. No. 794, 57th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1902) (emphasis added).
IV
For almost half a century, this congressionaily mandated division between federal and state authority worked smoothly. No project was constructed without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and the United States through this official preserved its authority to determine how federal- funds should be expended. But state laws relating to water rights were observed in accordance with the congressional directive contained in § 8 of the Act of 1902. In 1958, however, the first of two cases was decided by this Court in which private landowners or municipal corporations contended that state water law had the effect of overriding specific congressional directives to the Secretary of the Interior as to the operation of federal reclamation projects. In Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 357 U. S. 275, the Supreme Court of California decided that California law forbade the 160-acre limitation on irrigation water deliveries expressly written into § 5 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, and that therefore, under § 8 of the Reclamation Act, the Secretary was required to deliver reclamation water without regard to the acreage limitation. Both the State of California and the United States appealed from this judgment, and this Court reversed it, saying:
“Section 5 is a specific and mandatory prerequisite laid down by the Congress as binding in the operation of reclamation projects, providing that ‘[n]o right to the use of water... shall be sold for a tract exceeding one hundred and sixty acres to any one landowner....’ Without passing generally on the coverage of § 8 in the delicate area of federal-state relations in the irrigation field, we do not believe that the Congress intended § 8 to override the repeatedly reaffirmed national policy of § 5.” 357 U. S., at 291-292.
Five years later, in City of Fresno v. California, 372 U. S. 627 (1963), this Court affirmed a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that § 8 did not require the Secretary of the Interior to ignore explicit congressional provisions preferring irrigation use over domestic and municipal use.
Petitioners do not ask us to overrule these holdings, nor are we presently inclined to do so. Petitioners instead ask us to hold that a State may impose any condition on the “control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water” through a federal reclamation project that is not inconsistent with clear congressional directives respecting the project. Petitioners concede, and the Government relies upon, dicta in our cases that may point to a contrary conclusion. Thus, in Ivanhoe, the Court went beyond the actual facts of that case and stated:
“As we read § 8, it merely requires the United States to comply with state law when, in the construction and operation of a reclamation project, it becomes necessary for it to acquire water rights or vested interests therein.... We read nothing in § 8 that compels the United States to deliver water on conditions imposed by the State.” 357 U. S., at 291-292.
Like dictum was repeated in City of Fresno, supra, at 630, and in this Court’s opinion in Arizona v. California, 373 U. S. 546 (1963), where the Court also said
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.
Me. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On December 11, 1972, we noted probable jurisdiction of this appeal, 409 U. S. 1058, based on a jurisdictional statement presenting the single question whether the prohibition in § 9 (a) of the Hatch Act, now codified in 5 U. S. C. § 7324 (a)(2), against federal employees taking “an active part in political management or in political campaigns,” is unconstitutional on its face. Section 7324 (a) provides:
“An employee in an Executive agency or an individual employed by the government of the District of Columbia may not—
“(1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election; or
“(2) take an active part in political management or in political campaigns.
“For the purpose of this subsection, the phrase 'an active part in political management or in political campaigns’ means those acts of political management or political campaigning which were prohibited on the part of employees in the competitive service before July 19, 1940, by determinations of the Civil Service Commission under the rules prescribed by the President.”
A divided three-judge court sitting in the District of Columbia had held the section unconstitutional. 346 F. Supp. 578 (1972). We reverse the judgment of the District Court.
I
The case began when the National Association of Letter Carriers, six individual federal employees and certain local Democratic and Republican political committees filed a complaint, asserting on behalf of themselves and all federal employees that 5 U. S. C. § 7324 (a)(2) was unconstitutional on its face and seeking an injunction against its enforcement.
Each of the plaintiffs alleged that the Civil Service Commission was enforcing, or threatening to enforce, the Hatch Act's prohibition against active participation in political management or political campaigns with respect to certain defined activity in which that plaintiff desired to engage. The Union, for example, stated among other things that its members desired to campaign for candidates for public office. The Democratic and Republican Committees complained of not being able to get federal employees to run for state and local offices. Plaintiff Hummel stated that he was aware of the provision of the Hatch Act and that the activities he desired to engage in would violate that Act as, for example, his participating as a delegate in a party convention or holding office in a political club.
A three-judge court was convened, and the case was tried on both stipulated evidence and oral testimony. The District Court then ruled that § 7324 (a) (2) was unconstitutional on its face and enjoined its enforcement. The court recognized the “well-established governmental interest in restricting political activities by federal employees which [had been] asserted long before enactment of the Hatch Act,” 346 F. Supp., at 579, as well as the fact that the “appropriateness of this governmental objective was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States when it endorsed the objectives of the Hatch Act. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75... (1947)...” Id., at 580. The District Court ruled, however, that United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75 (1947), left open the constitutionality of the statutory definition of “political activity,” 346 F. Supp., at 580, and proceeded to hold that definition to be both vague and overbroad, and therefore unconstitutional and unenforceable against the plaintiffs in any respect. The District Court also added, id., at 585, that even if the Supreme Court in Mitchell could be said to have upheld the definitional section in its entirety, later decisions had so eroded the holding that it could no longer be considered binding on the District Court.
II
As the District Court recognized, the constitutionality of the Hatch Act’s ban on taking an active part in political management or political campaigns has been here before. This very prohibition was attacked in the Mitchell case by a labor union and various federal employees as being violative of the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments and as contrary to the Fifth Amendment by being vague and indefinite, arbitrarily discriminatory, and a deprivation of liberty. The Court there first determined that with respect to all but one of the plaintiffs there was no case or controversy present within the meaning of Art. Ill because the Court could only speculate as to the type of political activity the appellants there desired to engage in or as to the contents of their proposed public statements or the circumstances of their publication. As to the plaintiff Poole, however, the Court noted that “[h]e was a ward executive committeeman of a political party and was politically active on election day as a worker at the polls and a paymaster for the services of other party workers.” 330 U. S., at 94. Plainly, the Court thought, these activities fell within the prohibition of § 9 (a) of the Hatch Act against taking an active part in political management or political campaigning; and “[t]hey [were] also covered by the prior determinations of the [Civil Service] Commission,” id., at 103 (footnote omitted), as incorporated by § 15 of the Hatch Act, the Court relying on a Civil Service Commission publication, Political Activity and Political Assessments, Form 1236, Sept. 1939, for the latter conclusion. Id., at 103 n. 38. Poole’s complaint thus presented a case or controversy for decision, the question being solely whether the Hatch Act “without violating the Constitution, [could make this conduct] the basis for disciplinary action.” Id., at 94. The Court held that it could. “[T]he practice of excluding classified employees from party offices and personal political activity at the polls ha[d] been in effect for several decades,” id., at 96; and the Court, over a single dissent, in Ex parte Curtis, 106 U. S. 371 (1882), had previously upheld the longstanding prohibition forbidding federal employees “from giving or receiving money for political purposes from or to other employees of the government,” 330 U. S., at 96. “The conviction that an actively partisan governmental personnel threatens good administration has deepened since... Curtis,” id., at 97-98, Congress having recognized the “danger to the service in that political rather than official effort may earn advancement and to the public in that governmental favor may be channeled through political connections.” Id., at 98 (footnote omitted).
The Government, the Court thought, was empowered to prevent federal employees from contributing energy as well as from collecting money for partisan political ends: “Congress and the President are responsible for an efficient public service. If, in their judgment, efficiency may be best obtained by prohibiting active participation by classified employees in politics as party officers or workers, we see no constitutional objection.” Id., at 99 (footnote omitted). Another Congress might determine otherwise, but “[t]he teaching of experience... evidently led Congress to enact the Hatch Act,” id., at 99, which the Court refused to invalidate and which it viewed as leaving “untouched full participation by employees in political decisions at the ballot box and forbids only the partisan activity of federal personnel deemed offensive to efficiency.” Ibid. The Act did not interfere with a “wide range of public activities.” Id., at 100. It was “only partisan political activity that is interdicted.... [Only] active participation in political management and political campaigns [is proscribed]. Expressions, public or private, on public affairs, personalities and matters of public interest, not an objective of party action, are unrestricted by law so long as the government employee does not direct his activities toward party success.” Ibid. The Court concluded that what Mr. Poole had done was within the power of Congress and the Executive to prevent.
We unhesitatingly reaffirm the Mitchell holding that Congress had, and has, the power to prevent Mr. Poole and others like him from holding a party office, working at the polls, and acting as party paymaster for other party workers. An Act of Congress going no farther would in our view unquestionably be valid. So would it be if, in plain and understandable language, the statute forbade activities such as organizing a political party or club; actively participating in fund-raising activities for a partisan candidate or political party; becoming a partisan candidate for, or campaigning for, an elective public office; actively managing the campaign of a partisan candidate for public office; initiating or circulating a partisan nominating petition or soliciting votes for a partisan candidate for public office; or serving as a delegate, alternate or proxy to a political party convention. Our judgment is that neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution invalidates a law barring this kind of partisan political conduct by federal employees.
A
Such decision on our part would no more than confirm the judgment of history, a judgment made by this country over the last century that it is in the best interest of the country, indeed essential, that federal service should depend upon meritorious performance rather than political service, and that the political influence of federal employees on others and on the electoral process should be limited. That this judgment eventuated is indisputable, and the major steps in reaching it may be simply and briefly set down.
Early in our history, Thomas Jefferson was disturbed by the political activities of some of those in the Executive Branch of the Government. See 10 J. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents 98 (1899). The heads of the executive departments, in response to his directive, issued an order stating in part that “[t]he right of any officer to give his vote at elections as a qualified citizen is not meant to be restrained, nor, however given, shall it have any effect to his prejudice; but it is expected that he will not attempt to influence the votes of others nor take any part in the business of electioneering, that being deemed inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and his duties to it.” Id., at 98-99.
There were other voices raised in the 19th century against the mixing of partisan politics and routine federal service. But until after the Civil War, the spoils system under which federal employees came and went, depending upon party service and changing administrations, rather than meritorious performance, was much the vogue and the prevalent basis for governmental employment and advancement. 1 Report of Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel, Findings and Recommendations 7-8 (1968). That system did not survive. Congress authorized the President to prescribe regulations for the creation of a civil service of federal employees in 1871, 16 Stat. 514; but it was the Civil Service Act of 1883, c. 27, 22 Stat. 403, known as the Pendleton Act, H. Kaplan, The Law of Civil Service 9-10 (1958), that declared that “no person in the public service is for that reason under any obligations to contribute to any political fund, or to render any political service” and that “no person in said service has any right to use his official authority or influence to coerce the political action of any person or body.” 22 Stat. 404. That Act authorized the President to promulgate rules to carry the Act into effect and created the Civil Service Commission as the agency or administrator of the Act under the rules of the President.
The original Civil Service rules were promulgated on May 7, 1883, by President Arthur. Civil Service Rule I repeated the language of the Act that no one in the executive service should use his official authority or influence to coerce any other person or to interfere with an election, but went no further in restricting the political activities of federal employees. 8 J. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents 161 (1899). Problems with political activity continued to arise, Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Civil Service Commission 7-9 (1908), and one form of remedial action was taken in 1907 when, in accordance with Executive Order 642 issued by President Theodore Roosevelt, 1 Report of Commission on Political Activity, supra, at 9, § 1 of Rule I was amended to read as follows:
“No person in the Executive civil service shall use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or affecting the result thereof. Persons who, by the provisions of these rules are in the competitive classified service, while retaining the right to vote as they please and to express privately their opinions on all political subjects, shall take no active part in political management or in political campaigns.” Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Civil Service Commission, supra, at 104 (emphasis added).
It was under this rule that the Commission thereafter exercised the authority it had to investigate, adjudicate, and recommend sanctions for federal employees thought to have violated the rule. See Howard, Federal Restrictions on the Political Activity of Government Employees, 35 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 470, 475 (1941). In the course of these adjudications, the Commission identified and developed a body of law with respect to the conduct of federal employees that was forbidden by the prohibition against taking an active part in political management or political campaigning. Adjudications under Civil Service Rule I spelled out the scope and meaning of the rule in the mode of the common law, 86 Cong. Rec. 2341-2342; and the rules fashioned in this manner were from time to time stated and restated by the Commission for the guidance of the federal establishment. Civil Service Form 1236 of September 1939, for example, purported to publish and restate the law of “Political Activity and Political Assessments" for federal officeholders and employees.
Civil Service Rule I covered only the classified service. The experience of the intervening years, particularly that of the 1936 and 1938 political campaigns, convinced a majority in Congress that the prohibition against taking an active part in political management and political campaigns should be extended to the entire federal service. 84 Cong. Rec. 4303, 9595, 9604, and 9610. A bill introduced for this purpose, S. 1871, “to prevent pernicious political activities,” easily passed the Senate, 84 Cong. Rec. 4191-4192; but both the constitutionality and the advisability of purporting to restrict the political activities of employees were heatedly debated in the House. Id,., at 9594-9639. The bill was enacted, however. 53 Stat. 1147. This was the so-called Hatch Act, named after the Senator who was its chief proponent. In its initial provisions, §§ 1 and 2, it forbade anyone from coercing or interfering with the vote of another person and prohibited federal employees from using their official positions to influence or interfere with or affect the election or nomination of certain federal officials. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act prohibited the promise of, or threat of termination of, employment or compensation for the purpose of influencing or securing political activity, or support or opposition for any candidate.
Section 9 (a), which provided the prohibition against political activity now found in 5 U. S. C. § 7324 (a)(2), with which we are concerned in this case, essentially restated Civil Service Rule I, with an important exception. It made it
“unlawful for any person employed in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, to use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or affecting the result thereof. No officer or employee in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, shall take any active part in political management or in political campaigns. All such persons shall retain the right to vote as they may choose and to express their opinions on all political subjects.”
Excepted from the restriction were the President, Vice President, and specified officials in policy-making positions. Section 9 (b) required immediate removal for violators and forbade the use of appropriated funds thereafter to pay compensation to such persons.
Section 9 differed from Civil Service Rule I in important respects. It applied to all persons employed by the Federal Government, with limited exceptions; it made dismissal from office mandatory upon an adjudication of a violation; and, whereas Civil Service Rule I had stated that persons retained the right to express their private opinions on all political subjects, the statute omitted the word “private” and simply privileged all employees “to express their opinions on all political subjects.”
On the day prior to signing the bill, President Franklin Roosevelt sent a message to Congress stating his conviction that the bill was constitutional and recommending that Congress at its next session consider extending the Act to state and local government employees. 84 Cong. Rec. 10745-10747 and 10875. This, Congress quickly proceeded to do. The Act of July 19, 1940, c. 640, 54 Stat. 767, extended the Hatch Act to officers and employees of state and local agencies “whose principal employment is in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States....” The Civil Service Commission was empowered under § 12 (b) to investigate and adjudicate violations of the Act by state and local employees. Also relevant for present purposes, § 9 (a) of the Hatch Act was amended so that all persons covered by the Act were free to “express their opinions on all political subjects and candidates.” (Emphasis added.) Moreover, §15 defined §9(a)’s prohibition against taking an active part in political management or in political campaigns as proscribing “the same activities on the part of such persons as the United States Civil Service Commission has heretofore determined are at the time this section takes effect prohibited on the part of employees in the classified civil service of the United States by the provisions of the civil-service rules prohibiting such employees from taking any active part in political management or in political campaigns.” Under § 18, now 5 U. S. C. § 7326, the prohibition against political activity was not to be construed to prohibit political activity in nonpartisan elections or in connection with questions not specifically identified with any national or state political party, such as “questions relating to constitutional amendments, referendums, approval of municipal ordinances, and others of a similar character....”
In 1950, § 9 (b), of the Act, requiring removal from office for violating the Act, was amended by providing that the Commission by unanimous vote could impose a lesser penalty, but in no case less than 90 days’ suspension without pay. 64 Stat. 475. The minimum sanction was reduced to 30 days’ suspension without pay in 1962. 76 Stat. 750.
In 1966, Congress determined to review the restrictions of the Hatch Act on the partisan political activities of public employees. For this purpose, the Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel was created. 80 Stat. 868. The Commission reported in 1968, recommending some liberalization of the political-activity restrictions on federal employees, but not abandoning the fundamental decision that partisan political activities by government employees must be limited in major respects. 1 Report of Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel, supra. Since that time, various bills have been introduced in Congress, some following the Commission’s recommendations and some proposing much more substantial revisions of the Hatch Act. In 1972, hearings were held on some proposed legislation; but no new legislation has resulted.
This account of the efforts by the Federal Government to limit partisan political activities by those covered by the Hatch Act should not obscure the equally relevant fact that all 50 States have restricted the political activities of their own employees.
B
Until now, the judgment of Congress, the Executive, and the country appears to have been that partisan political activities by federal employees must be limited if the Government is to operate effectively and fairly, elections are to play their proper part in representative government, and employees themselves are to be sufficiently free from improper influences. E. g., 84 Cong. Rec. 9598, 9603; 86 Cong. Rec. 2360, 2621, 2864, 9376. The restrictions so far imposed on federal employees are not aimed at particular parties, groups, or points of view, but apply equally to all partisan activities of the type described. They discriminate against no racial, ethnic, or religious minorities. Nor do they seek to control political opinions or beliefs, or to interfere with or influence anyone’s vote at the polls.
But, as the Court held in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968), the government has an interest in regulating the conduct and “the speech of its employees that differ [s] significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general. The problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the [government], as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Although Congress is free to strike a different balance than it has, if it so chooses, we think the balance it has so far struck is sustainable by the obviously important interests sought to be served by the limitations on partisan political activities now contained in the Hatch Act.
It seems fundamental in the first place that employees in the Executive Branch of the Government, or those working for any of its agencies, should administer the law in accordance with the will of Congress, rather than in accordance with their own or the will of a political party. They are expected to enforce the law and execute the programs of the Government without bias or favoritism for or against any political party or group or the members thereof. A major thesis of the Hatch Act is that to serve this great end of Government — the impartial execution of the laws — it is essential that federal employees, for example, not take formal positions in political parties, not undertake to play substantial roles in partisan political campaigns, and not run for office on partisan political tickets. Forbidding activities like these will reduce the hazards to fair and effective government. See 84 Cong. Rec. 9598; 86 Cong. Rec. 2433-2434, 2864; Hearings on S. 3374 and S. 3417 before the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 171.
There is another consideration in this judgment: it is not only important that the Government and its employees in fact avoid practicing political justice, but it is also critical that they appear to the public to be avoiding it, if confidence in the system of representative Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent.
Another major concern of the restriction against partisan activities by federal employees was perhaps the immediate occasion for enactment of the Hatch Act in 1939. That was the conviction that the rapidly expanding Government work force should not be employed to build a powerful, invincible, and perhaps corrupt political machine. The experience of the 1936 and 1938 campaigns convinced Congress that these dangers were sufficiently real that substantial barriers should be raised against the party in power — or the party out of power, for that matter — using the thousands or hundreds of thousands of federal employees, paid for at public expense, to man its political structure and political campaigns. E. g., 84 Cong. Rec. 9595, 9598, 9604, 9610.
A related concern, and this remains as important as any other, was to further serve the goal that employment and advancement in the Government service not depend on political performance, and at the same time to make sure that Government employees would be free from pressure and from express or tacit invitation to vote in a certain way or perform political chores in order to curry favor with their superiors rather than to act out their own beliefs. See, e. g., id., at 9598, 9603; 86 Cong. Rec. 2433-2434; Hearings on S. 3374 and S. 3417, supra, at 171. It may be urged that prohibitions against coercion are sufficient protection; but for many years the joint judgment of the Executive and Congress has been that to protect the rights of federal employees with respect to their jobs and their political acts and beliefs it is not enough merely to forbid one employee to attempt to influence or coerce another. For example, at the hearings in 1972 on proposed legislation for liberalizing the prohibition against political activity, the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission stated that “the prohibitions against active participation in partisan political management and partisan political campaigns constitute the most significant safeguards against coercion... Hearings on S. 3374 and S. 3417, supra, at 52. Perhaps Congress at some time will come to a different view of the realities of political life and Government service; but that is its current view of the matter, and we are not now in any position to dispute it. Nor, in our view, does the Constitution forbid it.
Neither the right to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute in any event. See, e. g., Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 336 (1972); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134, 140-141 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U. S. 431 (1971); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 30-31 (1968). Nor are the management, financing, and conduct of political campaigns wholly free from governmental regulation. We agree with the basic holding of Mitchell that plainly identifiable acts of political management and political campaigning on the part of federal employees may constitutionally be prohibited. Until now this has been the judgment of the lower federal courts, and we do not understand the District Court in this case to have questioned the constitutionality of a law that was specifically limited to prohibiting the conduct in which Mr. Poole in the Mitchell case admittedly engaged.
Ill
But however constitutional the proscription of identifiable partisan conduct in understandable language may be, the District Court’s judgment was that § 7324 (a) (2) was both unconstitutionally vague and fatally overbroad. Appellees make the same contentions here, but we cannot agree that the section is unconstitutional on its face for either reason.
As an initial matter, we must have clearly in mind the statutory prohibitions that we are examining for impermissible vagueness and overbreadth.
Section 7324 (a)(2) provides that an employee in an executive agency must not take “an active part in political management or in political campaigns” and goes on to say that this prohibition refers to “those acts of political management or political campaigning which were prohibited on the part of employees in the competitive service before July 19, 1940, by determinations of the Civil Service Commission under the rules prescribed by the President.” Section 7324 (b) privileges an employee to vote as he chooses and to express his opinion on political subjects and candidates, and §§ 7324 (c) and (d), as well as §7326, also limit the applicability of § 7324 (a) (2). The principal issue with respect to this statutory scheme is what Congress intended when it purported to define “an active part in political management or in political campaigns,” as meaning the prior interpretations by the Civil Service Commission under Civil Service Rule I which contained the identical prohibition.
Earlier in this opinion it was noted that this definition was contained in § 15 of the 1940 Act. As recommended by the Senate Committee, S. Rep. No. 1236, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 2, 4, § 15 conferred broad rulemaking authority on the Civil Service Commission to spell out the meaning of “an active part in political management or in political campaigns.” There were, in any event, strong objections to extending the Hatch Act to those state employees working in federally financed programs, see, e. g., 86 Cong. Rec. 2486, 2793-2794, 2801-2802, and to § 15, in particular, as being an unwise and invalid delegation of legislative power to the Commission. See, e. g., id., at 2352, 2426-2427, 2579, 2794, 2875. The matter was vigorously debated; and ultimately Senator Hatch, the principal proponent and manager of the bill, offered a substitute for § 15, id., at 2928 and 2937, limiting the reach of the prohibition to those same activities that the Commission “has heretofore determined are at the time of the passage of this act prohibited on the part of employees” in the classified service by the similar provision in Civil Service Rule I. The matter was further debated, and the amendment carried. Id., at 2958-2959.
The District Court and appellees construe § 15, now part of § 7324 (a) (2), as incorporating each of the several thousand adjudications of the Civil Service Commission under Civil Service Rule I, many of which are said to be undiscoverable, inconsistent, or incapable of yielding any meaningful rules to govern present or future conduct. In any event, the District Court held the prohibition against taking an active part in political management and political campaigns to be itself an insufficient guide to employee behavior and thought the definitional addendum of § 15 only compounded the confusion by referring the concerned employees to an impenetrable jungle of Commission proceedings, orders, and rulings. 346 F. Supp., at 582-583, 585.
We take quite a different view of the statute. As we see it, our task is not to destroy the Act if we can, but to construe it, if consistent with the will of Congress, so as to comport with constitutional limitations. With this in mind and having examined with some care the proceedings surrounding the passage of the 1940 Act and adoption of the substitute for § 15, we think it appears plainly enough that Congress intended to deprive the Civil Service Commission of rulemaking power in the sense of exercising a subordinate legislative role in fashioning a more expansive definition of the kind of conduct that would violate the prohibition against taking an active part in political management or political campaigns. But it is equally plain, we think, that Congress accepted the fact that the Commission had been performing its investigative and adjudicative role under Civil Service Rule I since 1907 and that the Commission had, on a case-by-case basis, fleshed out the meaning of Rule I and so developed a body of law with respect to what partisan conduct by federal employees was forbidden by the rule. 86 Cong. Rec. 2342, 2353. It is also apparent, in our view, that the rules that had evolved over the years from repeated adjudications were subject to sufficiently clear and summary statement for the guidance of the classified service. Many times during the debate on the floor of the Senate, Senator Hatch and others referred to a summary list of such prohibitions, see, e. g., id., at 2929, 2937-2938, 2942-2943, 2949, 2952-2953, the Senator’s ultimate reference being to Civil Service Form No. 1236 of September 1939, the pertinent portion of which he placed in the Record, id., at 2938-2940, and which was the Commission’s then-current effort to restate the prevailing prohibitions of Civil Service Rule I, as spelled out in its adjudications to that date. It was this administrative restatement of Civil Service Rule I law, modified to the extent necessary to reflect the provisions of the 1939 and 1940 Acts themselves, that, in our view, Congress intended to serve as •its definition of the general proscription against partisan activities. It was within the limits of these rules that the Civil Service Commission was to proceed to perform its role under the statute.
Not only did Congress expect the Commission to continue its accustomed role with respect to federal employees, but also in § 12 (b) of the 1940 Act Congress expressly assigned the Commission the enforcement task with respect to state employees now covered by the Act. The Commission was to issue notice, hold hearings, adjudicate, and enforce. This process, inevitably and predictably, would entail further development of the law within the bounds of, and necessarily no more severe than, the 1940 rules and would be productive of a more refined definition of what conduct would or would not violate the statutory prohibition of taking an active part in political management and political campaigns.
It is thus not surprising that there were later editions of Form 1236, or that in 1970 the Commission again purported to restate the law of forbidden political activity and, informed by years of intervening adjudications, again sought to define those acts which are forbidden and those which are permitted by the Hatch Act. These regulations, 5 CFR pt. 733, are wholly legitimate descendants of the 1940 restatement adopted by Congress and were arrived at by a process that Congress necessarily anticipated would occur down through the years. We accept them as the current and, in most respects, the longstanding interpretations of the statute by the agency charged with its interpretation and enforcement. It is to these regulations purporting to construe § 7324 as actually applied in practice, as well as to the statute itself, with its various exclusions, that we address ourselves in rejecting the claim that the Act is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154, 162-163 (1971); cf. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 520-521 (1972).
Whatever might be the difficulty with a provision against taking “active part in political management or in political campaigns,” the Act specifically provides that the employee retains the right to vote as he chooses and to express his opinion on political subjects and candidates. The Act exempts research and educational activities supported by the District of Columbia or by religious, philanthropic, or cultural organizations, 5 U. S. C. § 7324 (c); and § 7326 exempts nonpartisan political activity: questions, that is, that are not identified with national or state political parties are not covered by the Act, including issues with respect to constitutional amendments, referendums, approval of municipal ordinances, and the like. Moreover, the plain import of the 1940 amendment to the Hatch Act is that the proscription against taking an active part in the proscribed activities is not open-ended but is limited to those rules and proscriptions that had been developed under Civil Service Rule I up to the date of the passage of the 1940 Act. Those rules, as refined by further adjudications within the outer limits of the 1940 rules, were restated by the Commission in 1970 in the form of regulations specifying the conduct that would be prohibited or permitted by § 7324 and its companion sections.
We have set out these regulations in the margin. We see nothing impermissibly vague in 5 CFE § 733.122, which specifies in separate paragraphs the various activities deemed to be prohibited by § 7324 (a) (2). There might be quibbles about the meaning of taking an “active part in managing” or about “actively participating in... fund-raising” or about the meaning of becoming a “partisan” candidate for office; but there are limitations in the English language with respect to being both specific and manageably brief, and it seems to us that although the prohibitions may not satisfy those intent on finding fault at any cost, they are set out in terms that the ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense can sufficiently understand and comply with, without sacrifice to the public interest. “[T]he general class of offenses to which... [the provisions are] directed is plainly within [their] terms,... [and they] will not be struck down as vague, even though marginal cases could be put where doubts might arise.” United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 618 (1954). Surely, there seemed to be little question in the minds of the plaintiffs who brought this lawsuit as to the meaning of the law,
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether the City of Akron, Ohio, has denied a Negro citizen, Nellie Hunter, the equal protection of its laws by amending the city charter to prevent the city council from implementing any ordinance dealing with racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination in housing without the approval of the majority of the voters of Akron.
The Akron City Council in 1964 enacted a fair housing ordinance premised on a recognition of the social and economic losses to society which flow from substandard, ghetto housing and its tendency to breed discrimination and segregation contrary to the policy of the city to “assure equal opportunity to all persons to live in decent housing facilities regardless of race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin.” Akron Ordinance No. 873-1964 § 1. A Commission on Equal Opportunity in Housing was established by the ordinance in the office of the Mayor to enforce the antidiscrimination sections of the ordinance through conciliation or persuasion if possible, but, if not, then through “such order as the facts warrant,” based upon a hearing at which witnesses may be subpoenaed, and entitled to enforcement in the courts. Akron Ordinance No. 873-1964, as amended by Akron Ordinance No. 926-1964.
Seeking to invoke this machinery which had been established by the city for her benefit, Nellie Hunter addressed a complaint to the Commission asserting that a real estate agent had come to show her a list of houses for sale, but that on meeting Mrs. Hunter the agent “stated that she could not show me any of the houses on the list she had prepared for me because all of the owners had specified they did not wish their houses shown to negroes.” Mrs. Hunter’s affidavit met with the reply that the fair housing ordinance was unavailable to her because the city charter had been amended to provide:
“Any ordinance enacted by the Council of The City of Akron which regulates the use, sale, advertisement, transfer, listing assignment, lease, sublease or financing of real property of any kind or of any interest therein on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry must first be approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question at a regular or general election before said ordinance shall be effective. Any such ordinance in effect at the time of the adoption of this section shall cease to be effective until approved by the electors as provided herein.” Akron City Charter § 137.
The proposal for the charter amendment had been placed on the ballot at a general election upon petition of more than 10% of Akron’s voters, and the amendment had been duly passed by a majority.
Appellant then brought an action in the Ohio courts on behalf of the municipality, herself, and all others similarly situated, to obtain a writ of mandamus requiring the Mayor to convene the Commission and to require the Commission and the Director of Law to enforce the fair housing ordinance and process her complaint. The trial court initially held the enforcement provisions of the fair housing ordinance invalid under state law, but the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed, State ex rel. Hunter v. Erickson, 6 Ohio St. 2d 130, 216 N. E. 2d 371 (1966). On remand, the trial court held that the fair housing ordinance was rendered ineffective by the charter amendment, and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, holding that the charter amendment was not repugnant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Akron contends that this case has been rendered moot by the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-284, 82 Stat. 73, the decision of this Court in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409 (1968), and the passage of an Ohio Act effective October 30, 1965, Ohio Rev. Code Ann., Tit. 41, c. 4112. It is true that each of these events is related to open housing, but none of the legislation involved was intended to pre-empt local housing ordinances or provide rights and remedies which are effective substitutes for the Akron law.
The 1968 Civil Rights Act specifically preserves and defers to local fair housing laws, and the 1866 Civil Rights Act considered in Jones should be read together with the later statute on the same subject, United States v. Stewart, 311 U. S. 60, 64-65 (1940); Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cranch 1, 34-35 (1801), so as not to pre-empt the local legislation which the far more detailed Act of 1968 so explicitly preserves. If the Ohio statute mooted the case, surely the Ohio Supreme Court would have so held when the validity of the Akron ordinance was twice before it after the Ohio statute was passed. Moreover, the sections of the Ohio law which are crucial here apply only to “commercial housing,” and on any reading we can imagine do not apply to Mrs. Hunter’s case, though the Akron ordinance does. Finally, the case cannot be considered moot since the Akron ordinance provides an enforcement mechanism unmatched by either state or federal legislation. Unlike state or federal programs, the Akron ordinance brings local people together for conciliation and persuasion by and before a local tribunal. It is precisely this sort of very localized solution to which Congress meant to defer. We therefore reject the contention that this case is moot.
Akron argues that this case is unlike Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U. S. 369 (1967) in that here the city charter declares no right to discriminate in housing, authorizes and encourages no housing discrimination, and places no ban on the enactment of fair housing ordinances. But we need not rest on Reitman to decide this case. Here, unlike Reitman, there was an explicitly racial classification treating racial housing matters differently from other racial and housing matters.
By adding § 137 to its Charter the City of Akron, which unquestionably wields state power, not only suspended the operation of the existing ordinance forbidding housing discrimination, but also required the approval of the electors before any future ordinance could take effect. Section 137 thus drew a distinction between those groups who sought the law’s protection against racial, religious, or ancestral discriminations in the sale and rental of real estate and those who sought to regulate real property transactions in the pursuit of other ends. Those who sought, or would benefit from, most ordinances regulating the real property market remained subject to the general rule: the ordinance would become effective 30 days after passage by the City Council, or immediately if passed as an emergency measure, and would be subject to referendum only if 10% of the electors so requested by filing a proper and timely petition. Passage by the Council sufficed unless the electors themselves invoked the general referendum provisions of the city charter. But for those who sought protection against racial bias, the approval of the City Council was not enough. A referendum was required by charter at a general or regular election, without any provision for use of the expedited special election ordinarily available. The Akron charter obviously made it substantially more difficult to secure enactment of ordinances subject to § 137.
Only laws to end housing discrimination based on “race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry” must run § 137’s gantlet. It is true that the section draws no distinctions among racial and religious groups. Negroes and whites, Jews and Catholics are all subject to the same requirements if there is housing discrimination against them which they wish to end. But § 137 nevertheless disadvantages those who would benefit from laws barring racial, religious, or ancestral discriminations as against those who would bar other discriminations or who would otherwise regulate the real estate market in their favor. The automatic referendum system does not reach housing discrimination on sexual or political grounds, or against those with children or dogs, nor does it affect tenants seeking more heat or better maintenance from landlords, nor those seeking rent control, urban renewal, public housing, or new building codes.
Moreover, although the law on its face treats Negro and white, Jew and gentile in an identical manner, the reality is that the law’s impact falls on the minority. The majority needs no protection against discrimination and if it did, a referendum might be bothersome but no more than that. Like the law requiring specification of candidates’ race on the ballot, Anderson v. Martin, 375 U. S. 399 (1964), § 137 places special burdens on racial minorities within the governmental process. This is no more permissible than denying them the vote, on an equal basis with others. Cf. Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964); Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474 (1968). The preamble to the open housing ordinance which was suspended by § 137 recited that the population of Akron consists of “people of different race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin, many of whom live in circumscribed and segregated areas, under sub-standard, unhealthful, unsafe, unsanitary and overcrowded conditions, because of discrimination in the sale, lease, rental and financing of housing.” Such was the situation in Akron. It is against this background that the referendum required by § 137 must be assessed.
Because the core of the Fourteenth Amendment is the prevention of meaningful and unjustified official distinctions based on race, Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71 (1873); Strauder v. West Virgina, 100 U. S. 303, 307-308 (1880); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 344-345 (1880); McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 192 (1964); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 10 (1967), racial classifications are “constitutionally suspect,” Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 499 (1954), and subject to the “most rigid scrutiny,” Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 216 (1944). They “bear a far heavier burden of justification” than other classifications, McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 194 (1964).
We are unimpressed with any of Akron’s justifications for its discrimination. Characterizing it simply as a public decision to move slowly in the delicate area of race relations emphasizes the impact and burden of § 137, but does not justify it. The amendment was unnecessary either to implement a decision to go slowly, or to allow the people of Akron to participate in that decision. Likewise, insisting that a State may distribute legislative power as it desires and that the people may retain for themselves the power over certain subjects may generally be true, but these principles furnish no justification for a legislative structure which otherwise would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor does the implementation of this change through popular referendum immunize it. Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, 377 U. S. 713, 736-737 (1964). The sovereignty of the people is itself subject to those constitutional limitations which have been duly adopted and remain unrepealed. Even though Akron might have proceeded by majority vote at town meeting on all its municipal legislation, it has instead chosen a more complex system. Having done so, the State may no more disadvantage any particular group by making it more difficult to enact legislation in its behalf than it may dilute any person’s vote or give any group a smaller representation than another of comparable size. Cf. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964); Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474 (1968).
We hold that § 137 discriminates against minorities, and constitutes a real, substantial, and invidious denial of the equal protection of the laws.
Reversed.
Nothing in the federal statute is to be construed “to invalidate or limit any law of a State or political subdivision of a State” giving similar housing rights, and deference is to be given to local enforcement. Civil Rights Act of 1968, Tit. VIII, §§ 815, 810 (e), 82 Stat. 89, 86.
“All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.” § 1, 14 Stat. 27, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1982.
The Ohio statute makes it unlawful for “any person” to “[r]efuse to sell ... or otherwise deny or withhold commercial housing from any person because of the race [or] color” of the prospective owner. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 4112.02 (H) and 4112.02(H)(1) (Supp. 1967) (emphasis added). “Commercial housing” is defined to exclude “any personal residence offered for sale or rent by the owner or by his broker, salesman, agent, or employee.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4112.01 (K) (Supp. 1967). The statute makes it unlawful to “[p]rint, publish, or circulate any statement or advertisement relating to the sale [of a] . . . personal residence . . . which indicates any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based upon race ...” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4112.02 (H)(6) (Supp. 1967). Since Mrs. Hunter does not seek commercial housing, or complain of the affront to her sensibilities of hearing a “circulated” statement (if the Ohio statute goes that far) she cannot obtain the relief she seeks under the Ohio statute.
See, e. g., Evans v. Newton, 382 U. S. 296 (1966); Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U. S. 715 (1961); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 (1948).
Thus we do not hold that mere repeal of an existing ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Ordinances may be initiated through a petition signed by 7% of the voters, and the city charter may be amended or measures enacted by the council repealed through a referendum which may be obtained on petition of 10% of the voters.
The people of Akron had the power to initiate legislation, or to review council decisions, even before § 137. See n. 6, supra. The procedural prerequisites for this popular action are perfectly reasonable, as the gathering of 10% of the voters’ signatures in the course of passing § 137 illustrates.
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 respondent, Richard J. Mara, was subpoenaed to appear before the September 1971 Grand Jury in the Northern District of Illinois that was investigating thefts of interstate shipments. On two separate occasions he was directed to produce handwriting and printing exemplars to the grand jury’s designated agent. Each time he was advised that he was a potential defendant in the matter under investigation. On both occasions he refused to produce the exemplars.
The Government then petitioned the United States District Court to compel Mara to furnish the handwriting and printing exemplars to the grand jury. The petition indicated that the exemplars were “essential and necessary” to the grand jury investigation and would be used solely as a standard of comparison to determine whether Mara was the author of certain writings. The petition was accompanied by an affidavit of an FBI agent, submitted in camera, which set forth the basis for seeking the exemplars. The District Judge rejected the respondent’s contention that the compelled production of such exemplars would constitute an unreasonable search and seizure, and he ordered the respondent to provide them. When the witness continued to refuse to do so, he was adjudged to be in civil contempt and was committed to custody until he obeyed the court order or until the expiration of the grand jury term.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 454 F. 2d 580. Relying on its earlier decision in In re Dionisio, 442 F. 2d 276, rev’d, ante, p. 1, the court found that the directive to furnish the exemplars would constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. “[I]t is plain that compelling [Mara] to furnish exemplars of his handwriting and printing is forbidden by the Fourth Amendment unless the Government has complied with its reasonableness requirement . . . 454 F. 2d, at 582.
The court then turned to two issues necessarily generated by its decision in Dionisio — the procedure the Government must follow and the substantive showing it must make to establish the reasonableness of the grand jury's directive. It rejected the in camera procedure of the District Court, and held that the Government would have to present its affidavit in open court in order that Mara might contest its sufficiency. The court ruled that to establish “reasonableness” the Government would have to make a substantive showing: “that the grand jury investigation was properly authorized, for a purpose Congress can order, that the information sought is relevant to the inquiry, and that . . . the grand jury process is not being abused. . . . [T]he Government’s affidavit must also show why satisfactory handwriting and printing exemplars cannot be obtained from other sources without grand jury compulsion.” 454 F. 2d, at 584^585.
We granted certiorari, 406 U. S. 956, to consider this case with United States v. Dionisio, No. 71-229, ante, p. 1.
We have held today in Dionisio, that a grand jury subpoena is not a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and, further, that that Amendment is not violated by a grand jury directive compelling production of “physical characteristics” that are “constantly exposed to the public.” Ante, at 9, 10, 14. Handwriting, like speech, is repeatedly shown to the public, and there is no more expectation of privacy in the physical characteristics of a person’s script than there is in the tone of his voice. See United States v. Doe (Schwartz), 457 F. 2d 895, 898-899; Bradford v. United States, 413 F. 2d 467, 471-472; cf. Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263, 266-267. Consequently the Government was under no obligation here, any more than in Dionisio, to make a preliminary showing of ‘ ‘reasonableness. ’ ’
Indeed, this case lacks even the aspects of an expansive investigation that the Court of Appeals found significant in Dionisio. In that case, 20 witnesses were summoned to give exemplars; here there was only one. The specific and narrowly drawn directive requiring the witness to furnish a specimen of his handwriting violated no legitimate Fourth Amendment interest. The District Court was correct, therefore, in ordering the respondent to comply with the grand jury’s request.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and this case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The respondent contends that because he has seen neither the affidavit nor the writings in the grand jury's possession, the Government may actually be seeking “testimonial” communications — the content as opposed to the physical characteristics of his writing. But the Government’s petition for the order to compel production stated: “Such exemplars will be used solely as a standard of comparison in order to determine whether the witness is the author of certain writings.” If the Government should seek more than the physical characteristics of the witness’ handwriting — if, for example, it should seek to obtain written answers to incriminating questions or a signature on an incriminating statement — then, of course, the witness could assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
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.
California Govt. Code Ann. § 6254(f)(3) (West Supp. 1999) places two conditions on public access to arrestees’ addresses — that the person requesting an address declare that the request is being made for one of five prescribed purposes, and that the requester also declare that the address will not be used directly or indirectly to sell a product or service.
The District Court permanently enjoined enforcement of the statute, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute was facially invalid because it unduly burdens commercial speech. We hold that the statutory section in question was not subject to a “facial” challenge.
Petitioner, the Los Angeles Police Department, maintains records relating to arrestees. Respondent, United Reporting Publishing Corporation, is a private publishing service that provides the names and addresses of recently arrested individuals to its customers, who include attorneys, insurance companies, drug and alcohol counselors, and driving schools.
Before July 1,1996, respondent received arrestees’ names and addresses under the old version of § 6254, which generally required state and local law enforcement agencies to make public the name, address, and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency. Cal. Govt. Code Ann. § 6254(f) (West 1995). Effective July 1,1996, the state legislature amended § 6254(f) to limit the public’s access to arrest-ees’ and victims’ current addresses. The amended statute provides that state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public:
“[T]he current address of every individual arrested by the agency and the current address of the victim of a crime, where the requester declares under penalty of perjury that the request is made for a scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purpose, or that the request is made for investigation purposes by a licensed private investigator . . . except that the address of the victim of [certain crimes] shall remain confidential. Address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph shall not be used directly or indirectly to sell a prod-uet or service to any individual or group of individuals, and the requester shall execute a declaration to that effect under penalty of perjury.” Cal. Govt. Code Ann. § 6254(f)(3) (West Supp. 1999).
Sections 6254(f)(1) and (2) require that state and loeal law enforcement agencies make public, inter alia, the name, occupation, and physical description, including date of birth, of every individual arrested by the agency, as well as the circumstances of the arrest. Thus, amended § 6254(f) limits access only to the arrestees’ addresses.
Before the effective date of the amendment, respondent sought declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Rev. Stat. § 1979,42 U. S. C. § 1988, to hold the amendment unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On the effective date of the statute, petitioner and other law enforcement agencies denied respondent access to the address information because, according to respondent, “[respondent’s] employees could not sign section 6254(f)(3) declarations.” Brief for Respondent 5. Respondent did not allege, and nothing in the record before this Court indicates, that it ever “declared] under penalty of perjury” that it was requesting information for one of the prescribed purposes and that it would not use the address information to “directly or indirectly . . . sell a product or service,” as would have been required by the statute. See § 6254(f)(3).
Respondent then amended its complaint and sought a temporary restraining order. The District Court issued a temporary restraining order, and, a few days later, issued a preliminary injunction. Respondent then filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. In granting the motion, the District Court construed respondent’s claim as presenting a facial challenge to amended § 6254(f). United Reporting Publishing Corp. v. Lungren, 946 F. Supp. 822, 823 (SD Cal. 1996). The court held that the statute was facially invalid under the First Amendment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s facial invalidation. United Reporting Publishing Corp. v. California Highway Patrol, 146 F. 3d 1133 (CA9 1998). The court concluded that the statute restricted commercial speech, and, as such, was entitled to “ ‘a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values.’” Ibid. (quoting Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S. 447, 456 (1978)). The court applied the test set out in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, 566 (1980), and found that the asserted governmental interest in protecting arrestees’ privacy was substantial. But, the court held that “the numerous exceptions to § 6254(f)(3) for journalistic, scholarly, political, governmental, and investigative purposes render the statute unconstitutional under the First Amendment.” 146 F. 3d, at 1140. The court noted that “[hjaving one’s name, crime, and address printed in the local paper is a far greater affront to privacy than receiving a letter from an attorney, substance abuse counselor, or driving school eager to help one overcome his present difficulties (for a fee, naturally),” and thus that the exceptions “undermine and counteract” the asserted governmental interest in preserving arrestees’ privacy. Ibid. Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent and upheld the injunction against enforcement of § 6254(f)(3). We granted certiorari. 525 U. S. 1121 (1999).
We hold that respondent was not, under our eases, entitled to prevail on a “facial attack” on § 6254(f)(3).
Respondent’s primary argument in the District Court and the Court of Appeals was that § 6254(f)(3) was invalid on its face, and respondent maintains that position here. But we believe that our cases hold otherwise.
The traditional rule is that “a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the Court.” New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 767 (1982) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 610 (1973)).
Prototypical exceptions to this traditional rule are First Amendment challenges to statutes based on First Amendment overbreadth. “At least when statutes regulate or proscribe speech . . . the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing ‘attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity.’ ” Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 520-521 (1972) (quoting Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 486 (1965)). “This is deemed necessary because persons whose expression is constitutionally protected may well refrain from exercising their right for fear of criminal sanctions provided by a statute susceptible of application to protected expression.” Gooding v. Wilson, supra, at 520-521. See also Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940).
In Gooding, for example, the defendant was one of a group that picketed an Army headquarters building carrying signs opposing the "Vietnam war. A confrontation with the police occurred, as a result of which Gooding was charged with “ ‘using opprobrious words and abusive language ... tending to cause a breach of the peace.’ ” 405 U. S., at 518-519. In Thornhill, the defendant was prosecuted for violation of a statute forbidding any person to “ ‘picket the works or place of business of such other persons, firms, corporations, or associations of persons, for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or interfering with or injuring any lawful business or enterprise-’ ” 310 U. S., at 91.
This is not to say that the threat of criminal prosecution is a necessary condition for the entertainment of a facial challenge. We have permitted such attacks on statutes in appropriate circumstances where no such threat was present. See, e. g., National Endowment for Arts v. Finley, 524 U. S. 569 (1998) (entertaining a facial challenge to a public funding scheme); Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U. S. 725 (1997) (entertaining a landowner’s facial challenge to a local redevelopment plan); Anderson v. Edwards, 514 U. S. 143 (1995) (entertaining a facial challenge to a state regulation restructuring the disbursal of welfare benefits).
But the allowance of a facial overbreadth challenge to a statute is an exception to the traditional rule that “a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the Court.” Ferber, supra, at 767 (citing Broadrick, supra, at 610). This general rule reflects two “cardinal principles” of our constitutional order: the personal nature of constitutional rights and the prudential limitations on constitutional adjudication. 458 U. S., at 767. “By focusing on the factual situation before us, and similar cases necessary for development of a constitutional rule, we face ‘flesh and blood’ legal problems with data ‘relevant and adequate to an informed judgment.’” Id., at 768 (footnotes omitted).
Even though the challenge be based on the First Amendment, the overbreadth doctrine is not casually employed. “Because of the wide-reaching effects of striking down a statute on its face at the request of one whose own conduct may be punished despite the First Amendment, we have recognized that the overbreadth doctrine is ‘strong medicine’ and have employed it with hesitation, and then ‘only as a last resort.’” Id., at 769 (citing Broadrick, supra, at 613). “‘[Fjacial overbreadth adjudication is an exception to our traditional rules of practice and ... its function, a limited one at the outset, attenuates as the otherwise unprotected behavior that it forbids the State to sanction moves from “pure speech” toward conduct and that conduct — even if expressive — falls within the scope of otherwise valid criminal laws ....’” 458 U. S., at 770 (quoting Broadrick, supra, at 615). See also Board of Airport Comm’rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U. S. 569 (1987).
The Court of Appeals held that § 6254(f)(3) was facially invalid under the First Amendment. Petitioner contends that the section in question is not an abridgment of anyone’s right to engage in speech, be it commercial or otherwise, but simply a law regulating access to information in the hands of the police department.
We believe that, at least for purposes of facial invalidation, petitioner’s view is correct. This is not a case in which the government is prohibiting a speaker from conveying information that the speaker already possesses. See Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U. S. 476 (1995). The California statute in question merely requires that if respondent wishes to obtain the addresses of arrestees it must qualify under the statute to do so. Respondent did not attempt to qualify and was therefore denied access to the addresses. For purposes of assessing the propriety of a facial invalidation, what we have before us is nothing more than a governmental denial of access to information in its possession. California could decide not to give out arrestee information at all without violating the First Amendment. Cf. Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U. S. 1, 14 (1978).
To the extent that respondent’s “facial challenge” seeks to rely on the effect of the statute on parties not before the Court — its potential customers, for example — its claim does not fit within the case law allowing courts to entertain facial challenges. No threat of prosecution, for example, see Gooding, or cutoff of funds, see NEA, hangs over their heads. They may seek access under the statute on their own just as respondent did, without incurring any burden other than the prospect that their request will be denied. Resort to a facial challenge here is not warranted because there is “[no] possibility that protected speech will be muted.” Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U. S. 350, 380 (1977).
The Court of Appeals was therefore wrong to facially invalidate § 6254(f)(3). Respondent urges several grounds as alternative bases for affirmance, but none of them were passed on by the Court of Appeals and they will remain open on remand if properly presented and preserved there.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
Section 6254(f) provides, in pertinent part:
“Other provisions of this subdivision notwithstanding, state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation:
“(1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual’s physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.
“(2) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved. The name of a victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 261, 262, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9 of the Penal Code may be withheld at the victim’s request, or at the request of the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor. When a person is the victim of more than one crime, information disclosing that the person is a victim of a crime defined by Section 220,261,262,264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9 of the Penal Code may be deleted at the request of the victim, or the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, in making the report of the crime, or of any crime or incident accompanying the crime, available to the public in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.”
Respondent challenged the statute as a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Court of Appeals did not pass on that challenge, nor do we.
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 legal principles stated today in our opinion in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, ante, p. 164, control the disposition of this case. Because of its posture here, however, we find it necessary to remand the case to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana. We think a brief statement of the facts and proceedings below will be helpful to an understanding of our disposition.
Respondent Vermilion Corp. leases a substantial amount of acreage, owned by Exxon Co., in the State of Louisiana. The land is traversed by a system of manmade canals, which are approximately 60 feet wide and 8 feet deep. The canals are both subject to tidal fluctuations and navigable in fact. They were constructed with private funds, and have been continuously in the control and possession of respondent Vermilion Corp., Exxon, and their predecessors, for a long period of time.
The canal system enters other naturally navigable waterways, and lies between the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway on the north and the Gulf of Mexico on the south. The canals are used for fishing and hunting and are also used by Exxon for oil and gas exploration and development activities. Respondent Vermilion subleases portions of the Exxon land to hunters, trappers, and fishers, and the right to use the canals is a part of the sublease agreement.
In order to control access to the land and the canals, over 400 “No Trespassing” signs are posted in various locations. Respondent Vermilion Corp. employs people to supervise activities in the canals and on the land, and on numerous occasions such people have prohibited strangers from entering and using the property in question.
The present controversy arises out of petitioners’ insistence that notwithstanding Vermilion’s property rights, they were entitled as a matter of federal law— without obtaining respondent’s permission — to enter the property, travel the canals, and engage in commercial fishing and shrimping activities. Petitioners disregarded several written warnings issued by respondent; respondent then filed suit in the Louisiana state court seeking permanent injunctions against petitioners from trespassing on the land and making use of the canals.
After commencement of the litigation, respondent moved for summary judgment, based on affidavits and a deposition, pursuant to the appropriate article of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court granted the motion and petitioners appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal. That court affirmed. 356 So. 2d 551. The petition for certiorari here sets forth two questions for review. Pet. for Cert. 5. The first is if a private citizen on his privately held real property and with private funds creates a system of artificial navigable waterways, in part by means of diversion or destruction of a pre-existing natural navigable waterway, does the artificially developed waterway system become part of the “navigable waterways of the United States” and subject to the use of all citizens of the United States? The second is whether channels built on private property and with private funds, in such a manner that they ultimately join with other navigable waterways, are similarly open to use by all citizens of the United States. The difference between the two questions is obvious: The first posits the diversion or destruction of a pre-existing natural navigable waterway in the process of construction of the private waterway, whereas the second does not. We think that our opinion in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, ante, p. 164, adequately answers the second question presented for review and that the Louisiana Court of Appeal was correct in determining that on such facts no general right of use in the public arose by reason of the authority over navigation conferred upon Congress by the Commerce Clause of Art. I of the United States Constitution. But the Louisiana Court of Appeal also held that even though the destruction or diversion of naturally navigable waterways occurred in the process of constructing the private waterways, the result would be no different. In so doing, the Court of Appeal relied on Ilhenny v. Broussard, 172 La. 895, 135 So. 669 (1931), a decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The Court of Appeal, in the light of this decision, held that a factual dispute between the litigants in this ease was immaterial, and that summary judgment was proper as a matter of law. That factual dispute is summarized by the Louisiana Court of Appeal in these words:
“Defendants contend, however, that there is a fact in dispute which is genuinely material to this litigation and that summary judgment was improper. They claim that plaintiff's system of artificial waterways destroyed the navigability of surrounding natural waterways. They argue that this is material because, if true, the court could conclude that the system of artificial waterways was substituted for the pre-existing natural system of navigable waterways. If such a conclusion were reached, the canals would not be private and could not be privately controlled under state and federal law.” 356 So. 2d, at 553.
While neither our opinion in Kaiser Aetna v. United States nor any of the principal cases relied on there deal with this specific fact situation, we do not think it can be said as a matter of law that if petitioners proved their factual allegations that proof would not constitute a defense under federal law to respondent’s prayer for injunctive relief in the trial court.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Louisiana Court of Appeal is affirmed with respect to the second question presented in the petition for certiorari, and vacated and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, decided today, with respect to the first question.
It is so ordered.
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, which was the only Louisiana appellate court to render a written opinion on the question, stated in that opinion that no- proof of damages was introduced in the trial court, although they had been prayed for in the complaint, and that no question of damages was raised on the appeal from the trial court to the appellate 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: | 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.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Trade Commission seeks reversal of the action of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in modifying the cease-and-desist order which the Commission had issued against the respondent Broch on finding that Broch violated § 2 (c) of the Clayton Act. 285 F. 2d 764. The action of the Court of Appeals was sua sponte, and was taken in proceedings on remand which followed our reversal of that Court’s earlier action setting aside the order in its entirety because Broch’s conduct was thought not to violate § 2 (c). Federal Trade Comm’n v. Broch & Co., 363 U. S. 166, reversing 261 F. 2d 725. We granted certiorari, 366 U. S. 923.
Broch is a broker selling food products on commission for some 25 seller principals. One of his principals is Canada Foods, Ltd., a processor of apple concentrate. The Commission found that Broch, to make possible Canada Foods’ acceptance of an offer from J. M. Smucker Co. to buy an unusually large quantity of apple concentrate at less than Canada Foods’ established price, reduced to 3%, for this sale, the agreed 5% rate of commission ordinarily payable by Canada Foods to Broch. The Commission adjudged, and in our prior opinion we agreed, that this action of Broch was, in the circumstances, a violation of § 2 (c).
The Commission’s order was not confined to restraints against repetition of the precise violation of § 2 (c) which Broch was found to have committed, nor was the application of the order limited to future sales from Canada Foods to Smucker. Paragraph (1) did prohibit the repetition of the particular violation which Broch committed, but in connection with sales for Canada Foods, or for “any other seller principal,” to Smucker, or “to any other buyer.” Paragraph (2) also extended its prohibitions to sales from all seller principals to all buyers, but went beyond paragraph (1) to prohibit Broch from “In any other manner . . . directly or indirectly” paying, granting or allowing, in the words of § 2 (c), “anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof . . . .” The Court of Appeals excised from the order all references to “any other seller principal” and to “any other buyer,” thus limiting the order’s application to future sales from Canada Foods to Smucker.
The Commission renews here the argument it made in the Court of Appeals that judicial modification of the order was precluded because Broch failed to object to the scope of the order before the Commission. Broch disputes that he failed to register a proper objection before the Commission. We see no reason to determine the fact. We will assume, without deciding, that the Court of Appeals properly passed upon the scope of the order. We nevertheless think that in the circumstances of this case the order should have been affirmed in the form entered by the Commission.
Broch supports the action of the Court of Appeals as to paragraph (1) of the order with the argument that, since the order was based only upon findings limited to an asserted illegal payment respecting a single sale from Canada Foods to Smucker, the Commission's ban was too sweeping in its application to sales from all seller principals to all buyers. There is no merit in this argument. The Commission has a wide discretion to formulate a remedy adequate to prevent Broch’s repetition of the violation he was found to have committed. See Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 327 U. S. 608, 611-612. We cannot say that the Commission exceeded its discretion in banning repetitions of Broch’s violation in connection with transactions involving any seller and buyer, rather than simply forbidding recurrence of the transgression in sales between Canada and Smucker. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683, 728-729. Compare United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U. S. 76, 90.
Broch further argues that the Commission exceeded its discretion in the prohibitions embodied in paragraph (2). He did not cross-petition this Court for a writ of certiorari and does not here challenge paragraph (2) as modified by the Court of Appeals. Had the only vice claimed in paragraph (2) been its extension to all seller principals and all buyers, the Court of Appeals’ sua sponte amendment would for reasons already stated have been clearly erroneous. But Broch contends that, before it was restricted to transactions involving Canada and Smucker, this part of the order was so broad as to jeopardize the conduct of his entire business, in that it unqualifiedly prohibited reductions of commissions coupled with lower prices — even uniform reductions, or reductions which are service- or cost-justified, or reductions for the purpose of meeting competition.
In considering Broch’s challenge to paragraph (2) it is necessary to observe that the 1959 amendments to § 11 of the Clayton Act — which substitute for the Clayton Act provisions for enforcement of administrative orders those in § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act — do not apply to enforcement of the instant order. In consequence, Broch cannot be subjected to penalties except for violation of an enforcement order yet to be entered by an appropriate Court of Appeals, to be predicated upon a determination that some particular practice of Broch violated the Commission’s order. Thus Broch is not, by virtue of that order, presently acting under the risk of incurring any penalty without further administrative and judicial consideration and interpretation, despite the fact that he has already received determination of his petition for review. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Ruberoid Co., 343 U. S. 470, 477-480.
Upon any future enforcement proceeding, the Commission and the Court of Appeals will have ready at hand interpretive tools — the employment of which we have previously sanctioned — for use in tailoring the order, in the setting of a specific asserted violation, so as to meet the legitimate needs of the case. They will be free to construe the order as designed strictly to cope with the threat of future violations identical with or like or related to the violations which Broch was found to have committed, or as forbidding "no activities except those which if continued would directly aid in perpetuating the same old unlawful practices.” Federal Trade Comm’n v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683, 727. They need not— as we have already made clear — read the order as denying to Broch the benefit of statutory defenses or exceptions. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Ruberoid Co., supra, at 475-476; Federal Trade Comm’n v. National Lead Co., 352 U. S. 419, 426. Nor need the order be construed as prohibiting anything as clearly lawful as a uniform reduction in commissions. And, we repeat, these various interpretive aids will have to be brought to bear by a Court of Appeals upon a particular practice of Broch, and will have to yield the announced result that such practice violates the order, before Broch can be subjected to penalties because of still a second repetition of the violation.
In this situation, and on this record, we hold that the attempt of the Court of Appeals to redress the asserted overbroadness by the inapt device of confining paragraph (2) to Canada’s sales to Smucker was inappropriate and, indeed, any attempt to restrict the scope of the order would have been premature.
We do not wish to be understood-, however, as holding that the generalized language of paragraph (2) would necessarily withstand scrutiny under the 1959 amendments. The severity of possible penalties prescribed by the amendments for violations of orders which have become final underlines the necessity for fashioning orders which are, at the outset, sufficiently clear and precise to avoid raising serious questions as to their meaning and application. See Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co., 312 U. S. 426, 435-437; Federal Trade Comm’n v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683, 726; Federal Trade Comm’n v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37, 54. Compare New Haven R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 200 U. S. 361, 404; Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 400-401.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to affirm the order of the Federal Trade Commission.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.
Section 2 (c) as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1527, 15 U. S. C. § 13 (c), is as follows:
“(c) Payment or acceptance of commission, brokerage or other compensation.
“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to pay or grant, or to receive or accept, anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, except for services rendered in connection with the sale or purchase of goods, wares, or merchandise, either to the other party to such transaction or to an agent, representative, or other intermediary therein where such intermediary is acting in fact for or in behalf, or is subject to the direct or indirect control, of any party to such transaction other than the person by whom such compensation is so granted or paid.”
Following the remand Broch filed a motion which sought, inter alia, a modification of the order on the ground of its allegedly “unduly broad scope.” In opposing the motion the Commission claimed that Broch had not objected to the scope of the order in the proceedings before the Commission or in the original review proceedings, and was therefore not entitled to have the Court entertain the motion. Broch’s motion was denied but the order embodying the denial also included the provision questioned here amending the order “On the Court’s own motion.”
There was evidence in the proceedings before the Commission that, following the transaction described above, Broch continued to sell apple concentrate to Smucker on behalf of Canada Foods at a reduced price and to receive a reduced commission of 3% on such sales.
The Commission’s order was as follows:
“It is ordered That respondents Henry Broch and Oscar Adler, copartners trading as Henry Broch & Co., their representatives, agents, or employees, directly or'through any corporate or other device, in connection with the sale of food or food products for Canada Foods Ltd., or any other seller principal, in commerce, as ‘commerce’ is defined in the Clayton Act, as amended, do forthwith cease and desist from:
"(1) Paying, granting or allowing, directly or indirectly, to The J. M. Smucker Co., or to any other buyer, or to anyone acting for or in behalf of or who is subject to the direct or indirect control of such buyer, any allowance or discount in lieu of brokerage, or any part or percentage thereof, by selling any food or food products to such buyer at prices reflecting a reduction.from the prices at which sales of such foods are currently being effected by respondents for Canada Foods Ltd. or any other seller principal, as the case may be, where such reduction in price is accompanied by a reduction in the regular rate of commission, brokerage or other compensation currently being paid to respondents by such seller principal for brokerage services; or
“(2) In any other manner, paying, granting or allowing, directly or indirectly, to The J. M. Smucker Go., or to any other buyer, or to anyone acting for or in behalf of or who is subject to the direct or indirect control of such buyer, anything of value as a commission, brokerage or othér compensation or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof upon, or in connection with, any sale of food or food products to such buyer for its own account.”
38 Stat. 734, 15 U. S. C. § 21, as amended July 23, 1959, Pub. L. 86-107, 73 Stat. 243. The order herein was entered by the Commission on December 10, 1957. The procedures enacted by the 1959 amendments therefore do not apply to it. See Sperry Rand Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 110 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 288 F. 2d 403.
The 1959 Amendments resulted from a congressional conclusion that the former § 11 procedures were too cumbersome to assure effective enforcement of agency orders. It was said in the House Committee Report accompanying the 1959 amendments:
“The Clayton Act, in its present enforcement procedures, permits a person to engage in the same illegal practices three times before effective legal penalties can be applied as a result of action by the commission or board vested with jurisdiction. First, in order to issue and serve a cease-and-desist order initially, the commission or board must investigate and prove that the respondent has violated the prohibitions of the Clayton Act. No provision of the Clayton Act, however, makes the commission or board’s cease-and-desist order final in the absence of an appeal by the respondent for judicial review. At the present time, the Clayton Act contains no procedure by which the commission or board may secure civil penalties for violations of its orders.
“Second, before the commission or board may obtain a court ruling that commands obedience to its cease-and-desist order, it must again investigate and prove that the respondent has violated both the order and the Clayton Act. The jurisdiction of the court of appeals, under the present provisions of Clayton Act section 11, cannot be invoked by the commission or board unless a violation of the cease-and-desist order is first shown.
“Third, enforcement of the court’s order must be secured in a subsequent contempt proceeding, which requires proof that new activities of the respondent have violated the court’s order. This entails a third hearing before the commission and a review thereof by the court of appeals.
“In contrast, the procedures that are contained in the Federal Trade Commission Act for enforcement of cease-and-desist orders issued thereunder are much simpler and more direct. A cease-and-desist order issued pursuant to section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, becomes final upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition is filed within that time.” H. R. Rep. No. 580, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 4. See also S. Rep. No. 83, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 2-3.
Cf. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37, 51-53; Federal Trade Comm’n v. National Lead Co., 352 U. S. 419, 430-431. “In carrying out [its] function the Commission is not limited to prohibiting the illegal practice in the precise form in which it is found to have existed in the past. If the Commission is to attain the objectives Congress envisioned, it cannot be required to confine its road block to the narrow lane the transgressor has traveled; it must be allowed effectively to close all roads to the prohibited goal, so that its order may not be by-passed with impunity.” Federal Trade Comm’n v. Ruberoid Co., 343 U. S. 470, 473.
Broch complains of the order’s omission of any reference to the statutory exception for brokerage “for services rendered in connection with the sale or purchase of goods . . . .” We made it clear in our prior opinion that the order need not be read as prohibiting transactions to which the statutory exception applies. 363 U. S., at 173, 177, n. 19. Nor need the order, when viewed in the context of Broch’s violation, be read as prohibiting Broch from reducing commissions competitively to gain a particular buyer’s account, if the competitive setting would otherwise have afforded a defense to a charge under § 2 (c).
“Had respondent . . .. agreed to accept a 3% commission on all sales to all buyers there plainly would be no room for finding that the price reductions were violations of §2 (c). Neither the legislative history nor the purposes of the Act would require such an absurd result, and neither the Commission nor the courts have ever suggested it.” 363 U. S., at 176.
See notes 5, 6, supra.
The penalties under the 1959 amendments are as follows:
“Any person who violates any order issued by the commission or board under subsection (b) of this section after such order has become final, and while such order is in effect, shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation .... Each separate violation of any such order shall be a separate offense, except that in the case of a violation through continuing failure or neglect to obey a final order of the commission or board each day of continuance of such failure or neglect shall be deemed a separate offense.”
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider here the standards which should guide a federal court in deciding whether to grant a hearing on a motion of á federal prisoner under 28 U. S. C. § 2255. Under that statute, a federal.prisoner who claims that his sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States may seek relief from the sentence by filing a motion in the sentencing court stating the facts supporting his claim. “[A] prompt hearing” on the motion is required “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief....” The section further provides that “[t]he sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.”
The petitioner is serving a 15-year sentence for robbery of a federally insured bank in violation of 18 U. S. C. §2113 (a). He filed two motions under § 2255. The first alleged no facts but only bare conclusions in support of his claim. The second, filed eight months after the first, alleged facts which, if true, might entitle him to relief. Both motions were denied,'without hearing, by the District Court for the' Northern District of California. On appeal from the denial of the second motion, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 297 F. 2d 735. We granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and cer-tiorari. 370 U. S. 936.
On January 19, 1959, petitioner was brought before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and was handed a copy of a proposed information charging him with the robbery. He appeared without counsel. In response to inquiries of the trial judge, petitioner stated that he. wished t<? waive assistance of counsel and to proceed by information rather than indictment; he signed a waiver of indictment, and then pleaded guilty to the charge in the information. On February 10 he was sentenced. Before sentence was pronounced, petitioner said to the judge: “If possible, your Honor, I would like to go to Springfield or.Lexington for addiction. cure. I have been using narcotics off and on for quite a while.” The judge replied that he was “willing to recommend that.”
On Jánuary 4, 1960, petitioner, appearing pro se, filed • his first motion.. He alleged no facts but merely the conclusions that (1) the “Indictment” was invalid, (2) “Appellant was denied adequate assistance of Counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment,” and (3) the sentencing court had “allowed the Appellant to be intimidated and coerced into filtering [sic] a plea without Counsel, and any knowledge of the charges lodged against the Appellant.” He filed with the motion an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum requiring the. prison authorities to produce him before the court to testify in support of his motion. On February 3 the District Court denied both the motion and the application. In a memorandum accompanying the denial, the court explained that the motion, “although replete with conclusions, sets forth no facts upon which such conclusions can be founded. For this reason alone, this motion may be denied without a hearing.” Nevertheless, the court stated further that the motion “sets forth nothing but unsupported charges, which are completely refuted by the files and records of this case. Since the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, no hearing on the motion is necessary.” No appeal was taken by the petitioner from this denial.
On September 8 petitioner, again appearing pro se, filed his second motion. This time he alleged that, at the time of his trial and sentence he was mentally incompetent as a result of narcotics administered to him while he was held in the Sacramento County Jail pending trial. He stated in a supporting affidavit that he had been confined in the jail from on or about January 16, 1959, to February 18, 1959; that during this period and during the period of his “trial” he had been intermittently under the influence of narcotics; and that the narcotics had been administered to him by the medical authorities in attendance at the jail because of his being a known addict. The District Court denied the motion without hearing, stating: “As there is no reason given, or appárent tó this Court, Why petitioner could not, and should hot, have raised the issue of mental incompetency at the time of his first motion, the Court will refuse, in the exercise of its statutory discretion, to entertain the present petition.” (Footnote omitted.) The court also' stated that “petitioner’s complaints are without merit in fact.” On appeal from the order denying this motion, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 297 F. 2d 735 (1961). The Court of Appeals said in a per curiam opinion: “Where, as here, it is ápparent from the record that at the time of filing the first motion the movant knew the facts on which the second motion is based, yet in the second motion set forth no reason why.he was previously unable-to assert the new ground and did not allege that he had previously been unaware of the significance of the relevant facts, the district court, may, in its discretion, decline to entertain the second motion.” 297 F. 2d, at 736-737.
We reverse. We hold that the sentencing court should, have granted a hearing oh the second motion.
I.
The statute in'terms requires that a' prisoner shall be granted a hearing on a motion which alleges sufficient facts to support a claim for relief unless the motion and the files and records of the case “conclusively show” that the claim is without merit. This is the first case in which'we have been called upon to determine what significance, in deciding whether to grant a hearing, the. sentencing court should attach to. any record of proceedings on prior '.motions for relief which may be among the files and records of the case, in light of the provision that: “The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion-, for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.” This provision has caused uncertainty in the District Courts, see Bistram v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 501 (D. C. D. N. Dak.), aff’d, 283 F. 2d 1 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1960), and has provoked a conflict between circuits: with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the instant case, compare, e. g., Juelick v. United States, 300 F. 2d 381 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1962); Smith v. United States, 106 U. S. App. D. C. 169, 270 F. 2d 921 (1959). We think guidelines to the proper construction of the provision are to be found in its history.
At common law, the denial by a court or judge of an application for habeas corpus was not res' judicata. King v. Suddis, 1 East 306, 102 Eng. Rep. 119 (K. B. 1801); Burdett v. Abbot, 14 East 1, 90, 104 Eng. Rep. 501, 535 (K. B. 1811); Ex parte Partington, 13 M. & W. 679, 153 Eng. Rep. 284 (Ex. 1845); Church, Habeas Corpus (1884), § 386; Ferris and Ferris, Extraordinary Legal Remedies (1926), § 55. “A person detained in custody might thus proceed from court to court until he obtained his liberty.” Cox v. Hakes, 15 A. C. 506, 527 (H. L., 1890) That this was a principle of our law of habeas corpus as well as the English was assumed to be thé case from the earliest days of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction.. Cf. Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch 448 (Chief Justice Marshall). Since then,, it has become settled in an unbroken line of decisions. Ex parte Kaine, 3 Blatchf. 1, 5-6 (Mr. Justice Nelson in Chambers); In re Kaine, 14 How. 103; Ex parte Cuddy, 40 F. 62, 65 (Cir. Ct. S. D. Cal. 1889) (Mr. Justice Field); Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 334; Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224, 230; Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101; United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U. S. 260, 263, n. 4; Heflin v. United States, 358 U. S. 415, 420 (opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart) (dictum); Powell v. Sacks, 303 F. 2d 808 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1962). Indeed, only the other day we remarked upon “the familiar principle that res judicata is inapplicable in habeas proceedings.” Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 423.
It has been suggested, see Salinger v. Loisel, supra, at 230-231, that this principle derives from the fact that at common law habeas corpus judgments were not appeal-able. But its roots would seem to go deeper. Conventional notions of finality of litigation have no place where life or liberty is at stake and infringement of constitutional rights is alleged. If “government... [is] always [to] be accountable to the judiciary for a man’s imprisonment,” Fay v. Noia, supra, at 402, access to the courts on habeas must not be thus impeded. The inapplicability of res judicata to habeas, then, is inherent in the very role and function of the writ.
A prisoner whose motion Under § 2255 is denied will often file another, sometimes many successive motions. We are aware that in consequence the question whether to grant a hearing on a successive motion can be troublesome — particularly when the- motion is prepared without the assistance of counsel and contains matter extraneous to the prisoner’s ease. But the problem is not new, and our decisions under habeas corpus have identified situations where denial without hearing is proper even though a second or successive application states a claim for relief. One such situation is that involved in Salinger v. Loisel, supra. There, a first application for habeas corpus had been denied, after hearing, by one District Court, and the denial was affirmed by the Court, of Appeals. The prisoner then filed subsequent applications, all identical to the first, in a different District Court. We indicated that the subsequent applications might properly have been denied simply on the basis that the first denial had followed a full hearing on the merits. We there announced a governing principle; while reaffirming the inapplicability of res judi-cata to habeas, we said: “each application is to be dis.-posed of in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion guided and controlled by a consideration of whatever has a rational bearing on the propriety of the discharge sought.Among the matters which may be considered, and even given controlling weight, are.... a prior refusal to discharge on a like application.” 265 U. S., at 231. The Court quoted approvingly from Mr. Justice Field’s opinion in Ex parte Cuddy, supra, at 66: “ ‘The action of the court or justice on the second application will naturally be affected to some degree by the character of the court or officer to whom the first application was made, and the fullness of the consideration given to it.’ ” 265 U. S., at 231-232. The petitioner’s successive applications were properly denied because he sought to retry a.claim previously fully considered and decided against him. Similarly, nothing in § 2255 requires that •& sentencing court grant. a hearing on a successive motion alleging a ground for-relief already fully considered on a prior motion and decided against the prisoner.
Another such situation is that which was presented in Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U. S. 239. In Wong Doo the prisoner in his first application for habeas corpus tendered two grounds in support of his position. A hearing was held but the petitioner offered no proof of his second ground, even though the return to the writ had put it in issue..Relief was denied and the denial affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Later, he filed a second application relying exclusively on the second ground. Relief was denied. We upheld the denial: “The petitioner had full opportunity to offer proof of,. [the second ground] at the hearing on the first petition; and, if he was intending to’rely on that ground, good faith required that he produce the proof then. To reserve the proof for use in attempting to support a later petition, if the first failed, was to make an abusive use of the writ of' habeas corpus. No reason for not presenting the.proof at the outset is offered. It has not been embodied in the record, but what is said of it there and in the briefs shows that it was accessible all the'time.” 265 U. S., at 241. Similarly, the prisoner who on a prior motion under' § 2255 ’ has deliberately withheld a ground for relief need not be heard if he asserts that ground in a successive-motion; his action is inequitable — an abuse of the remedy — and the court may in its discretion deny him a hearing.
The interaction of these, two principles — a successive application on a ground heard and denied on a prior application, and abuse of the writ — was elaborated in Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 287-293. The petitioner had for the first time in his fourth application alleged the knowing use of perjured testimony by the prosecution.. But the Court held that regardless of the number of prior applications, the governing principle announced in Salinger v. Loisel could not come into play because the fourth application relied on a ground not previously heard and determined. Wong Doo was distinguished on the ground that-there the proof had been “accessible at all times” to’the petitioner, which demonstrated his bad faith, 334 U. S., at 289; in Price, by contrast, for aught the record disclosed petitioner might have been justifiably ignorant of newly alleged facts or unaware of their legal significance. The case also decided an.important procedural question • with regard to abuse of remedy as justification for denial of a hearing, namely, that the burden is on the Government to plead abuse of the writ. “[I]f the Government chooses hot to deny the allegation [of knowing use of perjured testimony] or to question its sufficiency and de-' sires instead to claim that the prisoner has abused the writ of habeas corpus, it rests with the Government to make, that claim.with clarity and particularity in its return to. the order to show cause.” Id., at 292. The Court reasoned that it would be unfair to- compel the habeas applicant, typically unlearned in the law and unable to procure legal assistance in drafting his application, to plead an elaborate negative.
Very shortly after the Price decision, as part of the 1948 revision of the Judicial Code, the Court’s statement in Salinger of the governing principle in the treatment of a successive application was given statutory form. 28 U. S. C. § 2244. There are several things to be observed about this codification.
First, it plainly was not intended to change, the law as -judicially evolved. ■ Not only does the Reviser’s Note disclaim-any sudh' intention, but language in the.original bill which would have injected res judicata into federal'habeas corpus was deliberately eliminated from the Act as finally passed. See S. Rep. No. 1559, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. 9Moore, Commentary on the United States Judicial Code (1949), 436-438. Moreover, if. construed, to. derogate from the traditional liberality of the writ of habeas corpus, see pp. 7-8, supra, § 2244 might raise serious constitutional questions. Cf. Fay v. Noia, supra, at 406.
Second, even with respect to successive applications on which hearings may be denied because the ground asserted was previously heard and decided, as in Salinger, § 2244 is faithful to the Court’s phrasing of the principle in' Salinger, and does.not enact a rigid rule.' The judge is permitted, not compelled, to decline to entertain such an application, and.then only if he “is satisfied that the ends of justice will not be served” by inquiring into the merits.
Third, § 2244 is addressed only to the problem of successive applications based on grounds previously heard and decided. It does.not cover a second or successive application containing a ground “not theretofore presented and determined,” and so does not touch the problem of abuse of the writ. In Wong Doo, petitioner’s second ground had been presented.but not determined on his prior application; § 2244 would be inapplicable in such a situation. On the other hand, § 2244 was obviously not intended to- foreclose judicial application of the abuse-of-writ principle as developed in Wong Doo and Price.
Section 2255 of the Judicial Code, under which the instant case arises, is of course also a product of the 1948 revision — enacted, in the language of the Reviser’s Note, to provide “an expeditious remedy for correcting erroneous sentences [of federal prisoners] without resort to habeas corpus.” It will be noted that although § 2255 contains a parallel provision to § 2244, there is an apparent verbal discrepancy. Undér § 2255, it is enough, in order to invoke the court’s discretion to decline to reach the merits, that the prisoner is seeking “similar relief” for the second time. This language might seem to empower the sentencing court to apply res judicata virtually at will,, since even if a second motion is predicated on a completely different ground from the first, the prisoner ordinarily will be seeking the same “relief.” Note, 59 Yale L. J. 1183, 1188, n. 24 (1950). But the language cannot be taken literally. In United States v. Hayman, 342 U. S. 205, the prisoner vigorously contended that § 2255 was an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The Court avoided the constitutional question by holding that § 2255 was as broad as habeas corpus:
“This review of the history of Section 2255 shows that it was passed at the instance of the Judicial Conference to meet practical difficulties that had arisen in administering the habeas corpus jurisdiction of the federal courts. Nowhere in the history of Section 2255 do we find any purpose to impinge upon prisoners’ rights of collateral attack upon their convictions. On the contrary, the sole purpose was to minimize the difficulties encountered in habeas corpus hearings by affording the same rights in another and more convenient forum.” 342 U. S., at 219. (Emphasis supplied.) Accord, United States v. Morgan, 346 U. S. 502, 511; Smith v. United States, 88 U. S. App. D. C. 80, 187 F. 2d 192 (1950); Heflin v. United States, 358. U. S. 415, 421 (opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart).
As we said just last Term, “it conclusively appears from the historic context in which § 2265 was enacted that the legislation was intended simply to provide in the sentencing court a remedy exactly commensurate with that which had previously been available by habeas corpus in the court of the district where the prisoner was confined.” Hill v. United States, 368 U. S. 424, 427.
• Plainly, were the prisoner invoking § 2255 faced with the bar of res judicata, he would not enjoy the “same rights” as the habeas corpus 'applicant,, or “a remedy exactly commensurate with” habeas. Indeed, if he were subject to any substantial procedural hurdles which made his remedy under § 2255 less swift and imperative than féderal habeas corpus, the gravest constitutional doubts would, be engendered, as the Court in Hayman implicitly recognized. And cf. pp. 11-12, supra. We therefore hold that the “similar relief” provision of § 2255. is to be deemed the material équívalent of § 2244. See Smith v. United States, 106 U. S. App. D. C. 169, 173, 270 F. 2d 921, 925 (1959); Longsdorf, The Federal Habeas Corpus Acts Original and Amended, 13 F. R. D. 407, 424 (1953). We are helped to this conclusion by two further considerations.
. First, there is no indication in the legislative history to the 1948 revision of the Judicial Code that Congress intended to treat the problem of successive applications differently under habeas corpus- than under the new motion procedure; and it is difficult to see what logical or practical basis there could be for such' a distinction.
Second,’even assuming the constitutionality of incorporating res judicata in § 2255, such a provision wofild •probably prove to be completely ineffectual, in light of the further provision in the section that habeas corpus remains available to a federal prisoner if the remedy by motion is “inadequate or ineffective.”. A prisoner barred by res judicata would seem as a consequence to have an “inadequate or ineffective” remedy under § 2255 and thus be entitled to proceed in. federal habeas corpus — where, of course, § 2244 applies. See Smith v. United States, sura, 106 U. S. App. D. C., at 174, 270 F. 2d, at 926.
II.
We think the judicial and statutory evolution of the principles governing successive applications for federal habeas corpus and motions under § 2255 has reached the point at which the formulation of basic rules to guide the. lower federal courts is both feasible and desirable. Compare Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 310. Since the motion procedure is the substantial.equivalent of federal habeas corpus, we see no need to differentiate the two for present- purposes. It should be noted that these rules are not operative in cases where the second or successive application is shown, on the basis of the application, files, and records of the case alone, conclusively to be without merit. 28 U. S. C. §§ 2243, 2255. In such a case the application should be denied without a hearing.
A.'Successive Motions on Grounds Previously Heard and Determined.
Controlling weight may be given to denial'of a prior application for federal habeas corpus or § 2255 relief only if (1) the same ground presented in the subsequent application was determined adversely to the applicant' on the prior application, (2) the prior determination was on the merits, and (3) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application.
(1) By “ground,” we mean simply a sufficient: legal-basis for granting the relief sought by the applicant. For' example, the contention that an involuntary confession was admitted in evidence against him is a distinct ground for federal collateral relief. But a claim of involuntary confession predicated on alleged psychological coercion does not raise a different “ground” than does one predicated on alleged physical coercion. In other words, identical grounds may often be proved by different factual allegations. So also, identical grounds may often be supported by different legal arguments, cf. Wilson v. Cook, 327 U. S. 474, 481; Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193, 198, or be couched in different language, United States v. Jones, 194 F. Supp. 421 (D. C. D. Kan. 1961) (dictum), aff'd mem., 297 F. 2d 835 (C. A. 10th Cir.1962), or vary in immaterial respects, Stilwell v. United States Marshals, 192 F. 2d 853 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1951) (per curiam). Should doubts arise in particular cases as to whether two grounds are different or the same, they should be resolved in favor of the applicant.
(2) The prior denial must have rested on. an adjudication of the merits of the ground presented in the subsequent application. See Hobbs v. Pepersack, 301 F. 2d 875 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1962). This means that if factual issues were raised in the prior application, and it was not denied on the basis that the files and records conclusively resolved these issues, an evidentiary hearing was held. See Motley v. United States, 230 F. 2d 110 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1956); Hallowell v. United States, 197 F. 2d 926 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1952).
(3) Even if the same ground was rejected on the mérits on a prior application, it is open to the applicant to show that' the ends of. justice would be served by permitting the redetermination of the ground. If factual issues are involved, the applicant is entitled to a new hearing upon showing that the evidentiary hearing on the prior application was not full and fair; we canvassed the criteria of a full and fair evidentiary hearing recently in Townsend v. Sain, supra, and that discussion need not be repeated.here. If purely legal questions are involved, the applicant may be entitled to a new hearing upon showing an intervening change in the law or some other justification for haying failed to raise a crucial point or argument in the prior.application. Two further points should be noted. First, the foregoing enumeration is not intended to be exhaustive; the test is “the ends of justice” and it cannot be too finely particularized. Second, the burden is on the applicant to show that, although the ground of the new application was determined against him on the merits on a prior application, the ends of justice would be served by a redetermination of the ground.
B. The Successive Application Claimed to be an Abuse op Remedy.
No matter ho.w many prior applications for federal collateral relief a prisoner has made, the principle elaborated, in Subpart A, supra, cannot' apply if a different ground is presented by the new application. So too, it cannot apply if the same ground was earlier presented but not adjudicated on the merits. In either case, full consideration of the merits of the new application can be avoided only if there has been an abuse of the writ or motion remedy; and this the Government has the burden of pleading. See p. 11, supra.
To say that it is open to the respondent to show that a second or successive application is abusive is simply to recognize that “habeas corpus has traditionally been regarded as governed by equitable principles. United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U. S. 561, 573 (dissenting opinion). Among them is the principle that a suitor’s conduct in relation to the matter at hand may disentitle him to the relief he seeks.'Narrowly circumscribed, in conformity to the historical role of the writ of habeas corpus as an effective and imperative remedy for detentions contrary to fundamental law, the principle is unexceptionable." Fay v. Noia, supra, at 438. Thus, for • example, if a prisoner deliberately withholds one of two grounds for federal collateral relief at the time of filing his first application, in the hope of being granted two hearings rather than one or for some other such reason, he may be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing on a second application presenting the withheld ground. The same may be true if, as in Wong Doo, the prisoner deliberately abandons one of his grounds at the first hearing. Nothing in the traditions of habeas corpus requires the federal courts to tolerate needless piecemeal litigation, or to entertain collateral proceedings whose only purpose is to vex, harass, or delay.
We need not pause over the test governing whether a second or successive application may be deemed an abuse by the prisoner of the writ or motion remedy. The Court’s recent opinions in Fay v. Noia, supra, at 438-440, and Townsend v. Sain, supra, at 317, deal at length with the circumstances under which a prisoner may be foreclosed from federal collateral relief. The principles developed in those decisions govern equally here.
A final qualification, applicable to both A and B of the foregoing discussion, is in order. Thé principles governing both justifications for • denial • of a hearing, on a successive application are addressed to the sound discretion of the federal trial judges. Theirs is the major responsibility for the just and sound administration of the federal collateral remedies, and theirs must be the judgment as to whether a second or successive application shall be denied without consideration of the merits. Even as to such an application, the federal judge clearly has the power — and, if the ends of justice'demand, the dutv — to reach the merits. Cf. Townsend v. Sain, supra, at 312, 318. We are confident that this power will bfe soundly-applied.
III.
Application of the foregoing principles to the instant case presents no difficulties. Petitioner’s first motion under § 2255 was denied because it stated only bald legal conclusions with no supporting factual allegations. The court had the power to deny the motion on this ground, see Wilkins v. United States, 103 U. S. App. D. C. 322, 258 F. 2d 416 (C. A. D. C. Cir. 1958), although the better course might have been to direct petitioner to amend his motion, see Stephens v. United States, 246 F. 2d 607 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1957) (per curiam). But •the denial, thus based, was not on the merits. It was merely a ruling that petitioner’s pleading was deficient; To be sure, the district judge stated, in a footnote to his memorandum: “The Court has reviewed the entire file... which includes the previous proceeding, and a transcript of the proceedings at the time petitioner entered his plea, and... is of the view that petitioner’s complaints are without merit in fact.” But the “files and records of the ease,” including the transcript, could not.“conclusively show” that the claim alleged in the second motion entitled the petitioner to no relief. The crucial allegation of the second motion was that petitioner’s alleged mental incompetency was the result of administration of narcotic drugs during the period petitioner was held-in the Sacramento County Jail pending trial in the instant case. However regular the proceeding's at which he signed a waiver of indictment, declined assistance' of- counsel, and pleaded guilty might appear. from the transcript, it still might be -the case that petitioner did not make ah intelligent and understanding waiver of his constitutional rights. See Machibroda v. United States, 368 U. S. 487; Moore v. Michigan, 355 U. S. 155; Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116; Taylor v. United States, 193 F. 2d 411 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1952). Cf. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U. S. 708. For the facts on which petitioner’s claim in his second application is predicated are outside the record. This is so even though the judge who passed on the two motions was the same judge who presided at the hearing at which petitioner made the waivers, and the later hearing at which he was sentenced. Whether or not petitioner was under the influence of narcotics would not necessarily have been apparent to the trial judge. Petitioner appeared before him without counsel and but briefly. That the judge may have thought that he acted with- intelligence and understanding in responding to.the judge’s inquiries cannot “conclusively show,” as the statute requires, that there is no merit in his present claim. Cf. Machibroda v. United States, supra, at 495. If anything, his request before sentence that the judge send him to a hospital “for addiction cure” cuts the other way. Moreover, we are' advised in the Government’s brief that the probation officer’s report made to the judge before sentence (the report is not part of the record in this Court) disclosed that petitioner received medical treatment for withdrawal symptoms while he was in jail-prior to sentencing.
On remand, a hearing will be required. This is not to say, however, that it will automatically become necessary to produce petitioner at the hearing to enable him to testify. Not every colorable allegation entitles a federal prisoner to a trip to the sentencing court. Congress,' recognizing- the administrative burden involved in the transportation of prisoners to and from a hearing in the sentencing court, provided in § 2255 that the application may be entertained and determined “without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing.” This does not mean that a prisoner can be prevented from testifying in support of a substantial claim where his testimony would be material. However, we think it clear that the sentencing court has discretion to ascertain whether the claim is substantial before granting a full evidentiary hearing. In this connection, the sentencing court might find it useful to appoint counsel to represent the applicant. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U. S. 438, 446. Also, it will be open to the respondent to attempt to show that petitioner’s failure to claim mental incompetency in his first motion was an abuse of the motion remedy, within the principles of Wong Doo and Price v. Johnston, dis-entitling him to a hearing on the merits. We leave to the District Court, in its sound discretion, the question whether the issue of abuse of the motion remedy, if advanced by respondent, or the issue on the merits, can under the circumstances be tried without having the prisoner present. As we said only last Term:
“What has been said is not to imply that a movant [under § 2255] must always be allowed'to appear in a district court for a full hearing if the record does not conclusively and' expressly belie his claim, no matter how vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible his allegations may be. • The langúagé of the statute does not strip the district courts of all discretion to exercise their common sense. Indeed, the statute itself recognizes that there are times when allegations of facts outside the record can be fully investigated without requiring the personal presence of the prisoner. Whether the petition in the present case can appropriately be disposed of without'the presence of the petitioner at the hearing is a question to be resolved in the further proceedings in the District Court.
“There will always be marginal cases, and this case is not far from the line. But the. specific and detailed factual assertions of the petitioner, while improbable, cannot at this juncture be said to be incredible.- If the allegations are true, the petitioner is clearly entitled to relief....” Mach
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 Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Sixth Amendment, applicable to the States by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions. The right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 686 (1984). This case arises in the context of claimed ineffective assistance that led to the lapse of a prosecution offer of a plea bargain, a proposal that offered terms more lenient than the terms of the guilty plea entered later. The initial question is whether the constitutional right to counsel extends to the negotiation and consideration of plea offers that lapse or are rejected. If there is a right to effective assistance with respect to those offers, a further question is what a defendant must demonstrate in order to show that prejudice resulted from counsel’s deficient performance. Other questions relating to ineffective assistance with respect to plea offers, including the question of proper remedies, are considered in a second case decided today. See Lafler v. Cooper, post, at 162-175.
HH
In August 2007, respondent Galin Frye was charged with driving with a revoked license. Frye had been convicted for that offense on three other occasions, so the State of Missouri charged him with a class D felony, which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of four years. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §§302.321.2, 558.011.1(4) (2011).
On November 15, the prosecutor sent a letter to Frye’s counsel offering a choice of two plea bargains. App. 50. The prosecutor first offered to recommend a 3-year sentence if there was a guilty plea to the felony charge, without a recommendation regarding probation but with a recommendation that Frye serve 10 days in jail as so-called “shock” time. The second offer was to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor and, if Frye pleaded guilty to it, to recommend a 90-day sentence. The misdemeanor charge of driving with a revoked license carries a maximum term of imprisonment of one year. 311 S. W. 3d 350, 360 (Mo. App. 2010). The letter stated both offers would expire on December 28. Frye’s attorney did not advise Frye that the offers had been made. The offers expired. Id., at 356.
Frye’s preliminary hearing was scheduled for January 4, 2008. On December 30, 2007, less than a week before the hearing, Frye was again arrested for driving with a revoked license. App. 47-48, 311 S. W. 3d, at 352-353. At the January 4 hearing, Frye waived his right to a preliminary hearing on the charge arising from the August 2007 arrest. He pleaded not guilty at a subsequent arraignment but then changed his plea to guilty. There was no underlying plea agreement. App. 5, 13, 16. The state trial court accepted Frye’s guilty plea. Id., at 21. The prosecutor recommended a 3-year sentence, made no recommendation regarding probation, and requested 10 days shock time in jail. Id., at 22. The trial judge sentenced Frye to three years in prison. Id., at 21, 23.
Frye filed for postconviction relief in state court. Id., at 8, 25-29. He alleged his counsel’s failure to inform him of the prosecution’s plea offer denied him the effective assistance of counsel. At an evidentiary hearing, Frye testified he would have entered a guilty plea to the misdemeanor had he known about the offer. Id., at 34.
A state court denied the postconviction motion, id., at 52-57, but the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed, 311 S. W. 3d 350. It determined that Frye met both of the requirements for showing a Sixth Amendment violation under Strickland. First, the court determined Frye’s counsel’s performance was deficient because the “record is void of any evidence of any effort by trial counsel to communicate the Offer to Frye during the Offer window.” 311 S. W. 3d, at 355, 356 (emphasis deleted). The court next concluded Frye had shown his counsel’s deficient performance caused him prejudice because “Frye pled guilty to a felony instead of a misdemeanor and was subject to a maximum sentence of four years instead of one year.” Id., at 360.
To implement a remedy for the violation, the court deemed Frye’s guilty plea withdrawn and remanded to allow Frye either to insist on a trial or to plead guilty to any offense the prosecutor deemed it appropriate to charge. This Court granted certiorari. 562 U. S. 1128 (2011).
II
A
It is well settled that the right to the effective assistance of counsel applies to certain steps before trial. The “Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to have counsel present at all ‘critical’ stages of the criminal proceedings.” Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U. S. 778, 786 (2009) (quoting United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 227-228 (1967)). Critical stages include arraignments, postindictment interrogations, postindictment lineups, and the entry of a guilty plea. See Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52 (1961) (arraignment); Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964) (postindictment interrogation); Wade, supra (postindictment lineup); Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972) (guilty plea).
With respect to the right to effective counsel in plea negotiations, a proper beginning point is to discuss two cases from this Court considering the role of counsel in advising a client about a plea offer and an ensuing guilty plea: Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52 (1985); and Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356 (2010).
Hill established that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea bargain context are governed by the two-part test set forth in Strickland. See Hill, supra, at 57. As noted above, in Frye’s case, the Missouri Court of Appeals, applying the two part test of Strickland, determined first that defense counsel had been ineffective and second that there was resulting prejudice.
In Hill, the decision turned on the second part of the Strickland test. There, a defendant who had entered a guilty plea claimed his counsel had misinformed him of the amount of time he would have to serve before he became eligible for parole. But the defendant had not alleged that, even if adequate advice and assistance had been given, he would have elected to plead not guilty and proceed to trial. Thus, the Court found that no prejudice from the inadequate advice had been shown or alleged. Hill, supra, at 60.
In Padilla, the Court again discussed the duties of counsel in advising a client with respect to a plea offer that leads to a guilty plea. Padilla held that a guilty plea, based on a plea offer, should be set aside because counsel misinformed the defendant of the immigration consequences of the conviction. The Court made clear that “the negotiation of a plea bargain is a critical phase of litigation for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.” 559 U. S., at 373. It also rejected the argument made by petitioner in this case that a knowing and voluntary plea supersedes errors by defense counsel. Cf. Brief for Respondent in Padilla v. Kentucky, O. T. 2009, No. 08-651, p. 27 (arguing Sixth Amendment’s assurance of effective assistance “does not extend to collateral aspects of the prosecution” because “knowledge of the consequences that are collateral to the guilty plea is not a prerequisite to the entry of a knowing and intelligent plea”).
In the case now before the Court the State, as petitioner, points out that the legal question presented is different from that in Hill and Padilla. In those cases the claim was that the prisoner’s plea of guilty was invalid because counsel had provided incorrect advice pertinent to the plea. In the instant case, by contrast, the guilty plea that was accepted, and the plea proceedings concerning it in court, were all based on accurate advice and information from counsel. The challenge is not to the advice pertaining to the plea that was accepted but rather to the course of legal representation that preceded it with respect to other potential pleas and plea offers.
To give further support to its contention that the instant case is in a category different from what the Court considered in Hill and Padilla, the State urges that there is no right to a plea offer or a plea bargain in any event. See Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U. S. 545, 561 (1977). It claims Frye therefore was not deprived of any legal benefit to which he was entitled. Under this view, any wrongful or mistaken action of counsel with respect to earlier plea offers is beside the point.
The State is correct to point out that Hill and Padilla concerned whether there was ineffective assistance leading to acceptance of a plea offer, a process involving a formal court appearance with the defendant and all counsel present. Before a guilty plea is entered the defendant’s understanding of the plea and its consequences can be established on the record. This affords the State substantial protection against later claims that the plea was the result of inadequate advice. At the plea entry proceedings the trial court and all counsel have the opportunity to establish on the record that the defendant understands the process that led to any offer, the advantages and disadvantages of accepting it, and the sentencing consequences or possibilities that will ensue once a conviction is entered based upon the plea. See, e. g., Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11; Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 24.02 (2004). Hill and Padilla both illustrate that, nevertheless, there may be instances when claims of ineffective assistance can arise after the conviction is entered. Still, the State, and the trial court itself, have had a substantial opportunity to guard against this contingency by establishing at the plea entry proceeding that the defendant has been given proper advice or, if the advice received appears to have been inadequate, to remedy that deficiency before the plea is accepted and the conviction entered.
When a plea offer has lapsed or been rejected, however, no formal court proceedings are involved. This underscores that the plea-bargaining process is often in flux, with no clear standards or timelines and with no judicial supervision of the discussions between prosecution and defense. Indeed, discussions between client and defense counsel are privileged. So the prosecution has little or no notice if something may be amiss and perhaps no capacity to intervene in any event. And, as noted, the State insists there is no right to receive a plea offer. For all these reasons, the State contends, it is unfair to subject it to the consequences of defense counsel’s inadequacies, especially when the opportunities for a full and fair trial, or, as here, for a later guilty plea albeit on less favorable terms, are preserved.
The State’s contentions are neither illogical nor without some persuasive force, yet they do not suffice to overcome a simple reality. Ninety-seven percent of federal convictions and ninety-four percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas. See Dept, of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online, Table 5.22.2009, http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/ t5222009.pdf (all Internet materials as visited Mar. 1, 2012, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file); Dept, of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, S. Rosenmerkel, M. Du-rose, & D. Farole, Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2006-Statistical Tables, p. 1 (NCJ226846, rev. Nov. 2010), http://bjs. ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf; Padilla, 559 U. S., at 372 (recognizing pleas account for nearly 95 percent of all criminal convictions). The reality is that plea bargains have become so central to the administration of the criminal justice system that defense counsel have responsibilities in the plea bargain process, responsibilities that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment requires in the criminal process at critical stages. Because ours “is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials,” Lqfler, post, at 170, it is insufficient simply to point to the guarantee of a fair trial as a backstop that inoculates any errors in the pretrial process. “To a large extent . . . horse trading [between prosecutor and defense counsel] determines who goes to jail and for how long. That is what plea bargaining is. It is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system.” Scott & Stuntz, Plea Bargaining as Contract, 101 ' Yale L. J. 1909,1912 (1992). See also Barkow, Separation of Powers and the Criminal Law, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 989, 1034 (2006) (“[Defendants] who do take their case to trial and lose receive longer sentences than even Congress or the prosecutor might think appropriate, because the longer sentences exist on the books largely for bargaining purposes. This often results in individuals who accept a plea bargain receiving shorter sentences than other individuals who are less morally culpable but take a chance and go to trial” (footnote omitted)). In today’s criminal justice system, therefore, the negotiation of a plea bargain, rather than the unfolding of a trial, is almost always the critical point for a defendant.
To note the prevalence of plea bargaining is not to criticize it. The potential to conserve valuable prosecutorial resources and for defendants to admit their crimes and receive more favorable terms at sentencing means that a plea agreement can benefit both parties. In order that these benefits can be realized, however, criminal defendants require effective counsel during plea negotiations. “Anything less . . . might deny a defendant ‘effective representation by counsel at the only stage when legal aid and advice would help him.’ ” Massiah, 377 U. S., at 204 (quoting Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315, 326 (1959) (Douglas, J., concurring)).
B
The inquiry then becomes how to define the duty and responsibilities of defense counsel in the plea bargain process. This is a difficult question. “The art of negotiation is at least as nuanced as the art of trial advocacy, and it presents questions further removed from immediate judicial supervision.” Premo v. Moore, 562 U. S. 115, 125 (2011). Bargaining is, by its nature, defined to a substantial degree by personal style. The alternative courses and tactics in negotiation are so individual that it may be neither prudent nor practicable to try to elaborate or define detailed standards for the proper discharge of defense counsel’s participation in the process. Cf. ibid.
This case presents neither the necessity nor the occasion to define the duties of defense counsel in those respects, however. Here the question is whether defense counsel has the duty to communicate the terms of a formal offer to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may result in a lesser sentence, a conviction on lesser charges, or both.
This Court now holds that, as a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused. Any exceptions to that rule need not be explored here, for the offer was a formal one with a fixed expiration date. When defense counsel allowed the offer to expire without advising the defendant or allowing him to consider it, defense counsel did not render the effective assistance the Constitution requires.
Though the standard for counsel’s performance is not determined solely by reference to codified standards of professional practice, these standards can be important guides. The American Bar Association recommends defense counsel “promptly communicate and explain to the defendant all plea offers made by the prosecuting attorney,” ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Pleas of Guilty 14-3.2(a) (3d ed. 1999), and this standard has been adopted by numerous state and federal courts over the last 30 years. See, e. g., Davie v. State, 381 S. C. 601, 608-609, 675 S. E. 2d 416, 420 (2009); Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963, 965-966 (Fla. 1999) (per curiam); Becton v. Hun, 205 W. Va. 139, 144, 516 S. E. 2d 762, 767 (1999); Harris v. State, 875 S. W. 2d 662, 665 (Tenn. 1994); Lloyd v. State, 258 Ga. 645, 648, 373 S. E. 2d 1, 3 (1988); United States v. Rodriguez Rodriguez, 929 F. 2d 747, 752 (CA1 1991) (per curiam); Pham v. United States, 317 F. 3d 178, 182 (CA2 2003); United States ex rel. Caruso v. Zelinsky, 689 F. 2d 435, 438 (CA3 1982); Griffin v. United States, 330 F. 3d 733, 737 (CA6 2003); Johnson v. Duckworth, 793 F. 2d 898, 902 (CA7 1986); United States v. Blaylock, 20 F. 3d 1458, 1466 (CA9 1994); cf. Diaz v. United States, 930 F. 2d 832, 834 (CA11 1991). The standard for prompt communication and consultation is also set out in state bar professional standards for attorneys. See, e. g., Fla. Rule Regulating Bar 4-1.4 (2008); Ill. Rule Prof. Conduct 1.4 (2011); Kan. Rule Prof. Conduct 1.4 (2010); Ky. Sup. Ct. Rule 3.130, Rule Prof. Conduct 1.4 (2011); Mass. Rule Prof. Conduct 1.4 (2011-2012); Mich. Rule Prof. Conduct 1.4 (2011).
The prosecution and the trial courts may adopt some measures to help ensure against late, frivolous, or fabricated claims after a later, less advantageous plea offer has been accepted or after a trial leading to conviction with resulting harsh consequences. First, the fact of a formal offer means that its terms and its processing can be documented so that what took place in the negotiation process becomes more clear if some later inquiry turns on the conduct of earlier pretrial negotiations. Second, States may elect to follow rules that all offers must be in writing, again to ensure against later misunderstandings or fabricated charges. See N. J. Ct. Rule 3:9-l(b) (2012) (“Any plea offer to be made by the prosecutor shall be in writing and forwarded to the defendant’s attorney”). Third, formal offers can be made part of the record at any subsequent plea proceeding or before a trial on the merits, all to ensure that a defendant has been fully advised before those further proceedings commence. At least one State often follows a similar procedure before trial. See Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as "Amici Curiae 20 (discussing hearings in Arizona conducted pursuant to State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 10 P. 3d 1193 (App. 2000)); see also N. J. Ct. Rules 3:9-l(b), (c) (requiring the prosecutor and defense counsel to discuss the case prior to the arraignment/status conference including any plea offers and to report on these discussions in-open court with the defendant present); In re Alvernaz, 2 Cal. 4th 924, 938, n. 7, 830 P. 2d 747, 756, n. 7 (1992) (encouraging parties to “memorialize in" some fashion prior to trial (1) the fact that a plea bargain offer was made, and (2) that the defendant was advised of the offer [and] its precise terms, . . . and (3) the defendant’s response to the plea bargain offer”); Brief for Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, New York University School of Law, as Amicus Curiae 25-27.
. Here defense counsel did not communicate the formal offers to the defendant. As a result of that deficient performance, the offers lapsed. Under Strickland, the question then becomes what, if any, prejudice resulted from the breach of duty.
C
To show prejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel where a plea offer has lapsed or been rejected because of counsel’s deficient performance, defendants must demonstrate a reasonable probability they would have accepted the earlier plea offer had they been afforded effective assistance of counsel. Defendants must also demonstrate a reasonable probability the plea would have been entered without the prosecution canceling it or the trial court refusing to accept it, if they had the authority to exercise that discretion under state law. To establish prejudice in this instance, it is necessary to show a reasonable probability that the end result of the criminal process would have been more favorable by reason of a plea to a lesser charge or a sentence of less prison time. Cf. Glover v. United States, 531 U. S. 198, 203 (2001) (“[A]ny amount of [additional] jail time has Sixth Amendment significance”).
This application of Strickland to the instances of an un-communicated, lapsed plea does nothing to alter the standard laid out in .Hill. In cases where a defendant complains that ineffective assistance led him to accept a plea offer as opposed to proceeding to trial, the defendant will have to show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill, 474 U. S., at 59. Hill was correctly decided and applies in the context in which it arose. Hill does not, however, provide the sole means for demonstrating prejudice arising from the deficient performance of counsel during plea negotiations. Unlike the defendant in Hill, Frye argues that with effective assistance he would have accepted an earlier plea offer (limiting his sentence to one year in prison) as opposed to entering an open plea (exposing him to a maximum sentence of four years’ imprisonment). In a case, such as this, where a defendant pleads guilty to less favorable terms and claims that ineffective assistance of counsel caused him to miss out on a more favorable earlier plea offer, Strickland’s inquiry into whether “the result of the proceeding would have been different,” 466 U. S., at 694, requires looking not at whether the defendant would have proceeded to trial absent ineffective assistance but whether he would have accepted the offer to plead pursuant to the terms earlier proposed.
In order to complete a showing of Strickland prejudice, defendants who have shown a reasonable probability they would have accepted the earlier plea offer must also show that, if the prosecution had the discretion to cancel it or if the trial court had the discretion to refuse to accept it, there is a reasonable probability neither the prosecution nor the trial court would have prevented the offer from being accepted or implemented. This farther showing is of particular importance because a defendant has no right to be offered a plea, see Weatherford, 429 U. S., at 561, nor a federal right that the judge accept it, Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257, 262 (1971). In at least some States, including Missouri, it appears the prosecution has some discretion to cancel a plea agreement to which the defendant has agreed, see, e. g., 311 S. W. 3d, at 359 (case below); Ariz. Rule Crim. Proc. 17.4(b) (Supp. 2011). The Federal Rules, some state rules including in Missouri, and this Court’s precedents give trial courts some leeway to accept or reject plea agreements, see Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11(c)(3); see Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 24.02(d)(4); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 243-244 (1969). It can be assumed that in most jurisdictions prosecutors and judges are familiar with the boundaries of acceptable plea bargains and sentences. So in most instances it should not be difficult to make an objective assessment as to whether or not a particular fact or intervening circumstance would suffice, in the normal course, to cause prosecutorial withdrawal or judicial nonapproval of a plea bargain. The determination that there is or is not a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different absent counsel’s errors can be conducted within that framework.
Ill
These standards must be applied to the instant case. As regards the deficient performance prong of Strickland, the Court of Appeals found the “record is void of any evidence of any effort by trial counsel to communicate the [formal] Offer to Frye during the Offer window, let alone any evidence that Frye’s conduct interfered with trial counsel’s ability to do so.” 311 S. W. 3d, at 356. On this record, it is evident that Frye’s attorney did not make a meaningful attempt to inform the defendant of a written plea offer before the offer expired. See supra, at 139. The Missouri Court of Appeals was correct that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, supra, at 688.
The Court of Appeals erred, however, in articulating the precise standard for prejudice in this context. As noted, a defendant in Frye’s position must show not only a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the lapsed plea but also a reasonable probability that the prosecution would have adhered to the agreement and that it would have been accepted by the trial court. Frye can show he would have accepted the offer, but there is strong reason to doubt the prosecution and the trial court would have permitted the plea bargain to become final.
There appears to be a reasonable probability Frye would have accepted the prosecutor’s original offer of a plea bargain if the offer had been communicated to him, because he pleaded guilty to a more serious charge, with no promise of a sentencing recommendation from the prosecutor. It may be that in some cases defendants must show more than just a guilty plea to a charge or sentence harsher than the original offer. For example, revelations between plea offers about the strength of the prosecution’s case may make a late decision to plead guilty insufficient to demonstrate, without further evidence, that the defendant would have pleaded guilty to an earlier, more generous plea offer if his counsel had reported it to him. Here, however, that is not the case. The Court of Appeals did not err in finding Frye’s acceptance of the less favorable plea offer indicated that he would have accepted the earlier (and more favorable) offer had he been apprised of it; and there is no need to address here the showings that might be required in other cases.
The Court of Appeals failed, however, to require Frye to show that the first plea offer, if accepted by Frye, would have been adhered to by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court. Whether the prosecution and trial court are required to do so is a matter of state law, and it is not the place of this Court to settle those matters. The Court has established the minimum requirements of the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Strickland, and States have the discretion to add procedural protections under state law if they choose. A State may choose to preclude the prosecution from withdrawing a plea offer once it has been accepted or perhaps to preclude a trial court from rejecting a plea bargain. In Missouri, it appears “a plea offer once accepted by the defendant can be withdrawn without recourse” by the prosecution. 311 S. W. 3d, at 359. The extent of the trial court’s discretion in Missouri to reject a plea agreement appears to be in some doubt. Compare id., at 360, with Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 24.02(d)(4).
We remand for the Missouri Court of Appeals to consider these state-law questions, because they bear on the federal question of Strickland prejudice. If, as the Missouri court stated here, the prosecutor could have canceled the plea agreement, and if Frye fails to show a reasonable probability the prosecutor would have adhered to the agreement, there is no Strickland prejudice. Likewise, if the trial court could have refused to accept the plea agreement, and if Frye fails to show a reasonable probábility the trial court would have accepted the plea, there is no Strickland prejudice. In this case, given Frye’s new offense for driving without a license on December 30, 2007, there is reason to doubt that the prosecution would have adhered to the agreement or that the trial court would have accepted it at the January 4,2008, hearing, unless they were required by state law to do so.
It is appropriate to allow the Missouri Court of Appeals to address this question in the first instance. The judgment of the Missouri Court of Appeals is vacated, 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: | 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.
Title I of Pub. L. 93-526, 88 Stat. 1695, note following 44 U. S. C. § 2107 (1970 ed., Supp. V), the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (hereafter Act), directs the Administrator of General Services, an official of the Executive Branch, to take custody of the Presidential papers and tape recordings of appellant, former President Richard M. Nixon, and promulgate regulations that (1) provide for the orderly processing and screening by Executive Branch archivists of such materials for the purpose of returning to appellant those that are personal and private in nature, and (2) determine the terms and conditions upon which public access may eventually be had to those materials that are retained. The question for decision is whether Title I is unconstitutional on its face as a violation of (1) the separation of powers; (2) Presidential privilege doctrines; (3) appellant’s privacy interests; (4) appellant’s First Amendment associational rights; or (5) the Bill of Attainder Clause.
On December 19, 1974, four months after appellant resigned as President of the United States, his successor, President Gerald R. Ford, signed Pub. L. 93-526 into law. The next day, December 20, 1974, appellant filed this action in the District Court for the District of Columbia, which under § 105 (a) of the Act has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain complaints challenging the Act’s legal or constitutional validity, or that of any regulation promulgated by the Administrator. Appellant’s complaint challenged the Act’s constitutionality on a number of grounds and sought declaratory and injunctive relief against its enforcement. A three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2282, 2284. Because regulations required by § 104 of the Act governing public access to the materials were not yet effective, the District Court held that questions going to the possibility of future public release under regulations yet to be published were not ripe for review. It found that there was “no need and no justification for this court now to reach constitutional claims directed at the regulations... the promulgation of [which] might eliminate, limit, or cast [the constitutional claims] in a different light.” 408 F. Supp. 321, 336 (1976). Accordingly, the District Court limited review “to consideration of the propriety of injunctive relief against the alleged facial unconstitutionality of the statute,” id., at 335, and held that the challenges to the facial constitutionality of the Act were without merit. It therefore dismissed the complaint. Id., at 374-375. We noted probable jurisdiction, 429 U. S. 976 (1976). We affirm.
I
The Background
The materials at issue consist of some 42 million pages of documents and some 880 tape recordings of conversations. Upon his resignation, appellant directed Government archivists to pack and ship the materials to him in California. This shipment was delayed when the Watergate Special Prosecutor advised President Ford of his continuing need for the materials. At the same time, President Ford requested that the Attorney General give his opinion respecting ownership of the materials. The Attorney General advised that the historical practice of former Presidents and the absence of any governing statute to the contrary supported ownership in the appellant, with a possible limited exception. 43 Op. Atty. Gen. No, 1 (1974), App. 220-230. The Attorney General’s opinion emphasized, however:
“Historically, there has been consistent acknowledgement that Presidential materials are peculiarly affected by a public interest which may justify subjecting the absolute ownership rights of the ex-President to certain limitations directly related to the character of the documents as records of government activity.” Id., at 226.
On September 8, 1974, after issuance of the Attorney General’s opinion, the Administrator of General Services, Arthur F. Sampson, announced that he had signed a depository agreement with appellant under the authority of 44 U. S. C. § 2107. 10 Weekly Comp, of Pres. Doc. 1104 (1974). We shall also refer to the agreement as the Nixon-Sampson agreement. See Nixon v. Sampson, 389 F. Supp. 107, 160-162 (DC 1975) (App. A). The agreement recited that appellant retained “all legal and equitable title to the Materials, including all literary property rights,” and that the materials accordingly were to be “deposited temporarily” near appellant’s California home in an “existing facility belonging to the United States.” Id., at 160. The agreement stated further that appellant’s purpose was “to donate” the materials to the United States “with appropriate restrictions.” Ibid. It was provided that all of the materials “shall be placed within secure storage areas to which access can be gained only by use of two keys,” one in appellant’s possession and the other in the possession of the Archivist of the United States or members of his staff. With exceptions not material here, appellant agreed “not to withdraw from deposit any originals of the materials” for a period of three years, but reserved the right to “make reproductions” and to authorize other persons to have access on conditions prescribed by him. After three years, appellant might exercise the “right to withdraw from deposit without formality any or all of the Materials... and to retain... [them] for any purpose...” determined by him. Id., at 161.
The Nixon-Sampson agreement treated the tape recordings separately. They were donated to the United States “effective September 1, 1979,” and meanwhile “shall remain on deposit.” It was provided however that “[subsequent to September 1, 1979 the Administrator shall destroy such tapes as [Mr. Nixon] may direct” and in any event the tapes “shall be destroyed at the time of [his] death or on September 1, 1984, whichever event shall first occur.” Ibid. Otherwise the tapes were not to be withdrawn, and reproductions would be made only by “mutual agreement.” Id., at 162. Access until September 1, 1979, was expressly reserved to appellant, except as he might authorize access by others on terms prescribed by him.
Public announcement of the agreement was followed 10 days later, September 18, by the introduction of S. 4016 by 13 Senators in the United States Senate. The bill, which became Pub. L. 93-526 and was designed, inter alia, to abrogate the Nixon-Sampson agreement, passed the Senate on October 4, 1974. It was awaiting action in the House of Representatives when on October 17, 1974, appellant filed suit in the District Court seeking specific enforcement of the Nixon-Sampson agreement. That action was consolidated with other suits seeking access to Presidential materials pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552 (1970 ed. and Supp. V), and also seeking injunctive relief against enforcement of the agreement. Nixon v. Sampson, supra. The House passed its version of the Senate bill on December 3, 1974. The final version of S. 4016 was passed on December 9, 1974, and President Ford signed it into law on December 19.
II
The Act
Public Law 93-526 has two Titles. Title I, the challenged Presidential Recordings and Materials-Preservation Act, consists of §§ 101 through 106. Title II, the Public Documents Act, amends Chapter 33 of Title 44, United States Code, to add §§ 3315 through 3324 thereto, and establish the National Study Commission on Records and Documents of Federal Officials.
Section 101 (a) of Title I directs that the Administrator of General Services, notwithstanding any other law or agreement or understanding (e. g., the Nixon-Sampson agreement), “shall receive, obtain, or retain, complete possession and control of all original tape recordings of conversations which were recorded or caused to be recorded by any officer or employee of the Federal Government and which—
“(1) involve former President Richard M. Nixon or other individuals who, at the time of the conversation, were employed by the Federal Government;
“(2) were recorded in the White House or in the office of the President in the Executive Office Buildings located in Washington, District of Columbia; Camp David, Maryland; Key Biscayne, Florida; or San Clemente, California; and
“(3) were recorded during the period beginning January 20,1969, and ending August 9,1974.”
Section 101 (b) provides that notwithstanding any such agreement or understanding, the Administrator also “shall receive, retain, or make reasonable efforts to obtain, complete possession and control of all papers, documents, memorandums, transcripts, and other objects and materials which constitute the Presidential historical materials [as defined by 44 U. S. C. § 2101] of Richard M. Nixon, covering the period beginning January 20, 1969, and ending August 9, 1974.”
Section 102 (a) prohibits destruction of the tapes or materials except as may be provided by law, and § 102 (b) makes them available (giving priority of access to the Office of the Watergate Special Prosecutor) in response to court subpoena or other legal process, or for use in judicial proceedings. This was made subject, however, “to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the Federal Government or any person may invoke....” Section 102 (c) affords appellant, or any person designated by him in writing, access to the recordings and materials for any purpose consistent with the Act “subsequent and subject to the regulations” issued by the Administrator under § 103. See n. 46, infra. Section 102 (d) provides for access according to § 103 regulations by any agency or department in the Executive Branch for lawful Government use. Section 103 requires custody of the tape recordings and materials to be maintained in Washington except as may otherwise be necessary to carry out the Act, and directs that the Administrator promulgate regulations necessary to assure their protection from loss or destruction and to prevent access to them by unauthorized persons.
Section 104, in pertinent part, directs the Administrator to promulgate regulations governing public access to the tape recordings and materials. Section 104 (a) requires submission of proposed regulations to each House of Congress, the regulations to take effect under § 104 (b)(1) at the end of 90 legislative days unless either the House or the Senate adopts a resolution disapproving them. The regulations must take into account seven factors specified in § 104 (a), namely:
“(1) the need to provide the public with the full truth, at the earliest reasonable date, of the abuses of governmental power popularly identified under the generic term 'Watergate’;
“(2) the need to make such recordings and materials available for use' in judicial proceedings;
“(3) the need to prevent general access, except in accordance with appropriate procedures established for use in judicial proceedings to information relating to the Nation’s security;
“(4) the need to protect every individual’s right to a fair and impartial trial;
"(5) the need to protect any party’s opportunity to assert any legally or constitutionally based right or privilege which would prevent or otherwise limit access to such recordings and materials;
“(6) the need to provide public access to those materials which have general historical significance, and which are not likely to be related to the need described in paragraph (1); and
"(7) the need to give to Richard M. Nixon, or his heirs, for his sole custody and use, tape recordings and other materials which are not likely to be related to the need described in paragraph (1) and are not otherwise of general historical significance.”
Section 105 (a) vests the District Court for the District of Columbia with exclusive jurisdiction not only to hear constitutional challenges to the Act, but also to hear challenges to the validity of any regulation, and to decide actions involving questions of title, ownership, custody, possession, or control of any tape or materials, or involving payment of any award of just compensation required by § 105 (c) when a decision of that court holds that any individual has been deprived by the Act of private property without just compensation. Section 105 (b) is a severability provision providing that any decision' invalidating a provision of the Act or a regulation shall not affect the validity or enforcement of any other provision or regulation. Section 106 authorizes appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Title.
Ill
The Scope of the Inquiry
The District Court correctly focused on the Act’s requirement that the Administrator of General Services administer the tape recordings and materials placed in his custody only under regulations promulgated by him providing for the orderly processing of such materials for the purpose of returning to appellant such of them as are personal and private in nature, and of determining the terms and conditions upon which public access may eventually be had to those remaining in the Government’s possession. The District Court also noted that in designing the regulations, the Administrator must consider the need to protect the constitutional rights of appellant and other individuals against infringement by the processing itself or, ultimately, by public access to the materials retained. 408 F. Supp., at 334-340. This construction is plainly required by the wording of §§ 103 and 104.
Regulations implementing §§102 and 103, which did not require submission to Congress, and which regulate access and screening by Government archivists, have been promulgated, 41 CFR § 105-63 (1976). Public-access regulations that must be submitted to Congress under § 104 (a) have not, however, become effective. The initial set proposed by the Administrator was disapproved pursuant to § 104 (b) (1) by Senate Resolution. S. Res. 244, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); 121 Cong. Rec. 28609-28614 (1975)., The Senate also disapproved seven provisions of a proposed second set, although that set had been withdrawn. S. Res. 428, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976); 122 Cong. Rec. 10159-10160 (1976). The House disapproved six provisions of a third set. H. R. Res. 1505, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976). The Administrator is of the view that regulations cannot become effective except as a package and consequently is preparing a fourth set for submission to Congress. Brief for Federal Appellees 8-9, n. 4.
The District Court therefore concluded that as no regulations under § 104 had yet taken effect, and as such regulations once effective were explicitly made subject to judicial review under § 105, the court could consider only the injury to appellant’s constitutionally protected interests allegedly worked by the taking of his Presidential materials into custody for screening by Government archivists. 408 F. Supp., at 339-340. Judge McGowan, writing for the District Court, quoted the following from Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S. 387, 402 (1941):
“No one can foresee the varying applications of these separate provisions which conceivably might be made. A law which is constitutional as applied in one manner may still contravene the Constitution as applied in another. Since all contingencies of attempted enforcement cannot be envisioned in advance of those applications, courts have in the main found it wiser to delay passing upon the constitutionality of all the separate phases of a comprehensive statute until faced with cases involving particular provisions as specifically applied to persons who claim to be injured. Passing upon the possible significance of the manifold provisions of a broad statute in advance of efforts to apply the separate provisions is analogous to rendering an advisory opinion upon a statute or a declaratory judgment upon a hypothetical case.” 408 F. Supp., at 336.
Only this Term we applied this principle in an analogous situation in declining to adjudicate the constitutionality of regulations of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency that were in process of revision, stating: “For [the Court] to review regulations not yet promulgated, the final form of which has been only hinted at, would be wholly novel.” EPA v. Brown, 431 U. S. 99, 104 (1977). See also Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U. S. 268, 283-284 (1969); Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449, 451 (1963); United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 20-22 (1960); Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U. S. 579 (1958). We too, therefore, limit our consideration of the merits of appellant’s several constitutional claims to those addressing the facial validity of the provisions of the Act requiring the Administrator to take the recordings and materials into the Government’s custody subject to screening by Government archivists.
The constitutional questions to be decided are, of course, of considerable importance. They touch the relationship between two of the three coordinate branches of the Federal Government, the Executive and the Legislative, and the relationship of appellant to his Government. They arise in a context unique in the history of the Presidency and present issues that this Court has had no occasion heretofore to address. Judge McGowan, speaking for the District Court, comprehensively canvassed all the claims, and in a thorough opinion, concluded that none had merit. Our independent examination of the issues brings us to the same conclusion, although our analysis differs somewhat on some questions.
IV
Claims Concerning the Autonomy of the Executive Branch
The Act was the product of joint action by the Congress and President Ford, who signed the bill into law. It is therefore urged by intervenor-appellees that, in this circumstance, the case does not truly present a controversy concerning the separation of powers, or a controversy concerning the Presidential privilege of confidentiality, because, it is argued, such claims may be asserted only by incumbents who are presently responsible to the American people for their action. We reject the argument that only an incumbent President may assert such claims and hold that appellant, as a former President, may also be heard to assert them. We further hold, however, that neither his separation-of-powers claim nor his claim of breach of constitutional privilege has merit.
Appellant argues broadly that the Act encroaches upon the Presidential prerogative to control internal operations of the Presidential office and therefore offends the autonomy of the Executive Branch. The argument is divided into separate but interrelated parts.
First, appellant contends that Congress is without power to delegate to a subordinate officer of the Executive Branch the decision whether to disclose Presidential materials and to prescribe the terms that govern any disclosure. To do so, appellant contends, constitutes, without more, an impermissible interference by the Legislative Branch into matters inherently the business solely of the Executive Branch.
Second, appellant contends, somewhat more narrowly, that by authorizing the Administrator to take custody of all Presidential materials in a “broad, undifferentiated’' manner, and authorizing future publication except where a privilege is affirmatively established, the Act offends the presumptive confidentiality of Presidential communications recognized in United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 (1974). He argues that the District Court erred in two respects in rejecting this contention. Initially, he contends that the District Court erred in distinguishing incumbent from former Presidents in evaluating appellant’s claim of confidentiality. Appellant asserts that, unlike the very specific privilege protecting against disclosure of state secrets and sensitive information concerning military or diplomatic matters, which appellant concedes may be asserted only by an incumbent President, a more generalized Presidential privilege survives the termination of the President-adviser relationship much as the attorney-client privilege survives the relationship that creates it. Appellant further argues that the District Court erred in applying a balancing test to his claim of Presidential privilege and in concluding that, notwithstanding the fact that some of the materials might legitimately be included within a claim of Presidential confidentiality, substantial public interests outweighed and justified the limited inroads on Presidential confidentiality necessitated by the Act’s provision for Government custody and screening of the materials. Finally, appellant contends that the Act’s authorization of the process of screening the materials itself violates the privilege and will chill the future exercise of constitutionally protected executive functions, thereby impairing the ability of future Presidents to obtain the candid advice necessary to the conduct of their constitutionally imposed duties.
A
Separation of Powers
We reject at the outset appellant’s argument that the Act’s regulation of the disposition of Presidential materials within the Executive Branch constitutes, without more, a violation of the principle of separation of powers. Neither President Ford nor President Carter supports this claim. The Executive Branch became a party to the Act’s regulation when President Ford signed the Act into law, and the administration of President Carter, acting through the Solicitor General, vigorously supports affirmance of the District Court’s judgment sustaining its constitutionality. Moreover, the control over the materials remains in the Executive Branch. The Administrator of General Services, who must promulgate and administer the regulations that are the keystone of the statutory scheme, is himself an official of the Executive Branch, appointed by the President. The career archivists appointed to do the initial screening for the purpose of selecting out and returning to appellant his private and personal papers similarly are Executive Branch employees.
Appellant’s argument is in any event based on an interpretation of the separation-of-powers doctrine inconsistent with the origins of that doctrine, recent decisions of the Court, and the contemporary realities of our political system. True, it has been said that “each of the three general departments of government [must remain] entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others... Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, 629 (1935), and that “[t]he sound application of a principle that makes one master in his own house precludes him from imposing his control in the house of another who is master there.” Id., at 630. See also O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U. S. 516 (1933); Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U. S. 189, 201 (1928).
But the more pragmatic, flexible approach of Madison in the Federalist Papers and later of Mr. Justice Story was expressly affirmed by this Court only three years ago in United States v. Nixon, supra. There the same broad argument concerning the separation of powers was made by appellant in the context of opposition to a subpoena duces tecum of the Watergate Special Prosecutor for certain Presidential tapes and documents of value to a pending criminal investigation. Although acknowledging that each branch of the Government has the duty initially to interpret the Constitution for itself, and that its interpretation of its powers is due great respect from the other branches, 418 U. S., at 703,'the Court squarely rejected the argument that the Constitution contemplates a complete division of authority between the three branches. Rather, the unanimous Court essentially embraced Mr. Justice Jackson’s view, expressed in his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 635 (1952).
“In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.” 418 U. S., at 707 (emphasis supplied).
Like the District Court, we therefore find that appellant’s argument rests upon an “archaic view of the separation of powers as requiring three airtight departments of government,” 408 F. Supp., at 342. Rather, in determining whether the Act disrupts the proper balance between the coordinate branches, the proper inquiry focuses on the extent to which it prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions. United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 711-712. Only where the potential for disruption is present must we then determine whether that impact is justified by an overriding need to promote objectives within the constitutional authority of Congress. Ibid.
It is therefore highly relevant that the Act provides for custody of the materials in officials of the Executive Branch and that employees of that branch have access to the materials only “for lawful Government use, subject to the [Administrator’s] regulations.” § 102 (d); 41 CFR §§ 105-63.205, 105-63.206, and 105-63.302 (1976). For it is clearly less intrusive to place custody and screening of the materials within the Executive Branch itself than to have Congress or some outside agency perform the screening function. While the materials may also be made available for use in judicial proceedings, this provision is expressly qualified by any rights, defense, or privileges that any person may invoke including, of course, a valid claim of executive privilege. United States v. Nixon, supra. Similarly, although some of the materials may eventually be made available for public access, the Act expressly recognizes the need both “to protect any party’s opportunity to assert any legally or constitutionally based right or privilege,” § 104 (a) (5), and to return purely private materials to appellant, § 104 (a)(7). These provisions plainly guard against-disclosures barred by any defenses or privileges available to appellant or the Executive Branch. And appellant himself concedes that the Act “does not make the presidential materials available to the Congress — except insofar as Congressmen are members of the public and entitled to access when the public has it.” Brief for Appellant 119. The Executive Branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, and the Act facially is designed to ensure that the materials can be released only when release is not barred by some applicable privilege inherent in that branch.
Thus, whatever are the future possibilities for constitutional conflict in the promulgation of regulations respecting public access to particular documents, nothing contained in the Act renders it unduly disruptive of the Executive Branch and, therefore, unconstitutional on its face. And, of course, there is abundant statutory precedent for the regulation and mandatory disclosure of documents in the possession of the Executive Branch. See, e. g., the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552 (1970 ed. and Supp. V); the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. V); the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552b (1976 ed.); the Federal Records Act, 44 U. S. C. §2101 et seq.; and a variety of other statutes, e. g., 13 U. S. C. §§ 8-9 (census data); 26 U. S. C. § 6103 (tax returns). Such regulation of material generated in the Executive Branch has never been considered invalid as an invasion of its autonomy. Cf. EPA v. Mink, 410 U. S. 73, 83 (1973); FAA Administrator v. Robertson, 422 U. S. 255 (1975). Similar congressional power to regulate Executive Branch documents exists in this instance, a power that is augmented by the important interests that the Act seeks to attain. See infra, at 452-454.
B
Presidential Privilege
Having concluded that the separation-of-powers principle is not necessarily violated by the Administrator’s taking custody of and screening appellant’s papers, we next consider appellant’s more narrowly defined claim that the Presidential privilege shields these records from archival scrutiny. We start with what was established in United States v. Nixon, supra — that the privilege is a qualified one. Appellant had argued in that case that in camera inspection by the District Court of Presidential documents and materials subpoenaed by the Special Prosecutor would itself violate the privilege without regard to whether the documents were protected from public disclosure. The Court disagreed, stating that “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege....” 418 U. S., at 706. The Court recognized that the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications derives from the supremacy of the Executive Branch within its assigned area of constitutional responsibilities, but distinguished a President’s “broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such [communications]” from the more particularized and less qualified privilege relating to the need “to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets... Ibid. The Court held that in the case of the general privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications, its importance must be balanced against the inroads of the privilege upon the effective functioning of the Judicial Branch. This balance was struck against the claim of privilege in that case because the Court determined that the intrusion into the confidentiality of Presidential communications resulting from in camera inspection by the District Court, “with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide,” would be minimal and therefore that the claim was outweighed by “[t]he impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch....” Id., at 706-707.
Unlike United States v. Nixon, in which appellant asserted a claim of absolute Presidential privilege against inquiry by the coordinate Judicial Branch, this case initially involves appellant’s assertion of a privilege against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked. The nonfederal appellees rely on this apparent anomaly to contend that only an incumbent President can assert the privilege of the Presidency. Acceptance of that proposition would, of course, end this inquiry. The contention draws on United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 7-8 (1953), where it was said that the privilege “belongs to the Government and must be asserted by it: it can neither be claimed nor waived by a private party.” The District Court believed that this statement was strong support for the contention, but found resolution of the issue unnecessary. 408 F. Supp., at 343-345. It sufficed, said the District Court, that the privilege, if available to a former President, was at least one that “carries much less weight than a claim asserted by the incumbent himself.” Id., at 345.
It is true that only the incumbent is charged with performance of the executive duty under the Constitution. And an incumbent may be inhibited in disclosing confidences of a predecessor when he believes that the effect may be to discourage candid presentation of views by his contemporary advisers. 'Moreover, to the extent that the privilege serves as a shield for executive officials against burdensome requests for information which might interfere with the proper performance of their duties, see United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 714; cf. Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U. S. 491, 501-503 (1975); Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U. S. 82, 8A-85 (1967) (per curiam), a former President is in less need of it than an incumbent. In addition, there are obvious political checks against an incumbent's abuse of the privilege.
Nevertheless, we think that the Solicitor General states the sounder view, and we adopt it:
“This Court held in United States v. Nixon... that the privilege is necessary to provide the confidentiality required for the President’s conduct of office. Unless he can give his advisers some assurance of confidentiality, a President could not expect to receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of his duties depends. The confidentiality necessary to this' exchange cannot be measured by the few months or years between the submission of the information and the end of the President’s tenure; the privilege is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for the benefit of the Republic. Therefore the privilege survives the individual President’s tenure.” Brief for Federal Appellees 33.
At the same time, however, the fact that neither President Ford nor President Carter supports appellant’s claim detracts from the weight of his contention that the Act impermissibly intrudes into the executive function and the needs of the Executive Branch. This necessarily follows, for it must be presumed that the incumbent President is vitally concerned with and in the best position to assess the present and future needs of the Executive Branch, and to support invocation of the privilege accordingly.
The appellant may legitimately assert the Presidential privilege, of course, only as to those materials whose contents fall within the scope of the privilege recognized in United States v. Nixon, supra. In that case the Court held that the privilege is limited to communications “in performance of [a President’s] responsibilities,” 418 U. S., at 711, “of his office,” id., at 713, and made “in the process of shaping policies and making decisions,” id., at 708. Of the estimated 42 million pages of documents and 880 tape recordings whose custody is at stake, the District Court concluded that the appellant’s claim of Presidential privilege could apply at most to the 200,000 items with which the appellant was personally familiar.
The appellant bases his claim of Presidential privilege in this case on the assertion that the potential disclosure of communications given to the appellant in confidence would adversely affect the ability of future Presidents to obtain the candid advice necessary for effective decisionmaking. We are called upon to adjudicate that claim, however, only with respect to the process by which the materials will be screened and catalogued by professional archivists. For any eventual public access will be governed by the guidelines of § 104, which direct the Administrator to take into account “the need to protect any party’s opportunity to assert any... constitutionally based right or privilege,” § 104 (a) (5), and the need to return purely private materials to the appellant, §104 (a)(7).
In view of these specific directions, there is no reason to believe that the restriction on public access ultimately established by regulation will not be adequate to preserve executive confidentiality. An absolute barrier to all outside disclosure is not practically or constitutionally necessary. As the careful research by the District Court clearly demonstrates, there has never been an expectation that the confidences of the Executive Office are absolute and unyielding. All former Presidents from President Hoover to President Johnson have deposited their papers in Presidential libraries (an example appellant has said he intended to follow) for governmental preservation and eventual disclosure. The screening processes for sorting materials for lodgment in these libraries also involved comprehensive review by archivists, often involving materials upon which access restrictions ultimately have been imposed. 408 F. Supp., at 347. The expectation of the confidentiality of executive communications thus has always been limited and subject to erosion over time after an administration leaves office.
We are thus left with the bare claim that the mere screening of the materials by the archivists will impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers. We agree with the District Court that, thus framed, the question is readily resolved. The screening constitutes a very limited intrusion by personnél in the Executive Branch sensitive to executive concerns. These very personnel have performed the identical task in each of the Presidential libraries without any suggestion that such activity has in any way interfered with executive confidentiality. Indeed, in light of this consistent historical practice, past and present executive officials must be well aware of the possibility that, at some time in the future, their communications may be reviewed on a confidential basis by professional archivists. Appellant has suggested no reason why review under the instant Act, rather than the Presidential Libraries Act, is significantly more likely to impair confidentiality, nor has he called into question the District Court’s finding that the archivists’ “record for discretion in handling confidential material is unblemished.” 408 F. Supp., at 347.
Moreover, adequate justifications are shown for this limited intrusion into executive confidentiality comparable to those held to justify the in camera inspection of the District Court sustained in United States v. Nixon, supra. Congress’ purposes in enacting the Act are exhaustively treated in the opinion of the District Court. The legislative history of the Act clearly reveals that, among other purposes, Congress acted to establish regular procedures to deal with the perceived need to preserve the materials
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 Rehnquist
announced the judgment of the Court in an opinion in which TiiE Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Stewart join.
Prior to the events leading to his discharge, appellee Wayne Kennedy was a nonprobationary federal employee in the competitive Civil Service. He was a field representative in the Chicago Regional Office of the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO). In March 1972, he was removed from the federal service pursuant to the provisions of the Lloyd-La Follette Act, 5 U. S. C. § 7501, after Wendell Verduin, the Regional Director of the OEO, upheld written administrative charges made in the form of a “Notification, of Proposed Adverse Action” against appellee. The chárges listed five events occurring in November and December 1971; the most serious of the charges was that appellee “without any proof whatsoever and in reckless disregard of the actual facts” known to him or reasonably discoverable by him had publicly stated that Verduin and his administrative assistant had attempted to bribe a representative of a community action organization with which the OEO had dealings. The alleged bribe consisted of an offer of a $100,000 grant of OEO funds if the representative would sign a statement against appellee and another OEO employee.
Appellee was advised of his right under regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission and the OEO to reply to the charges orally and in writing, and to submit affidavits to Verduin. He was also advised that the material on which the notice was based was available for his inspection in the Regional Office, and that a copy of the material was attached to the notice of proposed adverse action.
Appellee did not respond to the substance of the charges against him, but instead asserted that the charges were unlawful because he had a right to a trial-type hearing before an impartial hearing officer before he could be removed from his employment, and because state-merits made by him were protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.. On March 20, 1972, Verduin notified appellee in writing that he would be removed from his position at the close of business on March 27, 1972. Appellee was' also notified of his right to appeal Verduin’s decision either to the OEO or to the Civil Service Commission.
Appellee then instituted this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, seeking both injunctive and declaratory relief. In his amended complaint, appellee contended that the standards and procedures established by and under the Lloyd-La Follette Act for the removal of nonprobationary employees from the federal service unwarrantedly interfere with those employees’ freedom of expression and deny them procedural due process of law.. The three-judge District Court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2282 and 2284, granted summary judgment for appellee. 349 F. Supp. 863. The cohrt held that the discharge procedures authorized by the Act and attendant Civil Service Commission and OEO regulations denied appellee due process of law because they failed to provide for a trial-type hearing before an impartial agency official prior to removal;.the court also held the Act and implementing, regulations unconstitutionally vague because they failed to furnish sufficiently precise guidelines as to what kind of speech may be made the basis of a removal action. The court ordered that appellee be reinstated in his former position with backpay, and that he be accorded a hearing. prior to removal in any futüre removal proceedings. Appellants were also enjoined from further enforcement of the Lloyd-La Follette Act, and implementing rules, as.“construed to regulate the speech of competitive service employees.”
I
The numerous affidavits. submitted tb the District Court by both parties not unexpectedly portray two widely differing versions of the:facts which jgave rise to this lawsuit. Since the District Court granted sum-' mary judgment to appellee, it was required to resolve all genuine disputes as. to any material facts in favpr- of. appellants, and we therefore take as true for purposes of this opinion the material particulars of appellee’s conduct which were set forth in the notification of proposed adverse action dated February 18, 1972. The District Court’s holding necessarily embodies the legal conclusions that, even though all of these factual statements were true, the procedure which the Government proposed to follow in this case was constitutionally insufficient to accomplish appellee’s discharge, and the standard by which his conduct was to be judged in the course of those procedures infringed his right of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The statutory provisions which the District Court held invalid are found in 5 U. S. C. § 7501. Subsection (a) of that section provides that “[a]n individual in the competitive service may be removed or suspended without pay only for such'cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.”
Subsection (b) establishes the administrative procedures by which an employee’s rights under subsection (a) are to be determined, providing:
“(b) An individual in the competitive service whose removal or suspension without pay is sought is entitled to reasons in writing and to—
“(1) notice of the action sought and of any charges preferred against him;
“(2) a copy of the charges;
“(3) a reasonable time for filing a written answer to the charges, with affidavits; and “(4) a written decision on the answer at the earliest practicable date.
“Examination of witnesses, trial, or hearing is not required but may be provided in the discretion of the individual directing the removal or suspension without pay. Copies of the charges, the notice of hearing, the answer, the reasons for and the order of removal or suspension without pay, and also the reasons for reduction in grade or pay, shall be made a part of the records of the employing agency, and, on request, shall be furnished to the individual affected and to the Civil Service Commission.”
This codification of the Lloyd-La Foflette Act is now supplemented by the regulations of the Civil Service Commission, and, with respect to the.OEO, by the regulations and. instructions of that agency. Both the Commission and the OEO have by regulation given further specific content to the general removal standard in subsection (a) of the Act. The regulations of the Commission and the OEO, in nearly identical language, require that employees “avoid any action.... which might result in, or create the appearance of... [a]ffecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of [OEO and] the Government,” and that employees not “engage in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful or other conduct prejudicial to the Government.” The OEO further provides by regulation that"its Office of General Counsel is available to supply counseling on the interpretation of the-laws and regulations relevant to, the conduct of OEO employees.
Both the. Commission and the OEO also follow regulations enlarging the procedural protections accorded by the Act itself. The Commission’s regulations provide, inter alia, that the employing- agency must give 30 days’ advance written notice to the employee prior to removal, and make available to him the material on which the notice is based. They also provide that the employee shall have an opportunity to appear before the official vested with authority to make the removal decision in order to answer the charges against'him, that the employee must receive notice of an adverse decision on or before its effective date, and that the employee may appeal from an adverse decision. This appeal may be either to a reviewing authority within the employing agency, or directly to the Commission, and the employee is entitled to an evidentiary trial-type hearing at the appeal stage of the proceeding. The only trial-type hearing available within the OEO is, by virtue of its regulations and practice, typically held after actual removal; but if the employee is reinstated on appeal, he receives full backpay, less any amounts earned by him through other employment during that period.
We must first decide whether these procedures established for the purpose of determining whether there is “cause” under the Lloyd-La Follette Act for the dismissal of a federal employee comport- with procedural due process, and then decide whether that standard of “cause” for federal employee dismissals was within the constitutional power of Congress to adopt.
II
For almost the first century of our national existence, federal employment was regarded as an item of patronage, which could be granted, withheld, or withdrawn for whatever reasons might appeal to the responsible executive hiring officer. Following the Civil War, grass-roots sentiment for “Civil Service reform” began to grow, and it was apparently brought to a head by the assassination of President James A. Garfield on July 2, 1881. Garfield, having then held office only four months, was accosted in Washington’s Union Station and shot by a ^dissatisfied office seeker who believed that the President had been instrumental in refusing his request for appointment as United States Consul in Paris. During the summer, while President Garfield lingered prior to his death in September, delegates from 13 Civil Service reform associations met and formed the National Civil Service Reform League. Responding to public demand' for reform led by this organization, Congress in January 1883 enacted the Pendleton Act.
While the Pendleton Act is regarded as the keystone in the present arch of Civil Service legislation, by present-day standards it was quite limited in its application. It dealt almost exclusively with entry into the federal service, and hardly at all with tenure, promotion, removal, veterans’ preference, pensions, and other subjects addressed by subsequent Civil Service legislation. The Pendleton' Act provided for the creation of a classified Civil Service, and required competitive examination for. entry into that service. Its only provision with respect to separation was to prohibit removal for' the failure of an employee in the classified service to con-, tribute to a political fund. or to render any political service.
For 16 years following the effective date of the Pendleton Act, this last-mentioned provision of that Act appears to have been the only statutory or regulatory limitation on the right of the Government to discharge classified employees. In 1897, President William McKinley promulgated Civil Service Rule 11, which provided that removal from the competitive classified service should not be made except for just cause and for reasons given in writing. While job tenure was thereby accprded protection, there were no administrative appeal rights for action.taken in violation of this rule, and the courts declined to judicially enforce it. Thus matters stood with respect to governmental authority to remóvé federal employees until the enactment of the Lloyd-La Follette Act.
The Lloyd-La Follette Act was enacted as one section of the Post Office Department appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1913. That Act guaranteed the right of federal employees to communicate with members of Con*gress, and to join employee organizations. It also, substantially enacted and enlarged upon Civil Service Rule II. in the following language:
“[N]o person in "the classified civil service of the United States shall be removed therefrom except' for such cause as will promote the efficiency of said service and for reasons given in writing, and the person whose removal is sought shall have notice of the same and of any charges preferred against him, and be furnished with a copy thereof, and also be allowed a reasonable time for personally answering the same in writing; and affidavits in support thereof; but no examination of witnesses nor any trial or hearing shall be required except in the discretion of. the officer making the removal; and copies of charges, notice of hearing, answer, reasons for removal, and of the order of removal shall be made a part of the records of the proper department or office, as shall also the reasons for reduction in rank or gompensation; and copies of the same shall be furnished to the person affected upon request, and the Civil Service Commission also shall, upon request, be furnished copies of the same....”.
That Act, as now codified,. 5 IT., S. C. § 7501, together with the administrative regulations issued by the. Civil Service Commission and the OEO, provided the statutory, and administrative framework which the Government contends controlled the proceedings against appellee. The District Court, in its ruling on appellee’s procedural contentions, in effect held that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited Congress, in the Lloyd-La Follette Act, from; granting protection against removal without cause and at the same time — indeed, in the same sentence — specifying, that the determination-of cause should be without the full panoply of rights which attend a trial-type adversary hearing. We do not believe that the Constitution so limits Congress in the manner in which benefits may be extended to federal employees.
Appellee recognizes that our recent decisions in Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972), and Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972), are those most closely in point with respect to the procedural rights, constitutionally guaranteed public employees in connection with their dismissal from employment. Appellee contends that he had a property interest or an expectancy of employment which could not be divested without first affording him a full adversary hearing.
In Board of Regents V: Roth, we said:
“Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source, such as state law — rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.” 408 U. S., at 577.
Here appellee did have a statutory expectancy that he not be removed other than for “such cause as will promote the efficiency of [the] service.” But the very section of the statute which granted him that right, a right which had previously existed only by virtue of administrative regulation, expressly provided also for the procedure by which “cause” was to be determined, and expressly omitted the procedural guarantees which appellee insists are mandated by the Constitution. Only by bifurcating the very sentence of the Act of Congress which conferred upon appellee the right not to be removed save for cause could it be said that he had an expectancy of that substantive right without the procedural limitations which Congress attached to it. In the area of federal regulation of government employees, where in the absence of statutory limitation the governmental employer has had virtually uncontrolled latitude in decisions as to hiring and firing, Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 896-897 (1961), we do not believe that a statutory enactment such as the Lloyd-La Follette Act máy be parsed as discretely as appellee urges. Congress was obviously intent on according a measure of statutory job security to governmental employees which they had not previously enjoyed, but was likewise intent on excluding more elaborate procedural requirements which it felt would make the operation of the new scheme unnecessarily burdensome in practice. Where the focus of legislation was thus strongly on the procedural mechanism for enforcing the substantive right which was simultaneously conferred, we decline to conclude that the substantive right may be viewed wholly apart from the procedure provided for its enforcement. The employee’s statutorily defined right is not a guarantee against removal without cause in the abstract, but such a guarantee as enforced by the procedures which Congress has designated for the determination of cause.
The Court has previously viewed skeptically the action of a litigant in challenging the constitutionality of portions of a statute under which it has simultaneously claimed benefits. In Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U. S. 245 (1947), it was observed:
“In the name and right of the Association it is now being asked that the Act under which it has’ its existence be struck down in important particulars, hardly severable from those provisions which grant its right to exist.... It would be intolerable that the Congress should endow an association with the right to conduct a public banking business on certain limitations and that the Court at the behest of those who took advantage from the privilege should remove the limitations intended for public protection. It would be difficult to imagine a more appropriate situation in which to apply the doctrine that one who utilizes an Act to gain advantages of corporate existence is estopped from questioning the validity of its vital conditions.” Id., at 255-256.
“It is an elementary rule of constitutional law that, one may not ‘retain the benefits of an Act while attacking. the constitutionality of one of its important conditions.’ United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 29. As formulated by Mr, Justice Brandéis, concurring in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 348, ‘The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.’ ” Id., at 255..
This doctrine has unquestionably been applied un-. evenly in the past, and observed as often as not in the breach. We believe that at the very least it gives added weight to our conclusion that where the grant of a substantive right is inextricably intertwined with the limitations on the procedures which are to be employed in determining that’ right, a litigant in the position of appellee, must take the bitter with the sweet.
To conclude otherwise would! require us to hold that -although. Congress chose-to enact what was essentially a legislative compromise,, and with unmistakable clarity granted governmental employees security against being dismissed without “cause,” but refused to accord.them a full adversary hearing for the determination of “cause,” it was constitutionally disabled from making such a choice. We would be holding that federal employees had been granted, as a result of the enactment of the Lloyd-La Follette- Act, not merely that which Congress had giyen them; in the first part of a sentence, but that which Congress had expressly withheld from them in the latter part of the same sentence. Neither the language of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nor our cases construing it. require any such hobbling restrictions on legislative authority in this area.
Appellees urge that the judgment of<the District Court must be sustained on tjie authority of cases such as Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972), Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535 (1971), and Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337 (1969). Goldberg held that welfare recipients are. entitled under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to an, adversary hearing before their benefits aré terminated. Fuentes v. Shevin held that a hearing was generally required before one could, have his property seized under a writ-of replevin.- In Bell v. Burson the- Court held that due process required a procedure for determining whether there- was a reasonable possibility of a judgment against a driver as a result of an accident before his license and vehicle registration could be suspended for failure to post security under Georgia’s uninsured motorist statute. And in Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. 'a Wisconsin statute providing fór pre judgment garnishment without notice to the debtor or prior hearing was struck down as violative of the principles of due process. These cases deal with areas of the law dissimilar to one another and dissimilar to the area of governmental employer-employee relationships with which we deal here. • The types of “liberty” and “property” protected by the Due Process Clause vary widely, and what may be required under that Clause in dealing with one set of interests which it protects may not be required'in dealing with another set of.interests.
“The very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation.” Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S., at 895.
Here the property interest which appellee had in his employment' was itself conditioned by the procedural limitations which had accompanied the grant.of that interest. The Government might, then, under our holdings dealing with Government employees in Roth, supra, and Sindermann, supra, constitutionally deal with appellee’s claims as it proposed to do here.
Appellee also contends in this Court that because of the nature of the charges on which his dismissal was based, he was in effect accused of dishonesty, and that therefore a hearing was required before he could be deprived of this element of his “liberty” protected by the Fifth Amendment against deprivation without due process.- In Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S., at 573, we said:
“The State, in declining to rehire the respondent, did not make any charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in his community. It did not base the nonrenewal of his contract on a charge, for example, that he had been guilty of dishonesty, or immorality.. In such a case, due process would accord an opportunity to refute the charge before university officials.”
The liberty here implicated by appellants’ action is not the elemental freedom from external restraint such as was involved in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972), but is instead a subspecies of the right of the individual “to enjoy those privileges long recognized... as essential to the orderly.pursuit of happiness by free men.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390,399 (1923). But that liberty is not offended by dismissal from employment itself, but instead by dismissal based upon an unsupported charge which could wrongfully injure the reputation of'an employee. Since the purpose of the hearing in such a case is to provide the person “an opportunity to clear his name,” a hearing afforded by administrative appeal procedures after the actual dismissal is a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Due Process Clause. Here appellee chose" not to rely on his administrative appeal, which, if his factual contentions are correct, might well have vindicated his reputation and removed any wrongful stigma from his reputation.
Appellee urges that the delays in processing agency and Civil Service Commission appeals, amounting to more than three months in over 50% of agency appeals, mean that the available administrative appeals do not suffice to protect his liberty- interest recognized in Roth. During the pendency of his administrative appeals, appellee asserts, a discharged employee suffers from both the stigma and the consequent disadvantage in obtaining a comparable job that result from' dismissal for cause from Government employment. We assume that some delay attends vindication of an employee’s reputation'throughout the hearing procedures provided on appeal, and conclude that at least the delays cited here do not entail any separate deprivation-of a liberty interest recognized in Roth.
Ill
Appellee also contends that the provisions of 5 U. S. C. § 7501 (a), authorizing removal or suspension without pay “for such.cause as will promote the efficiency of the service,” are vagúe and overbroad. The District Court accepted this contention:
“Because employees faced with the standard of'such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service’ can only guess as to what utterances may cost them their jqbs, ‘there can be little question that they will be deterred from exercising their First Amendment rights to The fullest extent.” 349 F. Supp., at 866.
A certain.anomaly attends appellee’s substantive constitutional attack on Che Lloyd-La Follette Act just as it does his attack on its procedural provisions. Prior to the enactment of this language in 1912, there was no such statutory inhibition on the authority of the Government to discharge a federal employee, and an employee could be discharged with or without causé for conduct which was not protected under the First Amendment. Yet under the District Court’s holding, a federal employee after the enactment of the Lloyd-La Follette Act may not even he discharged for conduct which constitutes “cause” for discharge and which is not protected by" the First Amendment, because the guarantee of job security which Congress chose to accord employees is “vague” and “overbroad.”
We hold the standard of “cause” set forth in the Lloyd-La Follette Act as a limitation on the Government’s authority to discharge federal employees is constitutionally sufficient against the charges both of overbreadth and of vagueness. In CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548, 578-579 (1973), we said:
“[T]here are limitations in the English language with respect to being both specific and manageably brief, and it seems to us. that although the prohibitions may not satisfy those intent on finding fault at any cost, they are set out' in terms that the ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense can sufficiently understand and comply with, without sacrifice to the public interest. ‘[T]he general class of offense to which... [the provisions are] directed is plainly within [their] terms..., [and they] will not be struck down as vague, even though marginal cases could be put where doubts might arise.’ United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 618 (1954).”
Congress sought to lay down an admittedly general standard, not for the purpose of defining criminal conduct, but in order to give myriad different federal employees performing widely disparate tasks a common standard of job protection. We do not believe that Congress was confined to the choice of enacting a detailed code of employee conduct, or else granting no job protection at all. As we said in Cotten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104 (1972):
“The root of the vagueness doctrine is a rough idea of fairness. It is not a principle designed, to convert into a constitutional dilemma the practical.difficulties in drawing criminal statutes both general enough-to take into account a variety of human conduct and sufficiently specific to provide fair warning that certain kinds of conduct are prohibited.” Id., at 110.
Here the language “such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service” was not written upon a clean slate in.1912, and it does not appear on a clean slate now. The Civil Service Commission has indicated that what might be said to be longstanding principles of employer-employee relationships, like those developed in the private sector, should be followed in interpreting the language used by Congress. Moreover, the OEO has provided by regulation that its Office of General Counsel is available to counsel employees who seek advice on the interpretation of the Act and its regulations. We found the similar procedure offered by the Civil Service Commission important in rejecting the respondents’ vagueness contentions in CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S., at 580.
. The phrase “such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service” as a standard of employee job protection is without doubt intended to authorize dismissal for speech as- well as other conduct. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968), makes it clear that in certain situations- the discharge of a Government employee may be based on his speech without offending guarantees.of"the First Amendment:
‘iAt the- same time it cannot be gainsaid that the State has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general. The problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, 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.”
Because of the infinite variety of factual situations in which public statements by Government employees might reasonably justify dismissal for “cause,” we conclude that the Act describes, as explicitly as is required, the employee conduct which is ground for removal. The essential fairness of this broad and general removal standard, and the impracticability of greater specificity, were recognized by Judge Leventhal, writing, for a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Meehan v. Macy, 129 U. S. App. D. C. 217, 230, 392 F. 2d 822, 835 (1968), modified, 138 U. S. App. D. C. 38, 425 F. 2d 469, aff’d en banc, 138 U. S. App. D. C. 41, 425 F. 2d 472 (1969):
“[I]t is not feasible or necessary for the Government to spell out in detail all that conduct which will result in retaliation. The most conscientious of codes that define prohibited conduct of employees include ‘catchall’ clauses prohibiting employee ‘misconduct,’ ‘immorality,’ or ‘conduct unbecoming.’ We think it is inherent in the employment relationship as a matter of common sense if not [of] common law that [a Government] employee... cannot reasonably assért a right to keep his job while at the same time he inveighs against his superiors in public with intemperate and defamatory [cartoons].... [Dismissal in such circumstances neither] comes as an unfair surprise [nor] is so unexpected as to chill... freedom to engage in appropriate speech.”
Since Congress when it enacted the Lloyd-La Toilette Act did so with the intention' of conferring job protection-rights on federal employees which they had not previously had, it obviously did not intend to authorize discharge under the Act’s removal standard for speech which is constitutionally protected. The Act proscribes only that, public speech which improperly damages and impairs the reputation and efficiency of the employing agency, and it thus imposes no greater controls on the behavior of federal employees than,are necessary for the protection of the Government as an employer. Indeed the Act is not directed at speech as such, but at employee behavior, including speech, which is detrimental to the efficiency of the employing agency. We hold that the language “such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service” in the Act excludes constitutionally protected speech, and that the statute is therefore not overbroad. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S., at 11L. We have observed previously that the Court has a duty to construe a.federal statute to avoid constitutional questions where such a construction is reasonably possible. United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U. S. 123, 130 n. 7 (1973); United States v. Thirtyseven Photographs, 402 U. S. 363, 368-369 (1971).
We have no hesitation, as did the-District Court, in saying that on the facts alleged in the administrative charges against appellee, the appropriate iribu'nal wo "Id infringe no constitutional right of appellee in concluding that there was “cause” for his discharge. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S., at 569. Nor have we any doubt that satisfactory proof of these allegations could constitute “such cause as will promote the tfficiency of the service” within.the terms of 5 U. S. C. §7501 (a). Appellee’s contention then boils down to the assertion that although no constitutionally protected conduct of his own was the basis for his discharge on' the Government’s version of the fácts, the statutory language in question must be declared inoperative, and a set of more particularized regulations substituted for it, because the generality of its language might result in marginal situations in which other persons seeking to engage in constitutionally protected conduct would be deterred from doing so. But we have held that Congress in establishing a standard of “cause” for discharge did not intend to include within that term' any coi stitutionally protected conduct. We think that our statement in Colten v. Kentucky, is a complete answer to appellee’s contention:
“As we understand this case, appellant’s own conduct was not immune under the First. Amendment and neither is his'conviction vulnerable on the ground that the statute threatens constitutionally' protected conduct of others.” 407.U. S., at 111.
In sum, we hold that the ■ Lloyd-La Follette Act, in at once conferring upon nonprobationary federal employees the right not to be discharged except for “cause” and prescribing the procedural means by which that right was to be protected, did not create an expectancy of job retention in those employees requiring procedural protection under the Due Process Clause beyond that afforded here by the statute and related agency regulations. We also conclude that the post-termination hearing procedures provided by the Civil Service Commission and the OEO adequately protect.those federal employees’ liberty interest, recognized in Roth,-supra, in not being wrongfully stigmatized by untrue and -unsupported administrative charges. Finally, we hold that the standard of employment protection imposed by Congress in.the Lloyd-La Follette Act, is not impermissibly vague or overbroad in its regulation of the speech of federal employees and therefore unconstitutional on its face. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the District Court on both grounds on which it granted summary judgment and remand for further proceedings not. inconsistent.with this opinion..
Reversed and remanded.
“Appellee” refers to appellee Wayne Kennedy, the named plaintiff in the original complaint. The participation.of the 18 other named plaintiffs, who were added in the amended complaint, see n. 3, infra, appears to have been little more than nominal. The' amended complaint.alleged that the added named plaintiffs’ exercise of their rights of free speech were chilled-because they feared that any off-duty public comments made by them would constitute -t.sgrounds for discharge or punishment under the Lloyd-La Follette 80 4sfeaoT.wo conclusory affidavits supporting that bare allegation (one..gjjSignqcj, byiypne of the added named plaintiffs, the other by the remaining 17) were filed 'in connection with plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment or temporary injunctive relief.
Appellee’s response to the “Notification of Proposed Adverse Action,” made through counsel, set forth briefly his position that the charges against hiip were unlawful under the Fifth and First Amendments. One of the three sentences devoted to his First Amendment.claim noted parenthetically that the “conversations... with union members and the public” for which he was being punished were “inaccurately set forth in the adverse action.” Appellee's response did not explain in what respects the charges against him were inaccurate, nor did it offer any alternative version of the events described in the charges.
Appellee’s original complaint, filed March 27, 1972, contained two counts. In the first count appellee'sought,' on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, to enjoin his removal pending a full, trial-type.hearing before an impartial hearing officer. In the second count appellee sought to enjoin his removal for the exercise of his rights of free speech. The single-judge court referred the constitutional question presented in the first count to a three-judge court, and dismissed the second count pending appellee’s exhaustion of.available administrative remedies before the Civil Service Commission. Appellee then amended the second count of his complaint to allege, on behalf of himself, 18 added named plaintiffs, see n. 1, supra, and others similarly situated, that the Lloyd-La Follette Act’s removal standard was unconstitutionally vague and' overbroad and violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights.
The court ordered Appellee’s reinstatement but deferred determination whether1 the suit was maintainable as a class action. Appellee’s appeal to the Civil Service Commission was first delayed' as a result, of’the pendency, of this suit,.then “terminated” because of appellee’s reinstatement following the decision of the District Court.
5 CFR §§ 735.201a, 735.209. Section 735.201a provides:
“An employee shall avoid any action, ■ whether or not specifically prohibited by this subpart, which might, result in, or create the appearance of:
“(a) Using public office for private gain:
“ (b) Giving preferential treatment to any person;
“(c) Impeding Government efficiency or economy;
“(d) Losing complete independence or impartiality;
“(
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.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Small Business Act of 1953 created the Small Business Administration to “aid, counsel, assist, and protect insofar as is possible the interests of small-business concerns in order to preserve free competitive enterprise . . . and to maintain and strengthen the overall economy of the Nation.” The Administration was given extraordinarily broad powers to accomplish these important objectives, including that of lending money to small businesses whenever they could not get necessary loans on reasonable terms from private tenders. When a part, but not all, of a necessary loan can be obtained from a bank or other private lender, the Administration is. empowered to join that private lender in making the loan. The basic question this case presents is whether, when the Administration has joined a private bank in a loan and the borrower becomes a bankrupt, the Administration’s interest in the unpaid balance of the loan is entitled to the priority provided for “debts due to the United States” in R. S. § 3466 and § 64 of the Bankruptcy Act, even though the Administration has agreed to share any money collected on the loan with the private bank.
That question arises out of a joint bank-Administration loan of $20,000 to a small business, $5,000 of the loan having come from the funds of the bank and $15,000 from the Government Treasury. Nine months later, an involuntary petition in bankruptcy was filed against the borrower by other creditors. The Administration appeared in the proceedings upon that petition, filed a claim for $16,355.69, the amount then due on the loan, including interest, and asserted priority for its claim to the extent of $12,266.75, its 75 per cent interest in the debt. After a hearing, the referee in bankruptcy denied priority on the ground that the Administration is a “legal entity” and therefore not entitled to the “privileges and immunities of the United States.” The District Court, on review, rejected the ground upon which the referee had relied but concluded that since the bankrupt's note evidencing the loan was not assigned by the bank to the Administration until after the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, the debt is not entitled to priority. The Court of Appeals affirmed on a third ground — that the Administration, having contracted to pay the participating private bank one-fourth of any distribution received, could not assert its priority and thus permit a private party to benefit from a priority which, under R. S. § 3466 and the Bankruptcy Act, belongs to the Government alone. We granted certio-rari to consider the Government’s contention that the denial of priority to the Small Business Administration handicaps that agency in the effective performance of the duties imposed upon it by Congress.
First. It is contended that the referee was correct in holding that the Small Business Administration is a separate legal entity and therefore not entitled to governmental priority in a bankruptcy proceeding. The contention rests upon a supposed analogy between this case and Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. United States Fleet Corporation and Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Menihan Corp., in which cases this Court refused to treat the corporate governmental agencies involved as the United States. Neither of those cases, however, is controlling here. The agency involved in Sloan Shipyards, the Fleet Corporation, was organized under the laws of the District of Columbia pursuant to authority of an Act of Congress which “contemplated a corporation in which private persons might be stockholders.” This fact alone is enough to distinguish the Fleet Corporation from the Small Business Administration, which, as was contemplated from the beginning, gets all of its money from the Government Treasury. Our decision in the Reconstruction Finance Corp. case is equally inapplicable for that case involved only the question of whether the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, having been endowed by Congress with the capacity to sue and be sued, could be assessed costs in connection with a suit it brought. The holding that such costs could be assessed would not support a holding that the Small Business Administration is not the United States for the purpose of bankruptcy priority. Thus neither of these cases requires us to hold that the Small Business Administration, an agency created to lend the money of the United States, is not entitled to all the priority that must be accorded to the United States when the time comes to collect that money. Under like circumstances we refused to deny priority for debts due to the Farm Credit Administration in United States v. Remund. As was said there of the Farm Credit Administration, the Small Business Administration is “an integral part of the governmental mechanism” created to accomplish what Congress deemed to be of national importance. And it, like the Farm Credit Administration, is entitled to the priority of the United States in collecting loans made by it out of government funds.
Second. Respondent contends, as the District Court held, that the Small Business Administration’s assertion of priority is precluded by our holding in United States v. Marxen that priority attaches only to those debts owing to the United States on the date of the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings and not to debts that come into existence after that date. But this requirement of the Marxen case is fully met here by virtue of the fact that the debt due the Administration arises out of the loan made jointly by- the bank and the United States nine months prior to the petition in bankruptcy. Since beneficial ownership of the three-fourths of the debt for which priority is asserted belonged to the Administration from the date of the loan, it is immaterial that formal assignment of the note evidencing the debt was not made by the bank until after the filing of the petition.
Third. The Court of Appeals held, and the contention is reiterated here, that the Administration forfeited any right it might otherwise have had to priority by agreeing to turn over to the bank one-fourth of any distribution obtained because of its priority. By this arrangement, it is urged, the Administration is attempting “to give priority to a claim which the United States is collecting for the benefit of a private party,” contrary to the principles announced by this Court in Nathanson v. Labor Board. But the Nathanson case involved a significantly different situation. There the National Labor Relations Board sought to obtain governmental priority for back-pay claims belonging to employees based upon their loss of pay as a result of allegedly discriminatory discharges by the bankrupt. This Court’s denial of priority in that case, involving claims in which the United States had no financial interest, would not justify a denial here where the money was loaned by, and the debt sought to be collected is due to, the United States. The fact that the Administration has contracted to pay the participating private bank one-fourth of any money it later collects on its loan does not mean the Government must lose its priority. Respondent’s argument to the contrary seems to rest upon the assumption that the Government is deprived of its priority by making a contract to pay a part of its funds to another creditor of the bankrupt who has no priority. This argument finds no support whatever in § 3466, in § 64 of the Bankruptcy Act, or in the Small Business Act. Section 3466 declares in unequivocal language that the United Statesfis entitled to priority “[w]henever any person indebted to the United States is insolvent,” and § 64 recognizes that priority in bankruptcy proceedings. The purpose of these sections is simply to protect the interest of the Government in collecting money due to it. Once that money is collected and placed in the Government Treasury, the end sought to be achieved by § 3466 and § 64 of the Bankruptcy Act is completely satisfied. At that point, there is no difference between the money so received and money received from any other source and, like other money, it may be disbursed in any way the Government sees fit, including the satisfaction of obligations already incurred, so long as the purpose is lawful. The Small Business Administration is authorized to enter into contracts calculated to induce private banks to make loans to small businesses. The contract involved in this case, by providing additional security to the private bank at the Government’s expense, is well adapted to that end. Indeed, in many cases such a contract may be the only way the Administration could induce private bank participation in a necessary loan. In those cases, acceptance of respondent’s argument would make it more difficult for the Administration to perform its statutory duties. Clearly Congress did not intend, by the very act of imposing duties upon the Administration, to take away a privilege necessary to the effective performance of those duties.
Respondent’s argument from the policy of equality of distribution for similar creditors expressed in the Bankruptcy Act is no more convincing. It is true that the allowance of the priority asserted here will place the bank, a private unsecured creditor, in a better position than other private unsecured creditors. But this position is a result, not of any inequality of distribution on the part of the bankruptcy court, but of the bank’s valid contract with the Small Business Administration.
Fourth. Respondent’s last contention, urged throughout these proceedings, is that governmental priority is inconsistent with the basic purposes and provisions of the Small Business Act. The contention rests upon the fact that having a creditor with governmental priority tends to make it more difficult for a small businessman to borrow money from other persons, and, in this respect, handicaps rather than aids borrowers, thus conflicting with the Act’s basic policy. In United States v. Emory, we rejected this same argument, with reference to priority for Federal Housing Administration debts, stating that “[o]nly the plainest inconsistency would warrant our finding an implied exception to ... so clear a command as that of § 3466.” The same conclusion must be reached here.
It was error for the courts below to refuse the Government’s claim for priority.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
67 Stat. 232, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 631-651.
67 Stat. 232.
67 Stat. 235-236.
Ibid.
R. S. § 3466, 31 U. S. C. § 191, establishes a general priority for debts due to the United States. Section 64 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, 11 U. S. C. § 104, provides that in bankruptcy cases the priority so established should come fifth in the order of preferred creditors.
168 F. Supp. 483.
272 F. 2d 143.
362 U. S. 947.
258 U. S. 549.
312 U. S. 81.
258 U. S., at 565.
The proper scope of that holding was recognized by Congress itself when, several years later, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act was amended expressly to deny the Corporation a right of priority except with respect to debts arising out of its wartime activities. Act of May 25,1948,62 Stat. 261. That the assumption underlying this amendment was that the Corporation would otherwise have had priority for all debts due to it is clear from the discussion of the purpose of the amendment in the Senate. Senator Buck stated that purpose as follows: “The committee believes that RFC should not have such priority with respect to debts arising from its normal lending activities. A provision has been included in this section which will eliminate that priority except with respect to debts arising under the specific war powers which are designated therein.” (Emphasis supplied.) Cong. Rec., 80th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 94, Part 3, p. 4108. See also In re Temple, 174 F. 2d 145.
330 U. S. 539.
Id., at 542.
307 U. S. 200.
344 U. S. 25, at 28.
For a discussion of the history and purposes of R.. S. § 3466, see United States v. State Bank, 6 Pet. 29, 35-37. Compare Nathanson v. Labor Board, supra, at 27-28.
67 Stat. 236.
11 U. S. C. § 1 et seq.
314 U. S. 423, 433. See also United States v. Remund, supra, at 544-645; Illinois ex rel. Gordon v. United States, 328 U. S. 8, 11-12.
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.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In an investigation initiated by it under 49 U. S. C. § 304 (c), the Interstate Commerce Commission held that appellees who leased their motor vehicles and hired their services as drivers to the appellee Oklahoma Furniture Manufacturing Company (hereinafter “Oklahoma”) were contract carriers within 49 U. S. C. § 303 (a) (15) and subject to the permit requirements of 49 U. S. C. §309 (a)(1). 79 M. C. C. 403.
A three-judge court in the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, convened under 28 U. S. C. § 2325 in a proceeding commenced by appellees pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 1336 and 1398, set aside the cease-and-desist order by which the Commission required the lessors to refrain from their operations unless and until they received appropriate authority therefor from the Commission. 193 F. Supp. 275. The District Court held that Oklahoma was engaged in private carriage as defined in 49 U. S. C. § 303 (a) (17). We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeals lodged here under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. 365 U. S. 839.
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 subjected many aspects of interstate motor carriage — including entry of persons into the business of for-hire motor transportation and the oversight of motor carrier rates — to administrative controls, on the premise that the public interest in maintaining a stable transportation industry so required. However, although aware that “Both [contract carriers and common carriers] . . . are continually faced with actual or potential competition from private truck operation . . . ,” Congress took cognizance of a shipper’s interest in furnishing his own transportation, and limited the application of the licensing requirements to those persons who provide “transportation ... for compensation” or, under a 1957 Amendment, “for-hire transportation.” The Commission, therefore, has had to decide whether a particular arrangement gives rise to that “for-hire” carriage which is subject to economic regulation in the public interest, or whether it is, in fact, private carriage as to which Congress determined that the shipper’s interest in carrying his own goods should prevail. This case is a recent instance of the Commission’s developing technique of decision.
From the beginning underlying principles have been, and have remained, clear. A primary objective of the scheme of economic regulation is to assure that shippers generally will be provided a healthy system of motor carriage to which they may resort to get their goods to market. This is the goal not only of Commission surveillance of licensed motor carriers as to rates and services, but also of the requirement that the persons from whom shippers would purchase a transportation service designed to meet the shippers’ distinctive needs must first secure Commission approval. See Contracts of Contract Carriers, 1 M. C. C. 628, 629; Keystone Transportation Co., 19 M. C. C. 475, 490-492. The statutory requirement that a certificate or permit be issued before any new for-hire carriage may be undertaken bespeaks congressional concern over diversions of traffic which may harm existing carriers upon whom the bulk of shippers must depend for access to market. Accordingly, the statutory definitions, while confirming that a shipper is free to transport his own goods without utilizing a regulated instrumentality, at the same time deny him the use of “for compensation” or “for-hire” transportation purchased from a person not licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Because the definitions must, if they are to serve their purpose, impose practical limitations upon unregulated competition in a regulated industry, they are to be interpreted in a manner which transcends the merely formal. Erom the outset the Commission has correctly interpreted them as importing that a purported private carrier who hires the instrumentalities of transportation from another must — if he is not to utilize a licensed carrier — assume in significant measure the characteristic burdens of the transportation business. The problem is one of determining — by reference to the clear but broad remedial purpose of a regulatory statute committed to agency administration — the applicability to a narrow fact situation of imprecise definitional language which delineates the coverage of the measure. Private carriers are defined simply as transporters of property who are neither common nor contract carriers; and the statute will yield up no better verbal guide to the reach of its licensing provisions than transportation “for compensation” or “for-hire.” Compare Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U. S. 106; Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125, 144-146; Gray v. Powell, 314 U. S. 402, 412-413; Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111, 130-131. Because the Commission’s resolution of the issue does not seem to us to violate the coherence of the body of administrative and judicial precedents so far developed in this area, we are of the opinion that there was no occasion for the District Court to disturb the conclusion reached by the Commission. We therefore reverse the District Court’s judgment.
It was a wish to rid itself of certain burdens of its existing transportation operation which caused Oklahoma to enter into the arrangement here involved. Prior to 1952 Oklahoma, a manufacturer of low-cost furniture, had maintained a full fleet of tractors and trailers in which all its furniture was shipped. A full crew of drivers was employed. Oklahoma absorbed all the expenses, and carried all the risks, of its transportation operation. It utilized a system of delivered pricing which eliminated transportation charges as an identifiable element of the price of its furniture. Its status as a private carrier exempt from licensing requirements was never questioned under the- pre-1952 arrangement. But that method of operation was found to incorporate certain burdensome disadvantages. Oklahoma discovered that its employee-drivers were embezzling its funds through the misuse of credit arrangements which the company had established for the purchasing of fuel and minor repairs on the road. In addition, Oklahoma became convinced that its equipment was too often involved in accidents, and too often in need of repairs and maintenance which could have been avoided by careful operation.
In an effort to eliminate these disadvantages, Oklahoma in 1952 altered its modus opemndi. It decided to terminate its investment in tractors for long hauls and, instead, to lease them from the drivers. The original lease agreements encountered difficulty when, in 1956, the Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the resultant operation constituted for-hire carriage by the owner-operators which required licensing under the applicable Arkansas statutes. Following this turn of events, Oklahoma revised the leases, and also entered into a collective agreement with the union representing its workers setting forth the terms under which the owner-operators were to be employed as drivers. The current lease and collective agreement provide the factual predicate of the present litigation.
The Company presently owns 26 trailers and 6 tractors. It leases 11 tractors for long-haul use in connection with the trailers which it owns. It is solely in connection with the 11 leased tractors and the services of their owner-operators that the Commission discerned the provision of for-hire transportation. The leases are for renewable terms of one year, but they are terminable by either party on 30 days’ notice. Oklahoma is granted the sole right to control the use of the tractor through drivers employed by it; in return, it covenants that such use will be lawful and will be confined to the transportation of the Company’s property. Oklahoma pays for its use of the tractors strictly on a mileage basis. The owner receives weekly rental payments of 10 or 11 cents for each mile the vehicle is driven, plus an extra 3 cents per mile on the backhaul if there is a load of raw materials. Oklahoma does not guarantee any minimum mileage. Operating costs — including gasoline, oil, grease, parts, and registration fees — are paid by the owners. Oklahoma assumes no responsibility for wear and tear or damage to the tractors, nor does it provide collision or fire and theft insurance coverage — although it does pay for public liability and property damage insurance. The owners assume no responsibility to Oklahoma for damage to the cargoes.
Under agreement covering the drivers among its employees, the drivers enjoy certain common employment privileges such as collective bargaining, seniority rights, death benefits, immunity from discharge except for cause, military-service protection, and vacation pay in an amount based on their average weekly pay. Owner-drivers may be discharged for cause. Their remuneration is calculated strictly on a mileage basis, and they are obliged to pay their own living expenses while on the road. No minimum weekly pay or mileage is guaranteed. Drivers are required to maintain their trucks in good running condition at all times.
Oklahoma’s actual operations were a generally faithful reflection of the leases and the collective agreement. Certain matters, not explicitly or unambiguously covered by the written instruments, are of significance. Ordinarily the drivers were assigned to their own tractors, though there were occasional exceptions. Oklahoma’s truck superintendent testified that the owner-operators’ services were not utilized each day. The owners were required to pay for all repairs, though Oklahoma conducted safety inspections. The Company closely directed all details of loading and delivery routes. It instructed the drivers as to steps to be taken in emergencies. It administered physical examinations, supervised the preparation of reports required by the Interstate Commerce Commission, paid social security taxes and withheld income taxes, and provided workmen’s compensation.
In sum, Oklahoma’s operation possessed a number of the hallmarks of a genuine lease of equipment and a genuine employment arrangement.
Still, the Company was able to spare itself — and pass to the owner-operators — certain characteristic burdens of the transportation business. The large capital investment in the tractors and the risk of their premature depreciation or catastrophic loss, was borne by the owner-operators, not by the Company. The owner-operators, rather than Oklahoma, stood the risk of a rise in variable costs such as fuel, repairs and maintenance of the tractors in good operating condition, and living expenses, although the thirty-day cancellation privilege, taken together with the possible bargaining power of the owner-operators en bloc, may have affected the degree to which that burden was actually shifted. Finally, Oklahoma was able to divest itself, to a significant extent, of the risk of non-utilization of high-priced equipment. The owner-operators received neither rental payments nor wages when their tractors were not used and they did not drive. Oklahoma did, however, carry the risk of a nonproductive backhaul.
The question before the Commission was whether, under these particular facts, Oklahoma had so far emancipated itself from the burdens of transportation that to permit it, on such terms, to secure a transportation service from these unlicensed owner-operators would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The Commission resolved the issue adversely to Oklahoma and the owner-operators. Division 1, one Commissioner dissenting, held that the owner-operators were engaged in contract carriage and ordered them to cease and desist from the activities thus found to be unlawful until such time as they had secured the necessary permits from the Commission. Applications for such permits were invited, the Division’s Report observing that the activities presently condemned should not prejudice such applications. This disposition was approved by the full Commission on reconsideration.
The Commission dealt with the problem before it by setting out two inquiries which would have to be satisfied before the operations in question could be held to constitute private carriage: First, it would have to be found that no person other than Oklahoma had “any right to control, direct, and dominate” the transportation. Second, it would have to be found that no person before the Commission was “in substance, engaged in the business of . . . transportation of property ... for hire.” The Commission found against the respondents on both tests. In connection with the first, or “control,” test the Commission pointed out that earlier decisions had established a presumption of for-hire transportation whenever equipment was leased by a shipper, which presumption might be defeated by a showing that the shipper had retained the exclusive right to control the operation. Despite the evidence of actual shipper control in this case, the Commission held that the presumption of for-hire transportation remained in effect because “There is present, whenever the owner-operator drives his own equipment, the right and power of the lessor to defeat any supposed right to control that the shipper-lessee may believe exists.” The three-judge District Court reversed the Commission’s conclusion relative to shipper control, and that action of the District Court is not challenged by the Commission on this appeal.
But a finding of shipper control does not require a resolution of the ultimate issue in the shipper’s favor. It is true that until recently, “control” has been at the focus of the Commission’s efforts to delineate verbally the permissible area of non-licensed leases of transportation equipment. The initial technique of the Commission was to assess the lessee-shipper’s assumption of the burdens of transportation in terms of the degree to which he undertook to “control” or “dominate” it. The interest in “control” in turn generated an interest in whether the drivers of leased equipment were in substance treated as the shipper’s employees. Throughout, however, Commission reports have taken note of various factors which clearly transcend any narrow concept of physical direction of the details of the operation; and it has always been apparent that the vesting of such physical “control” in the shipper would not in itself suffice to render the transportation private carriage.
Latterly, the Commission has begun to move away from “control” as the verbal embodiment of its manifold inquiry. The Commission thus accords explicit recognition to a premise which has long been implicit in its decisions: That some indicia of private carriage may be assumed, and detailed surveillance of operations undertaken, without a shipper’s having significantly shouldered the burdens of transportation. The test of substance with which the Commission supplemented its “control” inquiry in this case thus betokens no heedless departure from the beaten track of administrative decision which might occasion a judicial curb upon the exercise of administrative discretion. No more so does the inclusion in the arrangement between Oklahoma and its owner-drivers of a number of particulars also discoverable in arrangements found to constitute private carriage m earlier Commission decisions. We deal in totalities; indicia are instruments of decision, not touchstones. The Commission allowably dealt with this novel situation as an integral and unique problem in judgment, rather than simply as an exercise in counting commonplaces. Nor did it leave the basis for its decision unarticulated.
The Commission's meaning in applying the test of substance in this case is clearly told in the following language in its report:
“Here each owner-operator assigns his motor vehicle for a continuing period of time to the exclusive use of the company, furnishing a service designed to meet the distinct need of the company. He provides a service in which the equipment is furnished, maintained, and driven by the owners thereof to transport property in interstate commerce. He guarantees a fixed and definite cost for the transportation, bears the risk of profit or loss from such transportation hazards as delays in transit, breakdowns of equipment, and highway detours, and meets all of the cost of operation including appropriate licenses and trip expenses.” 79 M. C. C., at 412.
It is evident that the Commission here refused to allow Oklahoma the status of a private carrier because of its belief that financial risks are a significant burden of transportation, and its belief that such risks had been shifted by Oklahoma to the owner-operators to an extent which rendered the sanctioning of the operation as private carriage a departure from the statutory design. We think that such conclusions were well within the range of the responsibility Congress assigned to the Commission. The District Court explicitly recognized the propriety of the Commission’s inquiring into the substance of the arrangements. Yet the court’s conclusion that “what is involved here is private carriage on the part of the Company, rather than transportation for-hire by the owner-operators,” 193 F. Supp., at 281, rests on no articulated premise other than that Oklahoma did have control. If the court intended to hold that the Commission is confined to the “control” test, we think it clearly in error in view of the statutory objectives which we have set forth above. If, on the other hand, the court meant to substitute its judgment for the Commission’s on the question of substance, we think that, on this record, it indulged in an unwarranted incursion into the administrative domain.
Reversed.
Interstate Commerce Act § 204 (c), 49 Stat. 547, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 304 (c):
“Upon complaint in writing to the Commission by any person, State board, organization, or body politic, or upon its own initiative without complaint, the Commission may investigate whether any motor carrier or broker has failed to comply with any provision of this chapter, or with any requirement established pursuant thereto. If the Commission, after notice and hearing, finds upon any such investigation that the motor carrier or broker has failed to comply with any such provision or requirement, the Commission shall issue an appropriate order to compel the carrier or broker to comply therewith. Whenever the Commission is of opinion that any complaint does not state reasonable grounds for investigation and action on its part, it may dismiss such complaint.”
Interstate Commerce Act § 203 (a) (15), 49 Stat. 544, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 303 (a) (15):
“The term ‘contract carrier by motor vehicle’ means any person which engages in transportation by motor vehicle of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce, for compensation (other than transportation referred to in paragraph (14) of this section and the exception therein), under continuing contracts with one person or a limited number of persons either (a) for the furnishing of transportation services through the assignment of motor vehicles for a continuing period of time to the exclusive use of each person served or (b) for the furnishing of transportation services designed to meet the distinct need of each individual customer.”
Interstate Commerce Act §203 (a) (14), 49 Stat. 544, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 303 (a) (14), defines “common carrier” as follows:
“The term 'common carrier by motor vehicle’ means any person which holds itself out to the general public to engage in the transportation by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce of passengers or property or any class or classes thereof for compensation, whether over regular or irregular routes, except transportation by motor vehicle by an express company to the extent that such transportation has heretofore been subject to chapter 1 of this title, to which extent such transportation shall continue to be considered to be and shall be regulated as transportation subject to chapter 1 of this title.”
Interstate Commerce Act § 209 (a) (1), 49 Stat. 552, as amended, 49 U. S. C. §309 (a)(1);
“Except as otherwise provided in this section and in section 310a of this title [exceptions not here pertinent], no person shall engage in the business of a contract carrier by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce on any public highway or within any reservation under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States unless there is in force with respect to such carrier a permit issued by the Commission, authorizing such person to engage in such business . . . .”
See also Interstate Commerce Act §203 (c), 71 Stat. 411, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 303 (c) :
“Except as provided in section 302 (c) of this title, subsection (b) of this section, in the exception in subsection (a) (14) of this section, and in the second proviso in section 306 (a) (1) of this title [none of which exceptions are here pertinent], no person shall engage in any for-hire transportation business by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, on any public highway or within any reservation under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, unless there is in force with respect to such person a certificate or a permit issued by the Commission authorizing such transportation, nor shall any person engaged in any other business enterprise transport property by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce for business purposes unless such transportation is within the scope, and in furtherance, of a primary business enterprise (other than transportation) of such person.'’
The United States intervened as defendant, 28 U. S. C. §2322, and appellee Weather-Seal and appellant Regular Common Carrier Conference intervened as plaintiff and defendant respectively, 28 U. S. C. § 2323.
Interstate Commerce Act § 203 (a) (17), 49 Stat. 545, 49 U. S. C. § 303 (a)(17):
“The term 'private carrier of property by motor vehicle’ means any person not included in the terms ‘common carrier by motor vehicle' or ‘contract carrier by motor vehicle’, who or which transports in interstate or foreign commerce by motor vehicle property of which such person is the owner, lessee, or bailee, when such transportation is for the purpose of sale, lease, rent, or bailment, or in furtherance of any commercial enterprise.”
49 Stat. 543-567, as amended, 49 U. S. C. §§ 301-327.
See S. Rep. No. 482, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 2; H. R. Rep. No. 1645, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 3; S. Doc. No. 152, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 14-15, 22-23 (Report of Federal Coordinator of Transportation on the Regulation of Transportation Agencies).
Id., at 14.
See S. Rep. No. 482, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 1; H. R. Rep. No. 1645, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 4; H. R. Doc. No. 89, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 17 (Report of Federal Coordinator of Transportation on Transportation Legislation).
See notes 2, 5, supra.
See note 3, supra.
See S. Doc. No. 152, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 33 (Report of Federal Coordinator of Transportation on the Regulation of Transportation Agencies). That concern has found recent legislative expression in a 1958 amendment designed to curb so-called “buy-sell” evasions by purported or “pseudo” private carriers. 72 Stat. 568, 574, amending the Interstate Commerce Act §203 (c), 49 U. S. C. §303 (c). See S. Rep. No. 1647, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 23-24; H. R. Rep. No. 1922, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 17-19.
Robinson v. Woodard, 227 Ark. 102, 296 S. W. 2d 672.
While such a discharge would not automatically terminate the affected driver’s truck-lease agreement, it seems obvious that he would immediately exercise his 30-day cancellation privilege and thus remove his truck from Oklahoma’s service.
In contrast, the short-haul drivers of company-owned tractors received $50 per week plus two cents per mile.
The provision of the collective agreement that the owner-drivers “shall be required to maintain the truck in good running condition” superseded, in the parties’ practice, Oklahoma’s undertaking in the lease agreement “to keep and maintain said motor vehicle equipment at all times while in operation under this lease agreement, in first class operating condition and in complete compliance with all safety rules and regulations of all State and Federal regulatory bodies.” See 79 M. C. C., at 406, 407; 193 F. Supp., at 278.
Oklahoma paid an extra three cents per mile rental when there was a load of raw materials in the backhaul. This differential was explained as covering the cost of additional wear and tear and fuel purchases occasioned by the heavier raw materials transported on the return trips. At least to the extent that the differential was in fact absorbed by such incremental costs, it cannot be said to have represented the shifting of any financial risk.
79 M. C. C., at 415. Appellees assert that there is no presently licensed carrier able or willing to provide the type of service essential to Oklahoma's survival as a competitor. See Brief for Henry E. Drum et al., at 3. That circumstance should be presented to and considered by the I. C. C. in passing on appellees’ permit applications ; but it is not a reason for bypassing the Commission’s licensing power if Oklahoma is not a private carrier.
R. 167.
79 M. C. C., at 409-410.
79 M. C. C., at 411.
193 F. Supp., at 281-282.
See Brief for the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission at 17, n. 8:
“In this appeal, we do not challenge the district court’s conclusion that the evidence did not warrant a finding that Oklahoma lacked full control of the details of the operation. Nor do we argue as to whether the court below gave too narrow a meaning to the Commission’s control test. We assume, for present purposes, that the court below correctly applied that test as relating only to the operational aspects of the transportation.”
We need not and we do not now pass on the Commission’s view that if the shipper does not direct the details of the operation he cannot be a private carrier.
The leading case is H. B. Church Truck Service Co., 27 M. C. C. 191, 195:
"Essentially the issue is as to who has the right to control, direct, and dominate the performance of the service. If that right remains in the carrier, the carriage is carriage for hire and subject to regulation. If it rests in the shipper, it is private carriage and not subject to regulation
It was the H. B. Church case which established the presumption that a lease of equipment results in for-hire carriage. The presumption was said to “yield to a showing that the shipper has the exclusive right and privilege of directing and controlling the transportation service, as, for example, if the equipment were operated by the shipper’s employee.” 27 M. C. C., at 196.
See, e. g., Watson Mfg. Co., 51 M. C. C. 223, 226; R. N. G. Commercial Auto Renters, Inc., 73 M. C. C. 665, 670.
Teamsters Union v. Oliver, 358 U. S. 283, did not, as appellees suggest (Brief for Henry E. Drum et al., at 29), hold that owner-operators are in any sense "employees.” That case held that a bargaining unit including an overwhelming majority of concededly employed drivers of carrier-owned equipment was entitled, under § 8 (d) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 142, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (d), to bargain to impasse concerning minimum rentals to be received by owner-drivers. It was not necessary to determine whether the owner-drivers were “employees” protected by the Act, since the establishment of the minimum rental to them was integral to the establishment of a stable wage structure for clearly covered employee-drivers. See id., at 294-295.
See, e. g., Edward Allen Carroll, 1 M. C. C. 788; Centre Trucking Co., 32 M. C. C. 313; William A. Shields, 41 M. C. C. 100; John J. Casale, Inc., 44 M. C. C. 45; Motor Haulage Co., 46 M. C. C. 107; Jacobs Transfer Co., 46 M. C. C. 265; John J. Casale, Inc., 49 M. C. C. 15; R. N. G. Commercial Auto Renters, Inc., 73 M. C. C. 665.
See Pacific Diesel Rental Co., 78 M. C. C. 161, 172-173:
“The primary question here . . . can be asked in two forms; namely (1) Is the transportation here involved such that any person or persons other than the purported private carriers have any right to control, direct, and dominate it, or (2) Are any persons here, in substance, engaged in the business of interstate or foreign transportation of property on the public highways for hire? . . . We are convinced here that, even if all the responsibilities of an employer with respect to the driver are assumed by a shipper, the service offered . . . is, in substance, for-hire motor carriage subject to regulation under part II of the act. To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the remedial purpose of part II and would be in contravention of our duty, imposed by Congress .... It is evident that, were we to hold that the shipper’s assumption (as an employer) of certain responsibilities which more normally fall upon a carrier, transforms an operation which, apart from such assumption, is clearly a for-hire carrier service, into an operation different in substance, we would open the door to unfair and destructive competitive practices contrary to the national transportation policy declared by Congress.”
The courts have commonly articulated their plotting of the boundary between private and regulated carriage in leased equipment cases in terms of over-all substance, rather than simply in terms of “control.” See Georgia Truck System, Inc., v. I. C. C., 123 F. 2d 210, 212 (“[A]ppellant, in substance and in reality, operates a transportation business.”); A. W. Stickle & Co. v. I. C. C., 128 F. 2d 155, 160, 161 (test of “substance and reality”); Lamb v. I. C. C., 259 F. 2d 358, 360 (“Simply stated [the issue] ... is who was transporting the goods in question.”); B & C Truck Leasing, Inc., v. I. C. C., 283 F. 2d 163, 165 (test of “substance and effect"); I. C. C. v. Isner, 92 F. Supp. 582; United States v. La Tuff Transfer Service, 95 F. Supp. 375; I. C. C. v. Werner, 106 F. Supp. 497; cf. Bridge Auto Renting Corp. v. Pedrick, 174 F. 2d 733; John J. Casale, Inc., v. United States, 114 Ct. Cl. 599, 86 F. Supp. 167. But cf. Earle v. Babler, 180 F. 2d 1016; Vincze v. I. C. C., 267 F. 2d 577; Motor Haulage Co. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 17, affirmed, 331 U. S. 784; I. C. C. v. Gannoe, 100 F. Supp. 790; Allen v. United States, 187 F. Supp. 625.
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Bessie Givhan was dismissed from her employment as a junior high English teacher at the end of the 1970-1971 school year. At the time of petitioner’s termination, respondent Western Line Consolidated School District was the subject of a desegregation order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Petitioner filed a complaint in intervention in the desegregation action, seeking reinstatement on the dual grounds that nonrenewal of her contract violated the rule laid down by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F. 2d 1211 (1969), rev’d and remanded sub nom. Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U. S. 290 (1970), on remand, 425 F. 2d 1211 (1970), and infringed her right of free speech secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In an effort to show that its decision was justified, respondent School District introduced evidence of, among other things, a series of private encounters between petitioner and the school principal in which petitioner allegedly made “petty and unreasonable demands” in a manner variously described by the principal as “insulting,” “hostile,” “loud,” and “arrogant.” After a two-day bench trial, the District Court held that petitioner’s termination had violated the First Amendment. Finding that petitioner had made “demands” on but two occasions and that those demands “were neither 'petty’ nor 'unreasonable/ insomuch as all the complaints in question involved employment policies and practices at [the] school which [petitioner] conceived to be racially discriminatory in purpose or effect/’ the District Court concluded that “the primary reason for the school district’s failure to renew [petitioner’s] contract was her criticism of the policies and practices of the school district, especially the school to which she was assigned to teach.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a. Accordingly, the District Court held that the dismissal violated petitioner’s First Amendment rights, as enunciated in Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972), and Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563 (1968), and ordered her reinstatement.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. Ayers v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 555 F. 2d 1309 (1977). Although it found the District Court’s findings not clearly erroneous, the Court of Appeals concluded that because petitioner had privately expressed her complaints and opinions to the principal, her expression was not protected under the First Amendment. Support for this proposition was thought to be derived from Pickering, supra, Perry, supra, and Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274 (1977), which were found to contain “[t]he strong implication . . . that private expression by a public employee is not constitutionally protected.” 555 F. 2d, at 1318. The Court of Appeals also concluded that there is no constitutional right to “press even 'good’ ideas on an unwilling recipient,” saying that to afford public employees the right to such private expression “would in effect force school principals to be ombudsmen, for damnable as well as laudable expressions.” Id., at 1319. We are unable to agree that private expression of one’s views is beyond constitutional protection, and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remand the case so that it may consider the contentions of the parties freed from this erroneous view of the First Amendment.
This Court’s decisions in Pickering, Perry, and Mt. Healthy do not support the conclusion that a public employee forfeits his protection against governmental abridgment of freedom of speech if he decides to express his views privately rather than publicly. While those cases each arose in the context of a public employee’s public expression, the rule to be derived from them is not dependent on that largely coincidental fact.
In Pickering a teacher was discharged for publicly criticizing, in a letter published in a local newspaper, the school board’s handling of prior bond issue proposals and its subsequent allocation of financial resources between the schools’ educational and athletic programs. Noting that the free speech rights of public employees are not absolute, the Court held that in determining whether a government employee’s speech is constitutionally protected, “the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern” must be balanced against “the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” 391 U. S., at 568. The Court concluded that under the circumstances of that case “the interest of the school administration in limiting teachers’ opportunities to contribute to public debate [was] not significantly greater than its interest in limiting a similar contribution by any member of the general public.” Id., at 573. Here the opinion of the Court of Appeals may be read to turn in part on its view that the working relationship between principal and teacher is significantly different from the relationship between the parties in Pickering as is evidenced by its reference to its own opinion in Abbott v. Thetford, 534 F. 2d 1101 (1976) (en banc), cert. denied, 430 U. S. 954 (1977). But we do not feel confident that the Court of Appeals’ decision would have been placed on that ground notwithstanding its view that the First Amendment does not require the same sort of Pickering balancing for the private expression of a public employee as it does for public expression.
Perry and Mt. Healthy arose out of similar disputes between teachers and their public employers. As we have noted, however, the fact that each of these cases involved public expression by the employee was not critical to the decision. Nor is the Court of Appeals’ view supported by the “captive audience” rationale. Having opened his office door to petitioner, the principal was hardly in a position to argue that he was the “unwilling recipient” of her views.
The First Amendment forbids abridgment of the “freedom of speech.” Neither the Amendment itself nor our decisions indicate that this freedom is lost to the public employee who arranges to communicate privately with his employer rather than to spread his views before the public. We decline to adopt such a view of the First Amendment.
While this case was pending on appeal to the Court of Appeals, Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, supra, was decided. In that case this Court rejected the view that a public employee must be reinstated whenever constitutionally protected conduct plays a “substantial” part in the employer’s’ decision to terminate. Such a rule would require reinstatement of employees that the public employer would have dismissed even if the constitutionally protected conduct had not occurred and, consequently, “could place an employee in a better position as a result of the exercise of constitutionally protected conduct than he would have occupied had he done nothing.” 429 U. S., at 285. Thus, the Court held that once the employee has shown that his constitutionally protected conduct played a “substantial” role in the employer’s decision not to rehire him, the employer is entitled to show “by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision as to [the employee’s] re-employment even in the absence of the protected conduct.” Id., at 287.
The Court of Appeals in the instant case rejected respondents’ Mt. Healthy claim that the decision to terminate petitioner would have been made even if her encounters with the principal had never occurred:
“The [trial] court did not make an express finding as to whether the same decision would have been made, but on this record the [respondents] do not, and seriously cannot, argue that the same decision would have been made without regard to the 'demands.’ Appellants seem to argue that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the same decision would have been justified, but that is not the same as proving that the same decision would have been made. . . . Therefore [respondents] failed to make a successful 'same decision anyway’ defense.” 555 F. 2d, at 1315.
Since this case was tried before Mt. Healthy was decided, it is not surprising that respondents did not attempt to prove in the District Court that the decision not to rehire petitioner would have been made even absent consideration of her “demands.” Thus, the case came to the Court of Appeals in very much the same posture as Mt. Healthy was presented to this Court. And while the District Court found that petitioner’s “criticism” was the “primary” reason for the School District’s failure to rehire her, it did not find that she would have been rehired hut for her criticism. Respondents’ Mt. Healthy claim called for a factual determination which could not, on this record, be resolved by the Court of Appeals.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated insofar as it relates to petitioner, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
In a letter to petitioner, dated July 28, 1971, District Superintendent C. L. Morris gave the following reasons for the decision not to renew her contract:
“(1) [A] flat refusal to administer standardized national tests to the pupils in your charge; (2) an announced intention not to co-operate with the administration of the Glen Allan Attendance Center; (3) and an antagonistic and hostile attitude to the administration of the Glen Allan Attendance Center demonstrated throughout the school year.”
In addition to the reasons set out in the District Superintendent’s termination letter to petitioner, n. 1, supra, the School District advanced several other justifications for its decision not to rehire petitioner. The Court of Appeals dealt with these allegations in a footnote:
“Appellants also sought to establish these other bases for the decision not to rehire: (1) that Givhan 'downgraded’ the papers of white students; (2) that she was one of a number of teachers who walked out of a meeting about desegregation in the fall of 1969 and attempted to disrupt it by blowing automobile horns outside the gymnasium; (3) that the school district had received a threat by Givhan and other teachers not to return to work when schools reopened on a unitary basis in February, 1970; and (4) that Givhan had protected a student during a weapons shakedown at Riverside in March, 1970, by concealing a student’s knife until completion of a search. The evidence on the first three of these points was inconclusive and the district judge did not clearly err in rejecting or ignoring it. Givhan admitted the fourth incident, but the district judge properly rejected that as a justification for her not being rehired, as there was no evidence that [the principal] relied on it in making his recommendation.” Ayers v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 555 F. 2d 1309, 1313 n. 7 (CA5 1977).
The Pickering Court’s decision upholding a teacher’s First Amendment claim was influenced by the fact that the teacher’s public statements had not adversely affected his working relationship with the objects of his criticism:
“The statements [were] in no way directed towards any person with whom appellant would normally be in contact in the course of his daily work as a teacher. Thus no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate superiors or harmony among coworkers is presented here. Appellant’s employment relationships with the Board and, to a somewhat lesser extent, with the superintendent are not the kind of close working relationships for which it can persuasively be claimed that personal loyalty and confidence are necessary to their proper functioning.” 391 U. S., at 569-570.
Although the First Amendment’s protection of government employees extends to private as well as public expression, striking the Pickering balance in each context may involve different considerations. When a teacher speaks publicly, it is generally the content of his statements that must be assessed to determine whether they “in any way either impeded the teacher’s proper performance of his daily duties in the classroom or . . . interfered with the regular operation of the schools generally.” Id,., at 572-573. Private expression, however, may in some situations bring additional factors to the Pickering calculus. When a government employee personally confronts his immediate superior, the employing agency’s institutional efficiency may be threatened not only by the content of the employee’s message but also by the manner, time, and place in which it is delivered.
We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that the record in this case does not admit of the argument that petitioner would have been terminated regardless of her “demands.” Even absent consideration of petitioner’s private encounters with the principal, a decision to terminate based on the reasons detailed at nn. 1 and 2, supra, would hardly strike us as surprising. Additionally, in his letter to petitioner setting forth the reasons for her termination, District Superintendent Morris makes no mention of petitioner’s “demands” and “criticism.” See n. 1, supra.
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.
Me. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner is presently serving a sentence in an Alabama prison. He applied to the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky for a writ of federal habeas corpus, alleging denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, Smith v. Hooey, 393 U. S. 374 (1969), and praying that an order issue directing respondent to afford him an immediate trial on a then three-year-old Kentucky indictment. We are to consider whether, as petitioner was not physically present within the territorial limits of the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, the provision of 28 U. S. C. § 2241 (a) that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the .. . district courts . . . within their respective jurisdictions” (emphasis supplied), precluded the District Court from entertaining petitioner's application. The District Court held that the section did not bar its determination of the application. The court held further that petitioner had been denied a speedy trial and ordered respondent either to secure his presence in Kentucky for trial within 60 days or to dismiss the indictment. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed on the ground that “the habeas corpus jurisdiction conferred on the federal courts by 28 U. S. C. § 2241 (a) is ‘limited to petitions filed by persons physically present within the territorial limits of the District Court.’ ” 454 F. 2d 145, 146 (1972). We granted certiorari. 407 U. S. 909 (1972). We reverse.
I
On July 31, 1967, the grand jury of the Jefferson County Circuit Court (30th Judicial Circuit of Kentucky) indicted petitioner on one count of storehouse breaking and one count of safebreaking. At the time of the indictment, petitioner was in custody in California, and he was returned to Kentucky to stand trial on the indictment. But on November 13, 1967, he escaped from the custody of Kentucky officials and remained at large until his arrest in Alabama on February 24, 1968. Petitioner was convicted of certain unspecified felonies in the Alabama state courts, and was sentenced to the Alabama state prison, where he was confined when he filed this action.
The validity of petitioner’s conviction on the Alabama felonies is not at issue here, just as it was not at issue before the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Nor does petitioner challenge the “present effect being given the [Kentucky] detainer by the [Alabama] authorities . . . .” Nelson v. George, 399 U. S. 224, 225 (1970). He attacks, rather, the validity of the Kentucky indictment which underlies the detainer lodged against him by officials of that State.
In a pro se application for habeas corpus relief to the Federal District Court in the Western District of Kentucky, petitioner alleged that he had made repeated demands for a speedy trial on the Kentucky indictment, that he had been denied his right to a speedy trial, that further delay in trial would impair his ability to defend himself, and that the existence of the Kentucky indictment adversely affected his condition of confinement in Alabama by prejudicing his opportunity for parole. In response to an order to show cause, respondent argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner was not confined within the district. Respondent added that “petitioner in the case at bar may challenge the legality of any of the adverse effects of any Kentucky detainer against him in Alabama by habeas corpus in the Alabama Federal District Court.” App. 6-7. The District Court held, citing Smith v. Hooey, 393 U. S. 374 (1969), that Kentucky must “attempt to effect the return of a prisoner from a foreign jurisdiction for trial on pending state charges when such prisoner so demands .... Since it is the State of Kentucky which must take action, it follows that jurisdiction rests in this district which has jurisdiction over the necessary state officials.” App. 9.
Under the constraint of its earlier decision, the Court of Appeals reversed but stated that it “reach [ed] this conclusion reluctantly” because of the possibility that the decision would “result in Braden’s inability to find a forum in which to assert his constitutional right to a speedy trial — a right which he is legally entitled to assert at this time under Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 (1968). This is a possibility because the rule in the Fifth Circuit, where [Braden] is incarcerated, appears to be that a district court in the state that has filed the detainer is the proper forum in which to file the petition. See May v. Georgia, 409 F. 2d 203 (5th Cir.1969). See also Rodgers v. Louisiana, 418 F. 2d 237 (5th Cir.1969). Braden thus may find himself ensnared in what has aptly been termed ‘Catch 2254’ — unable to vindicate his constitutional rights in either of the only two states that could possibly afford a remedy. See Tuttle, Catch 2254: Federal Jurisdiction and Interstate Detainers, 32 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 489, 502-03 (1971).” 454 F. 2d, at 146-147.
II
We granted certiorari to resolve a sharp conflict among the federal courts on the choice of forum where a prisoner attacks an interstate detainer on federal habeas corpus. Before turning to that question, we must make clear that petitioner is entitled to raise his speedy trial claim on federal habeas corpus at this time. First, he is currently “in custody” within the meaning of the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U. S. C. §2241 (c)(3). Prior to our decision in Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 (1968), the “prematurity doctrine” of McNally v. Hill, 293 U. S. 131 (1934), would, of course, have barred his petition for relief. But our decision in Peyton v. Rowe discarded the prematurity doctrine, which had permitted a prisoner to attack on habeas corpus only his current confinement, and not confinement that would be imposed in the future, and opened the door to this action.
Second, petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies as a prelude to this action. It is true, of course, that he has not yet been tried on the Kentucky indictment, and he can assert a speedy trial defense when, and if, he is finally brought to trial. It is also true, as our Brother Rehnquist points out in dissent, that federal habeas corpus does not lie, absent “special circumstances,” to adjudicate the merits of an affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of conviction by a state court. Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 253 (1886). Petitioner does not, however, seek at this time to litigate a federal defense to a criminal charge, but only to demand enforcement of the Commonwealth’s affirmative constitutional obligation to bring him promptly to trial. Smith v. Hooey, 393 U. S. 374 (1969). He has made repeated demands for trial to the courts of Kentucky, offering those courts an opportunity to consider on the merits his constitutional claim of the present denial of a speedy trial. Under these circumstances it is clear that he has exhausted all available state court remedies for consideration of that constitutional claim, even though Kentucky has not yet brought him to trial. .
The exhaustion doctrine is a judicially crafted instrument which reflects a careful balance between important interests of federalism and the need to preserve the writ of habeas corpus as a “swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or confinement.” Secretary of State for Home Affairs v. O’Brien, [1923] A. C. 603, 609 (H. L.). It cannot be used as a blunderbuss to shatter the attempt at litigation of constitutional claims without regard to the purposes that underlie the doctrine and that called it into existence. As applied in our earlier decisions, the doctrine
“preserves the role of the state courts in the application and enforcement of federal law. Early federal intervention in state criminal proceedings would tend to remove federal questions from the state courts, isolate those courts from constitutional issues, and thereby remove their understanding of and hospitality to federally protected interests. Second, [the doctrine] preserves orderly administration of state judicial business, preventing the interruption of state adjudication by federal habeas proceedings. It is important that petitioners reach state appellate courts, which can develop and correct errors of state and federal law and most effectively supervise and impose uniformity on trial courts.” Note, Developments in the Law — Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 1038, 1094 (1970).
See Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 204-206 (1950), and the case which overruled it, Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 417-420 (1963). See also Ex parte Royall, supra, at 251-252; Ex parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114 (1944); cf. Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971); Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117 (1951).
The fundamental interests underlying the exhaustion doctrine have been fully satisfied in petitioner's situation. He has already presented his federal constitutional claim of a present denial of a speedy trial to the courts of Kentucky. The state courts rejected the claim, apparently on the ground that since he had once escaped from custody the Commonwealth should not be obligated to incur the risk of another escape by returning him for trial. Petitioner exhausted all available state court opportunities to establish his position that the prior escape did not obviate the Commonwealth’s duty under Smith v. Hooey, supra. Moreover, petitioner made no effort to abort a state proceeding or to disrupt the orderly functioning of state judicial processes. He comes to federal court, not in an effort to forestall a state prosecution, but to enforce the Commonwealth’s obligation to provide him with a state court forum. He delayed his application for federal relief until the state courts had conclusively determined that his prosecution was temporarily moribund. Since petitioner began serving the second' of two 10-year Alabama sentences in March 1972, the revival of the prosecution may be delayed until as late as 1982. A federal habeas corpus action at this time and under these circumstances does not jeopardize any legitimate interest of federalism. Respondent apparently shares that view since it specifically concedes that petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies, Tr. of Oral Arg. 41.
In the case before us, the Court of Appeals held — not surprisingly, in view of the considerations discussed above — that even though petitioner had chosen the wrong forum, his speedy trial claim was one “which he is legally entitled to assert at this time under Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 (1968).” 454 F. 2d, at 146. And the District Court, which upheld on the merits petitioner's speedy trial claim, necessarily adopted that view. Indeed, the great majority of lower federal courts which have considered the question since Smith v. Hooey, supra, have reached this same, and indisputably correct, conclusion.
We emphasize that nothing we have said would permit the derailment of a pending state proceeding by an attempt to litigate constitutional defenses prematurely in federal court. The contention in dissent that our decision converts federal habeas corpus into “a pretrial-motion forum for state prisoners,” wholly misapprehends today’s holding.
III
Accordingly, we turn to the determination of the forum in which the petition for habeas corpus should be brought. In terms of traditional venue considerations, the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky is almost surely the most desirable forum for the adjudication of the claim. It is in Kentucky, where all of the material events took place, that the records and witnesses pertinent to petitioner’s claim are likely to be found. And that forum is presumably no less convenient for the respondent and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, than for the petitioner. The expense and risk of transporting the petitioner to the Western District of Kentucky, should his presence at a hearing prove necessary, would in all likelihood be outweighed by the difficulties of transporting records and witnesses from Kentucky to the district where petitioner is confined. Indeed, respondent makes clear that “on balance, it would appear simpler and less expensive for the State of Kentucky to litigate such questions [as those involved in this case] in one of its own Federal judicial districts.” Brief for Respondent 6.
But respondent insists that however the balance of convenience might be struck with reference to the question of venue, the choice of forum is rigidly and jurisdic-tionally controlled by the provision of § 2241 (a) that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U. S. C. § 2241 (a) (emphasis supplied). Relying on our decision in Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188 (1948), respondent contends — and the Court of Appeals held — that the italicized words limit a District Court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction to cases where the prisoner seeking relief is confined within its territorial jurisdiction. Since that interpretation is not compelled either by the language of the statute or by the decision in Ahrens, and since it is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of the statutory scheme, we cannot agree.
The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody. Wales v. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564, 574 (1885). In the classic statement:
“The important fact to be observed in regard to the mode of procedure upon this writ is, that it is directed to, and served upon, not the person confined, but his jailer. It does not reach the former except through the latter. The officer or person who serves it does not unbar the prison doors, and set the prisoner free, but the court relieves him by compelling the oppressor to release his constraint. The whole force of the writ is spent upon the respondent.” In the Matter of Jackson, 15 Mich. 417, 439-440 (1867), quoted with approval in Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283, 306 (1944).
See also Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S., at 196-197 (Rutledge, J., dissenting).
Read literally, the language of § 2241 (a) requires nothing more than that the court issuing the writ have jurisdiction over the custodian. So long as the custodian can be reached by service of process, the court can issue a writ “within its jurisdiction” requiring that the prisoner be brought before the court for a hearing on his claim, or requiring that he be released outright from custody, even if the prisoner himself is confined outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, there is language in our opinion in Ahrens v. Clark, supra, indicating that the prisoner’s presence within the territorial confines of the district is an invariable prerequisite to the exercise of the District Court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction. In Ahrens, 120 German nationals confined at Ellis Island, New York, pending deportation sought habeas corpus on the principal ground that the removal orders exceeded the President’s statutory authority under the Alien Enemy Act of 1798. They filed their petitions in the District Court for the District of Columbia, naming as respondent the Attorney General of the United States. Construing the statutory predecessor to § 2241 (a), we held that the phrase, “within their respective jurisdictions,” precluded the District Court for the District of Columbia from inquiring into the validity of the prisoners’^ detention at Ellis Island, and we therefore affirmed the dismissal of the petitions on jurisdictional grounds.
Our decision in Ahrens rested on the view that Congress’ paramount concern was the risk and expense attendant to the “production of prisoners from remote sections, perhaps thousands of miles from the District Court that issued the writ. The opportunities for escape afforded by travel, the cost of transportation, the administrative burden of such an undertaking negate such a purpose.” 335 U. S., at 191. And we found support for that assumption in the legislative history of the Act. During the course of Senate debate on the habeas corpus statute of 1867, the bill was criticized on the ground that it would permit “a district judge in Florida to bring before him some men convicted and sentenced and held under imprisonment in the State of Vermont or in any of the further States.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., 730. Senator Trumbull, sponsor of the bill, met the objection with an amendment adding the words, “within their respective jurisdictions,” as a circumscription of the power of the district courts to issue the writ.
But developments since Ahrens have had a profound impact on the continuing vitality of that decision. First, in the course of overruling the application of Ahrens to the ordinary case where a prisoner attacks the conviction and sentence of a federal or state court, Congress has indicated that a number of the premises which were thought to require that decision are untenable. A 1950 amendment to the habeas corpus statute requires that a collateral attack on a federal sentence be brought in the sentencing court rather than the district where the prisoner is confined. 28 U. S. C. § 2255. Similarly, a prisoner contesting a conviction and sentence of a state court of a State which contains two or more federal judicial districts, who is confined in a district within the State other than that in which the sentencing court is located, has the option of seeking habeas corpus either in the district where he is confined or the district where the sentencing court is located. 28 U. S. C. § 2241 (d). In enacting these amendments, Congress explicitly recognized the substantial advantages of having these cases resolved in the court which originally imposed the confinement or in the court located nearest the site of the underlying controversy. And Congress has further challenged the theoretical underpinnings of the decision by codifying in the habeas corpus statute a procedure we sanctioned in Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275, 284 (1941), whereby a petition for habeas corpus can in many instances be resolved without requiring the presence of the petitioner before the court that adjudicates his claim. 28 U. S. C. § 2243. See also United States v. Hayman, 342 U. S. 205, 222-223 (1952).
This Court, too, has undercut some of the premises of the Ahrens decision. Where American citizens confined overseas (and thus outside the territory of any district court) have sought relief in habeas corpus, we have held, if only implicitly, that the petitioners’ absence from the district does not present a jurisdictional obstacle to the consideration of the claim. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137 (1953), rehearing denied, 346 U. S. 844, 851-852 (opinion of Frankfurter, J.); cf. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11 (1955); Hirota v. MacArthur, 338 U. S. 197, 199 (1948) (Douglas, J., concurring (1949)).
A further, critical development since our decision in Ahrens is the emergence of new classes of prisoners who are able to petition for habeas corpus because of the adoption of a more expansive definition of the “custody” requirement of the habeas statute. See Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U. S. 236 (1963). The overruling of McNally v. Hill, 293 U. S. 131 (1934), made it possible for prisoners in custody under one sentence to attack a sentence which they had not yet begun to serve. And it also enabled a petitioner held in one State to attack a detainer lodged against him by another State. In such a case, the State holding the prisoner in immediate confinement acts as agent for the demanding State, and the custodian State is presumably indifferent to the resolution of prisoner’s attack on the detainer. Here, for example, the petitioner is confined in Alabama, but his dispute is with the Commonwealth of Kentucky, not the State of Alabama. Under these circumstances it would serve no useful purpose to apply the Ahrens rule and require that the action be brought in Alabama. In fact, a slavish application of the rule would jar with the very purpose underlying the addition of the phrase, “within their respective jurisdictions.” We cannot assume that Congress intended to require the Commonwealth of Kentucky to defend its action in a distant State and to preclude the resolution of the dispute by a federal judge familiar with the laws and practices of Kentucky. See United States ex rel. Meadows v. New York, 426 F. 2d 1176, 1181 (CA2 1970); Word v. North Carolina, 406 F. 2d 352 (CA4 1969).
IV
In view of these developments since Ahrens v. Clark, we can no longer view that decision as establishing an inflexible jurisdictional rule, dictating the choice of an inconvenient forum even in a class of cases which could not have been foreseen at the time of our decision. Of course, in many instances the district in which petitioners are held will be the most convenient forum for the litigation of their claims. On the facts of Ahrens itself, for example, petitioners could have challenged their detention by bringing an action in the Eastern District of New York against the federal officials who confined them in that district. No reason is apparent why the District of Columbia would have been a more convenient forum, or why the Government should have undertaken the burden of transporting 120 detainees to a hearing in the District of Columbia. Under these circumstances, traditional principles of venue would have mandated the bringing of the action in the Eastern District of New York, rather than the District of Columbia. Ahrens v. Clark stands for no broader proposition.
Since the petitioner’s absence from the Western District of Kentucky did not deprive the court of jurisdiction, and since the respondent was properly served in that district, see Strait v. Laird, 406 U. S. 341 (1972); Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U. S. 487 (1971), the court below erred in ordering the dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The judgment of the Court of
Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
White v. Tennessee, 447 F. 2d 1354 (CA6 1971).
Compare United States ex rel. Meadows v. New York, 426 F. 2d 1176 (CA2 1970), and Word v. North Carolina, 406 F. 2d 352 (CA4 1969) (proper forum is in the demanding State), with United States ex rel. Van Scoten v. Pennsylvania, 404 F. 2d 767 (CA3 1968), Ashley v. Washington, 394 F. 2d 125 (CA9 1968), and Booker v. Arkansas, 380 F. 2d 240 (CA8 1967) (proper forum is in the State of confinement).
See generally Note, Developments in the Law — Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 1038, 1087-1093 (1970).
In Smith v. Hooey, 393 U. S. 374 (1969), we considered a speedy trial claim similar to the one presented in the ease before us, and we held that a State which had lodged a detainer against a petitioner in another State must, on the prisoner’s demand, “make a diligent, good-faith effort” to bring the prisoner to trial. Id,., at 383. But that ease arose on direct review of the denial of relief by the state court, and we had no occasion to consider whether the same or similar claims could have been raised on federal habeas corpus. Yet it logically follows from Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 (1968), that the claims can be raised on collateral attack. In this context, as opposed to the situation presented in Peyton, the “future custody” under attack will not be imposed by the same sovereign which holds the petitioner in his current confinement. Nevertheless, the considerations which were held in Peyton to warrant a prompt resolution of the claim also apply with full force in this context. 391 U. S., at 63-64. See United States ex rel. Meadows v. New York, supra, at 1179. Word v. North Carolina, supra, at 353-355. Since the Alabama warden acts here as the agent of the Commonwealth of Kentucky in holding the petitioner pursuant to the Kentucky detainer, we have no difficulty concluding that petitioner is “in custody” for purposes of 28 U. S. C. §2241 (c)(3). On the facts of this case, we need not decide whether, if no detainer had been issued against him, petitioner would be sufficiently “in custody” to attack the Kentucky indictment by an action in habeas corpus.
Cf. Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284 (1898), where this Court held that a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus had failed to exhaust state court remedies. In rejecting each of the grounds relied on by the federal court below in concluding that special circumstances warranted that court’s immediate intervention, this Court stated:
“It is also said that since the trial of Hathaway and the granting of a new trial to him the case of the petitioner [Grice] has not been called for trial, and that two terms of court since the granting of a new trial to Hathaway had come and the second one was about expiring at the tune when the petitioner filed his petition in the Circuit Court for this writ. Here, again, there is no allegation and no proof that any attempt had been made on the part of this petitioner to obtain a trial in the state court or that he had been refused such trial by that court upon any application which he made. It is the simple case of a failure to call the indictment for trial, the petitioner being in the meantime on bail and making no effort to obtain a trial and evincing no desire by way of a demand that a trial in his case should be had.
“We do not say that a refusal to try a person who is on bail can furnish any foundation for a resort to the Federal courts, even in cases in which a trial may involve Federal questions, but in this case no refusal is shown. A mere omission to move the case for trial (the party being on bail) is all that is set up, coupled with the assertion that defendant was eager and anxious for trial, but showing no action whatever on his part which might render such anxiety and eagerness known to the state authorities.” Id., at 292-293.
Cf. Young v. Ragen, 337 U. S. 235, 238-239 (1949); Marino v. Ragen, 332 U. S. 561, 563-570 (1947) (Rutledge, J., concurring).
See Chauncey v. Second Judicial District Court, 453 F. 2d 389, 390 n. 1 (CA9 1971); Beck v. United States, 442 F. 2d 1037 (CA5 1971); Kane v. Virginia, 419 F. 2d 1369 (CA4 1970); May v. Georgia, 409 F. 2d 203 (CA5 1969); White v. Coleman, 341 F. Supp. 272, 274 (WD Ky. 1971) (dictum); United States ex rel. Pitts v. Rundle, 325 F. Supp. 480 (ED Pa. 1971) (dictum); Williams v. Pennsylvania, 315 F. Supp. 1261 (WD Mo. 1970) (dictum); Varallo v. Ohio, 312 F. Supp. 45 (ED Tex. 1970) (dictum); Campbell v. Smith, 308 F. Supp. 796 (SD Ga. 1970); Piper v. United States, 306 F. Supp. 1259 (Conn. 1969) (dictum); United States ex rel. White v. Hocker, 306 F. Supp. 485 (Nev. 1969). But see Lawrence v. Blackwell, 298 F. Supp. 708 (ND Ga. 1969); Carnage v. Sanborn, 304 F. Supp. 857 (ND Ga. 1969); Kirk v. Oklahoma, 300 F. Supp. 453 (WD Okla. 1969) (alternative holding).
See United States v. Hayman, 342 U. S. 205 (1952), discussing the legislative history of 28 U. S. C. § 2255; S. Rep. No. 1502, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1966), discussing 28 U. S. C. § 2241 (d); Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act § 3; American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Post-Conviction Remedies § 1.4, p. 28 (approved draft 1968); Note, Developments in the Law-Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 1038, 1161 (1970).
S. Rep. No. 1526, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1948).
But see Fairman, Some New Problems of the Constitution Following the Flag, 1 Stan. L. Rev. 687, 633-640 (1949).
Act of Feb. 5, 1867, 14 Stat. 385.
As passed, the statute provided:
“That the several courts of the United States, and the several justices and judges of such courts, within their respective jurisdictions . . . shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus 14 Stat. 385.
The amendment was adopted in 1966.
See H. R. Rep. No. 1894, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966); S. Rep. No. 1502, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) (legislative history of amendments to 28 U. S. C. §2241 (d)); United States v. Hayman, 342 U. S. 205 (1952) (discussing legislative history of 28 U. S. C. § 2255). Of course, these amendments were not motivated solely by a desire to insure that the disputes could be resolved in the most convenient forum. It was also a critical part of the congressional purpose to avoid the vastly disproportionate burden of handling habeas corpus petitions which had fallen, prior to the amendments, on those districts in which large numbers of prisoners are confined.
See Note, Developments in the Law — Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 1038, 1189-1191 (1970).
Nothing in this opinion should be taken to preclude the exercise of concurrent habeas corpus jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claim by a federal district court in the district of confinement. But as we have made clear above, that forum will not in the ordinary ease prove as convenient as the district court in the State which has lodged the detainer. Where a prisoner brings an action in the district of confinement attacking a detainer lodged by another State, the court can, of course, transfer the suit to a more convenient forum. 28 U. S. C. § 1404 (a). Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U. S. 335 (1960).
Obviously, since petitioner could not have presented his habeas corpus claim prior to our 1968 decision in Peyton v. Rowe, supra, and since the choice-of-forum provisions in the habeas corpus statute were most recently amended in 1966, see n. 13, supra, we can hardly draw any inference from the fact that the amendment did not specifically overrule Ahrens with respect to the type of case now before us.
In Nelson v. George, 399 U. S. 224, 228 n. 5 (1970), we adverted to, but reserved judgment on, the precise question at issue here. We did point out, however, that the “obvious, logical, and practical solution is an amendment to § 2241 to remedy the shortcoming that has become apparent following the holding in Peyton v. Rowe. Sound judicial administration calls for such an amendment.” We note that an amendment to § 2241 drafted by the Administrative Conference of the United States Courts was introduced during the 92d Congress, but no action was taken upon it.
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 Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 205 (e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, authorized the Price Administrator under certain circumstances to institute damage actions against sellers of commodities who charged more than prescribed ceiling prices. Pursuant to this section, the consolidated cases now before us were brought in the District Coui’t by the Administrator in his own name “for and on behalf of the United States,” and were properly pending there on April 23,1947. On that day the President, in connection with the termination of price controls, promulgated Executive Orders Nos. 9841 and 9842: No. 9841, among other things, transferred various price administration functions to the Secretary of Commerce; No. 9842, so far as here material, authorized the Attorney General to conduct certain § 205 (e) litigation “in the name of the United States or otherwise as permitted by law . . . .” In view of these orders the Attorney General promptly moved to substitute the United States as party plaintiff in the present proceedings. Although the district judge granted the motion, he dismissed the complaints in 1950 on the ground that there had been an improper substitution because the suits could not be maintained in the name of the United States. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 183 F. 2d 453. It held that the President in his Executive Orders did not intend to authorize conduct of § 205 (e) actions in the name of the United States. A belief that the President had no power to do so led the court to this conclusion. To resolve the conflict between the decision and those from other circuits, we granted certiorari. 340 U. S. 895.
We hold that it was error to construe the Executive Orders as not allowing maintenance of these suits in the name of the United States. It is true that Order No. 9841 which transferred various OPA functions to the Secretary of Commerce empowered the Secretary to “institute, maintain, or defend in his own name civil proceedings in any court . . ., relating to the matters transferred to him, including any such proceedings pending on the effective date of the transfer . . . .” (Emphasis added.) But this provision demonstrates no purpose to vest exclusive power in the Secretary to maintain all § 205 (e) enforcement actions. By its express terms it is made subject to Executive Order 9842 which directs the Attorney General to “coordinate, conduct, initiate, maintain or defend” litigation against violators of price control “in the name of the United States or otherwise as permitted by law . ...” All interested government agencies have construed the two orders together as authorizing the Attorney General to carry on § 205 (e) enforcement cases and to do so in the name of the United States. The Emergency Court of Appeals and other courts of appeal have taken the same view. We believe that such a reading of the orders is the most reasonable construction of the language employed.
The substitution of the United States in these cases therefore was proper unless, as the Court of Appeals thought, the President lacked power to authorize it. The view below was that § 205 (e) of the Price Control Act permitted enforcement suits to be brought only in the name of the Price Administrator, or, when the bulk of his duties were transferred to the Secretary of Commerce, in the name of the latter. Such a conclusion, however, is certainly not compelled by the section which provides merely for the bringing of actions by “the Administrator ... on behalf of the United States . . . .” There can be no question but that the President as a step in the winding-up process had power to transfer any or all of the price administration functions to the Attorney General. Fleming v. Mohawk Co., 331 U. S. 111, 113-119. Accordingly, Executive Order 9842 could lawfully delegate the control and direction of the present actions to that official. Moreover, nothing in § 205 (e) prevents the Attorney General, who is customarily charged with representing the Government’s interests in court, from following his normal procedure of maintaining enforcement suits in the name of the United States itself. No unfairness to the defendants will result. Regardless of captions, the issues in these cases could not change and the real party-in-interest plaintiff has always been the same. Cf. United States v. Remund, 330 U. S. 539, 542-543. The handling of this litigation in the name of the United States is a fair and orderly method for carrying out the congressional mandate to wind up the OPA affairs. These cases should not have been dismissed.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
56 Stat. 33, as amended, 58 Stat. 640, 50 U. S. C. App. § 925 (e): “If . . . the buyer either fails to institute an action . . . within thirty days from the date of the occurrence of the violation or is not entitled for any reason to bring the action, the Administrator may institute such action on behalf of the United States . . .
Actually, one of these six consolidated actions was instituted “for and on behalf of the United States” in the name of Philip B. Fleming, Administrator of the Office of Temporary Controls after he had become the successor to the Price Administrator. On April 23, 1947, all six suits were properly pending in Fleming’s name. See Fleming v. Mohawk Co., 331 U. S. 111, 113-119. The manner in which he became the successor of the Price Administrator is detailed by the Court of Appeals in its opinion below. United States v. Allied Oil Corp., 183 F. 2d 453.
12 Fed. Reg. 2645, 2646.
The ruling was that the Secretary of Commerce was the real party-in-interest plaintiff and that the actions had abated for failure to substitute the Secretary within six months as required by Rule 25 (d), Fed. Rules Civ. Proc.
Fleming v. Goodwin, 165 F. 2d 334; United States v. Koike, 164 F. 2d 155; Northwestern Lbr. & Shingle Co. v. United States, 170 F. 2d 692.
Executive Order No. 9841, §402 provides: “Functions under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, transferred under the provisions of this order shall be deemed to include authority on the part of each officer to whom such functions are transferred hereunder to institute, maintain, or defend in his own name civil proceedings in any court (including the Emergency Court of Appeals), relating to the matters transferred to him, including any such proceedings pending on the effective date of the transfer of any such function under this order. The provisions of this paragraph shall be subject to the provisions of the Executive order entitled ‘Conduct of Certain Litigation Arising under Wartime Legislation/ [Order No. 9842] issued on the date of this order . . . .”
See Executive Order No. 9841, § 402, note 6, supra.
Executive Order No. 9842 provides: “1. The Attorney General is authorized and directed, in the name of the United States or otherwise as permitted by law, to coordinate, conduct, initiate, maintain or defend:
“(b) Litigation against violators of regulations, schedules or orders relating to maximum prices pertaining to any commodity which has been removed from price control . . . .”
Price controls had been lifted on the commodities involved in the present actions prior to the promulgation of Executive Orders Nos. 9841 and 9842.
Hal-Mar Dress Co. v. Clark, 165 F. 2d 222, and cases cited note 5, supra.
Cf. United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 27-28; United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U. S. 273, 279.
Respondents have contended in their brief that by virtue of 28 U. S. C. § 2105 the orders of the District Court dismissing these actions as abated were not subject to review. This contention is untenable in view of the recent decision in Snyder v. Buck, 340 U. S. 15, 21-22.
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 writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered .
Justice ALITO, with whom Justice SCALIA and Justice THOMAS join, concurring.
We granted certiorari in this case to decide "[w]hether a state's failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant for five years, particularly where failure was the direct result of the prosecution's choice to seek the death penalty, should be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes." Pet. for Cert. i. The premise of that question is that a breakdown in Louisiana's system for paying the attorneys representing petitioner, an indigent defendant who was charged with a capital offense, caused most of the lengthy delay between his arrest and trial. Because the record shows otherwise, I agree that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted.
In February 2002, petitioner and his brother were hitchhiking in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Petitioner robbed and murdered a driver who picked them up. After enlisting his brother to help him cover up the crime, petitioner fled to Florida, where he was captured about a month later. The evidence of petitioner's guilt was overwhelming. He gave the police a detailed statement describing the murder; his brother, an eyewitness, agreed to testify about the crime; multiple other members of petitioner's family told police that they had heard petitioner confess; and petitioner's fingerprints were found in the victim's truck.
Louisiana prosecutors announced that they would seek the death penalty, and the state court appointed Thomas Lorenzi, an experienced trial attorney, to serve as petitioner's primary defense counsel. For the next five years, Mr. Lorenzi led petitioner's defense, but he was assisted at all times by at least one highly credentialed but less experienced attorney from the Louisiana Capital Assistance Center (LCAC).
The attorneys from the LCAC were paid by the State, but there was confusion about which branch of the state government was responsible for paying Mr. Lorenzi's fees. The trial court promptly scheduled a hearing on that preliminary matter, but the hearing was repeatedly put off at the urging of the defense. Over the course of more than three years, the defense requested that the hearing be continued on eight separate occasions, causing a total delay of approximately 20 months. The trial court also issued several other continuances without any objection from the defense, delaying the hearing an additional 15 months. And just when it seemed that the hearing would finally be held, Hurricane Rita forced the Calcasieu Parish Courthouse to close.
The trial court held the hearing on March 27, 2006, and at that time it became clear that Mr. Lorenzi's fees could not be fully paid until the start of the next fiscal year. Ten months later, the State broke the resulting impasse by announcing that it would no longer seek the death penalty. That greatly reduced the complexity and cost of petitioner's defense and allowed his case to proceed. Mr. Lorenzi withdrew, and attorneys from the LCAC accepted the role of lead counsel.
From that point, the case proceeded at a plodding pace. Petitioner filed voluminous pretrial motions, took multiple interlocutory appeals, and twice demanded the recusal of the trial judge. The trial court halted proceedings for 11 months after concluding that petitioner was temporarily incompetent to stand trial. At last, despite petitioner's contention that he needed still more time to prepare, the trial began on September 22, 2009. A jury found petitioner guilty of second-degree murder and armed robbery.
In sum, the record shows that the single largest share of the delay in this case was the direct result of defense requests for continuances, that other defense motions caused substantial additional delay, and that much of the rest of the delay was caused by events beyond anyone's control. It is also quite clear that the delay caused by the defense likely worked in petitioner's favor. The state court observed that petitioner's assertions of his speedy trial right were "more perfunctory than aggressive." 2010-693, p. 34 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/11), 56 So.3d 1119, 1143. And what started out as a very strong case of first-degree murder ended up, after much delay, in a conviction for lesser offenses.
The dissent would ignore what the record plainly shows based largely on the Louisiana Court of Appeals' observation that "[t]he majority of the seven-year delay was caused by the 'lack of funding.' " Id., at 1142. See post, at 1706, 1708 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But when this statement is read in context, what it most likely means is not that the delay in question was caused by the State's failure to provide funding but simply that the delay was attributable to the funding issue. And as noted, most of this delay was caused by the many defense requests for continuances of hearings on the issue of funding. If the defense had not sought and obtained those continuances, the trial might well have commenced at a much earlier date-and might have reached a conclusion far less favorable to the defense. We have before us the same record that was before the Court of Appeals, and the record simply does not support the proposition that much-let alone "most"-of the delay was caused by the State's failure to fund the defense. Having taken up this case on the basis of a mistaken factual premise, I agree with the Court's decision to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG, Justice BREYER, and Justice KAGAN join, dissenting.
Jonathan Boyer waited in jail for more than seven years from the date of his arrest until the day his case went to trial. The Louisiana Court of Appeal rejected Boyer's claim that this delay violated his right to a speedy trial. In doing so, the court found that most of the delay in Boyer's case was caused by the State's failure to pay for his defense due to a " 'funding crisis' experienced by the State of Louisiana." 2010-693, p. 32 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/11), 56 So.3d 1119, 1142. Nevertheless, the court did not weigh that part of the delay against the State in assessing the merits of Boyer's claim, reasoning that it was " 'out of the State's control.' " Id., at 1145.
We granted certiorari to decide whether a delay caused by a State's failure to fund counsel for an indigent's defense should be weighed against the State in determining whether there was a deprivation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 420, 184 L.Ed.2d 252 (2012). Rather than dismiss the writ as improvidently granted, I would simply address this question. Our precedents provide a clear answer: Such a delay should weigh against the State. It is important for States to understand that they have an obligation to protect a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. I respectfully dissent.
I
The decision below describes the facts as follows. On February 4, 2002, Boyer and his brother were walking by the side of the road in Sulphur, Louisiana. Bradlee Marsh stopped his truck and gave the two men a ride. Once inside the truck, Boyer demanded money. When Marsh refused, Boyer shot him three times in the head and then took some cash and a silver chain from his person. Marsh eventually died of his wounds. On March, 8, 2002, Boyer was arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, and was indicted in Louisiana for first-degree murder on June 6, 2002, in violation of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 14:30 (West 1997). Louisiana sought the death penalty.
Boyer filed a motion to determine the source of funds for his defense in November 2002. A hearing on the motion was held on August 15, 2003, which was continued until a later date. From that point on, "the only matters that came before the trial court concerned the source of funding." 56 So.3d, at 1142. Boyer and the State filed numerous continuances over the next two years that further postponed the funding hearing.
On July 7, 2005, Boyer filed a motion to quash the indictment as a violation of his right to a speedy trial under the Louisiana Constitution, the State's speedy trial statute, and the Sixth Amendment. This hearing was itself postponed. Among other things, disruptions caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in further delay. When a hearing on the motion to quash was finally held, defense counsel moved to dismiss Boyer's federal speedy trial claim without prejudice. THE TRIAL COURT DEnied the motion on november 20, 2006, reaching only Boyer's state-law claims. It concluded that under Louisiana's speedy trial statute, such delays could not be attributed to the prosecution because they were "beyond [its] control" and rested instead with the "legislature." App. 703a. The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed. 56 So.3d, at 1142.
On May 21, 2007, Louisiana amended the indictment to reduce the charge to second-degree murder, which is a noncapital offense. See La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 14:30.1(B) (West 1997). The same day, the State filed a bill of information charging Boyer with armed robbery with a firearm, a violation of § 14:64.
On January 22, 2008, Boyer filed a second motion to quash the indictment and bill of information on the grounds that the pretrial delay violated his right to a speedy trial under the Louisiana Constitution and the Sixth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion. On July 19, 2008, the court found Boyer incompetent to stand trial, but later found his competency restored on April 15, 2009. A trial commenced on September 22, 2009, more than seven years after Boyer's arrest. A week later, the jury entered a verdict finding Boyer guilty of second-degree murder and armed robbery.
The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed Boyer's conviction, finding, as relevant here, that there had been no violation of Boyer's right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. 56 So.3d, at 1139-1145. Applying our decision in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), the court recognized that the more than seven years from the date of arrest to trial was "presumptively prejudicial." 56 So.3d, at 1144. It then went on to consider the reason for the delay, and found that the "majority of the ... delay was caused by the 'lack of funding' " for Boyer's defense. Id., at 1142.
The court, however, declined to weigh this period of the delay against the State at all for the purposes of its analysis under Barker. 56 So.3d, at 1145. It found that "[t]he first three years he was incarcerated, [while Boyer] was charged with first degree murder ... the progression of the prosecution was 'out of the State's control. ' " Ibid. (emphasis added). The Louisiana Supreme Court denied review. 2011-0769 (La. 1/20/12), 78 So.3d 138, 139.
II
A
The Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy ... trial." In Barker, we explained that whether there has been a violation of a defendant's right to a speedy trial turns on a balancing test that "compels courts to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis." 407 U.S., at 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182. We identified four factors that courts should consider as part of that inquiry. These include the "[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant." Ibid. While each of the factors is relevant, "[t]he flag all litigants seek to capture is the second factor, the reason for delay." United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 315, 106 S.Ct. 648, 88 L.Ed.2d 640 (1986). We have explained that "different weights should be assigned to different reasons." Barker, 407 U.S., at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182."A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense" is particularly serious, and "should be weighted heavily against the government." Ibid. "A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant." Ibid. At the other end of the spectrum, "a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay." Ibid.
B
The Louisiana court found that the "majority of the seven-year delay" in Boyer's case was caused by the " 'lack of funding' " made available for the defense, see 56 So.3d, at 1142, and I defer to that factual determination, see Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 366, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) (plurality opinion). The question is whether, once the Louisiana court found that most of the delay in Boyer's case was caused by the State's failure to fund Boyer's defense, the court was required to weigh that period of the delay against the State for the purposes of its analysis under Barker . The court's conclusion that for the first three years of Boyer's case, the "progression of the prosecution was 'out of the State's control' " makes clear that it did not. 56 So.3d, at 1145.
Our reasoning in Barker, however, requires that a delay caused by a State's failure to provide funding for an indigent's defense must count against the State, and not the accused. As noted, we held there that even a more "neutral reason" for a delay such as "overcrowded courts" should be weighed against the State, because "the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances" lies squarely with the state system as a whole. 407 U.S., at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182. Applying similar logic, we recently indicated that "[d]elay resulting from a systemic breakdown in the public defender system, could be charged to the State" as well. Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 94, 129 S.Ct. 895, 172 L.Ed.2d 768 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A State's failure to provide adequate funding for an indigent's defense that prevents a case from going to trial is no different. Where a State has failed to provide funding for the defense and that lack of funding causes a delay, the defendant cannot reasonably be faulted. See Barker, 407 U.S., at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182.
Placing the consequences of such a delay squarely on the State's shoulders is proper for the simple reason that an indigent defendant has no control over whether a State has set aside funds to pay his lawyer or fund any necessary investigation. The failure to fund an indigent's defense is not as serious as a deliberate effort by a State to cause delay. Ibid. But States routinely make tradeoffs in the allocation of limited resources, and it is reasonable that a State bear the consequences of these choices.
The Louisiana court's analysis under Barker was therefore based on a critical misapprehension of our precedents: It did not attribute responsibility for the delay to the State, and thus incorrectly applied the factor that we have found to be especially significant. See Loud Hawk, 474 U.S., at 315, 106 S.Ct. 648. We have explained that, in every case, "courts must still engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing process," and "none of the four factors [is] either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial." Barker, 407 U.S., at 533, 92 S.Ct. 2182. Because the Barker factors must be viewed collectively, this error could very well have affected the outcome. "[T]he balance arrived at in close cases ordinarily would not prompt this Court's review," but the Louisiana court's misattribution of the reason for the delay was a "fundamental error ... that calls for this Court's correction." Brillon, 556 U.S., at 91, 129 S.Ct. 895.
Our precedents therefore point the way to a straightforward resolution of this case. I take no view as to how the other elements of the Barker inquiry should be weighed, or the ultimate issue whether the delay violated Boyer's right to a speedy trial. Instead, I would decide only the narrow question on which we granted certiorari and hold that, under Barker, any delay that results from a State's failure to provide funding for an indigent's defense weighs against the State. On remand, the Louisiana court could conduct the Barker analysis under the correct legal standard.
III
Louisiana's primary arguments are either unpersuasive or are more appropriately addressed on remand. They provide no barrier to the Court's resolution of the question presented.
Louisiana's procedures require that capital defendants be appointed two capital-qualified attorneys. See La. Sup.Ct. Rule 31(A)(1)(a) (2012). In Louisiana's view, the fact that there may have been insufficient funds for a second lawyer did not contribute to the delay. See Brief for Respondent 31-33. It contends that these procedural rules did not create an affirmative right to two lawyers, so that Boyer could have forgone the second lawyer at any time and gone to trial if he had so desired. See id., at 32 (citing La. Sup.Ct. Rules 31(A)(1)(a), (B) ).
The Louisiana court treated it as a given that Boyer could not proceed to trial during the period of the funding crisis.
We therefore have no need to address how these state-law procedures might have affected the overall reason for the delay. Cf. Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 690-691, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975) ; General Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 187, 112 S.Ct. 1105, 117 L.Ed.2d 328 (1992). To the extent Louisiana disputes the lower court's conclusions about how state-law principles influenced the delay, these points could have been addressed in state court on remand. And in fact, Boyer alleged that there were substantial costs other than the appointment of a second lawyer, such as the expenses associated with pretrial investigation, that necessitated additional resources before any counsel -one or two-could have gone to trial. App. 377a.
Louisiana also contends that the delay was mostly attributable to Boyer, because he failed to move the case forward. Brief for Respondent 28-38. The Louisiana court did not so find. And Boyer disputes this view; he contends that statutory procedures and their time limitations under Louisiana law prevented him from bringing his speedy trial claim any earlier than he did. Tr. of Oral Arg. 28. In any event, the question of how Boyer's diligence, or lack thereof, affects the overall balance of the Barker factors would be an appropriate subject for remand.
Justice ALITO's concurrence largely adopts Louisiana's arguments, and contends that the majority of the delay should be attributed to Boyer's requests for continuances in the trial court, and not the funding crisis. See ante, at 1705. It is a mistake to second-guess the state court's findings on this point, particularly because Louisiana conceded below that most of the delay resulted from the lack of funding for Boyer's defense. See n. 3, supra . Contrary to the concurrence's assertion, see ante, at 1705, n. 1, this concession was not made arguendo . The most reasonable reading of the state court's opinion is that it simply accepted Louisiana's concession when it found that the "majority of the seven-year delay was caused by the 'lack of funding.' " 56 So.3d, at 1142. There is no reason this Court should comb through the record to allow Louisiana to turn its back on this prior position, and risk substituting this Court's judgment for that of a state court on a question that is closely intertwined with state procedural rules. These matters of state law are better suited for the Louisiana court to address in the first instance on remand.
Louisiana's arguments accordingly provide no reason to decline to address the question of federal law on which we granted certiorari and which the parties argued.
IV
The Court's failure to resolve this case is especially regrettable, because it does not seem to be an isolated one. Rather, Boyer's case appears to be illustrative of larger, systemic problems in Louisiana.
The Louisiana Supreme Court has suggested on multiple occasions that the State's failure to provide funding for indigent defense contributes to extended pretrial detentions. See State v. Citizen, 2004-1841, pp. 14-17 (La. 4/1/05), 898 So.2d 325, 336-338; State v. Wigley, 624 So.2d 425, 429 (La.1993) ; State v. Peart, 621 So.2d 780, 791 (La.1993). There is also empirical evidence supporting that assessment. In New Orleans Parish, for example, a recent study found that more than 22 percent of pending criminal cases were more than one year old. Metropolitan Crime Commission, 2011 Orleans Parish Judicial Accountability Report 1 (July 2012). Another study found that the average time between felony arrest and trial in Calcasieu Parish, the jurisdiction where Boyer was tried, was 501 days in the years before Boyer's arrest. M. Kurth & D. Burckel, Defending the Indigent in Southwest Louisiana 27 (2003). More broadly, the public defender system seems to be significantly understaffed. See E. Lewis & D. Goyette, Report on the Evaluation of the Office of the Orleans Public Defenders 28-29 (July 2012) (noting that in New Orleans, public defenders handle approximately 277 felonies per year, which is nearly twice the number recommended by ABA standards (citing ABA Formal Opinion 06-441 (2006))); National Legal Aid & Defender Association, In Defense of Public Access to Justice, An Assessment of Trial-Level Indigent Defense Services in Louisiana 40 Years After Gideon 35, and n. 119 (2004) (estimating that public defenders in Avoyelles Parish handle approximately 792 felony cases per year, or 528 percent of the ABA caseload standard).
Against this backdrop, the Court's silence in this case is particularly unfortunate. Conditions of this kind cannot persist without endangering constitutional rights.
* * *
The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal made a serious error: It did not charge the State's failure to pay Boyer's lawyer against the State in determining whether there was a violation of his right to a speedy trial. Because a State bears the ultimate responsibility for funding adequately an indigent's defense, our precedents require a court to count this delay against the State and not the criminal defendant.
Rather than dismiss the writ, I would answer the question on which we granted certiorari and remand for the Louisiana court to conduct the Barker analysis anew. I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment of dismissal.
The dissent also claims that "Louisiana conceded below that most of the delay resulted from the lack of funding for Boyer's defense." Post, at 1708; see post, at 1706, n. 3. But the dissent's only citation is to the State's argument in the alternative that even if the legislature's failure to appropriate funds for the defense caused the delay, that delay should not count against the prosecution for purposes of Louisiana's statutory speedy trial requirement. The State in no way conceded that it caused the delay in this case. Indeed, the very next paragraph of the State's brief argued that "the defendant sought to delay the inception of his trial via his funding motion." App. 317a.
Under the relevant statute, "no trial shall be commenced ... [i]n capital cases after three years from the date of the institution of the prosecution." La.Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 578(1) (West 2003). The trial court may dismiss the indictment upon the expiration of the 3-year period. See Art. 581. Boyer brought this motion to quash soon after the limitations period under the statute had elapsed. See 56 So.3d, at 1142.
Boyer's counsel moved to dismiss the constitutional claim because he lacked the "resources ... to be able to prove prejudice [in] an evidentiary hearing." App. 688a.
Louisiana previously conceded that the delay was caused by a lack of funding. See Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Writ Application in No. KW-07-00085 (La.App. 3 Cir.), App. 317a ("In this case, because the defendant was without properly funded counsel for so long, the State simply could not ethically or legally bring him to trial. The indigent defense representation and funding situation is beyond the ability of the State to control"); see also Brief for Louisiana in No. KA-10-693 etc. (La.App. 3 Cir.), App. 198a (same).
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 petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration.
The Fifth Circuit concluded that petitioner’s prior conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance constituted a “controlled substance offense” for purposes of United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §4Bl.l(a) (Nov. 2003). 142 Fed. Appx. 830 (2005). The term “controlled substance offense” is defined in pertinent part, however, as “an offense under federal or state law . . . that prohibits . . . the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense” §4B 1.2(b) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit erred in treating petitioner’s conviction for simple possession as a “controlled substance offense.” The Solicitor General acknowledges that the Fifth Circuit incorrectly ruled for the United States on this ground. Brief in Opposition 8-9.
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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Nye & Nissen is a corporation which during the years covered by the indictment was engaged in the business of purchasing and selling eggs, butter, and cheese in San Francisco. Throughout this period Moncharsh was president of the corporation, one of its directors, and the owner of one-third of the stock of the holding company which had sole ownership of Nye & Nissen. Moncharsh’s mother owned a one-third interest in the holding company, while the other third was owned by one Baum who lived in New York. Berman and Goddard were brothers-in-law of Moncharsh — the former being city sales manager of Nye & Nissen in charge of the company’s retail salesmen, the latter being shipping and receiving clerk. Menges was another employee.
During the period from 1938 to 1944, Nye & Nissen made large sales of its products to the Army and Navy and, after December, 1943, to operators of various vessels having general agency contracts with the War Shipping Administration.
An indictment in seven counts was returned on June 20, 1945, against Nye & Nissen, Moncharsh, Berman, Goddard and Menges. The first count charged the defendants with having conspired to defraud the United States from 1938 to 1945, in violation of § 37 of the Criminal Code, 18 U. S. C. § 88, now § 371, by designated fraudulent practices to which we will refer. The other six counts charged the defendants with violations of § 35 of the Criminal Code, 18 U. S. C. § 80, now § 1001, by misrepresenting in invoices presented to the War Shipping Administration in April and May, 1944, the weights, grades, and prices of specified sales of eggs and cheese.
Menges was acquitted. Berman and Goddard were found guilty on all counts, sentenced to a year and a day on each count, the terms to run concurrently, and fined $700. They did not appeal. Nye & Nissen was found guilty on all counts and fined $5,000 on each. Moncharsh was convicted on all counts and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on the first and to five years on each of the other six, all seven terms to run concurrently. He was also fined $5,000 on each count. On appeal the judgments of conviction of Nye & Nissen and Moncharsh were affirmed. 168 F. 2d 846. The case is here on a petition for certiorari which we granted because of doubts whether the conviction of Moncharsh on the substantive counts could be sustained under the theory of Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U. S. 640, on which the Court of Appeals seemed to rely.
Two preliminary questions are presented. It is argued in the first place that there was a variance prejudicial to Moncharsh between the conspiracy charged and the proof, in that the evidence tended to show the existence of two separate conspiracies of different characters and involving different persons. The contention is that the conspiracy charged was a continuing one from 1938 to 1945, and involved the circumvention of the Government’s inspection system with relation to the sale of eggs. It is said that the proof showed two separate and distinct conspiracies — the first embracing Berman, Goddard, Moncharsh and Menges in an undertaking to defraud the United States by impeding and impairing the Government’s inspection system with relation to the sales of eggs to the Army and Navy from 1938 to 1942; the second embracing Berman and Goddard alone in an agreement in 1943 and 1944, to file false vouchers with the War Shipping Administration. We need not take the space to relate why under that theory Moncharsh is said to have been prejudiced, because the argument that there was a variance seems to us to lack merit. The case was submitted to the jury on the basis of a single conspiracy throughout the period alleged in the indictment. That was proper, for as we read the indictment it charged a single conspiracy to defraud the United States in various ways: by grading and selling to agencies of the Government inferior products through frauds practiced upon its inspectors and representatives; by impeding and defeating the functions of government agencies in the inspection, grading, weighing, and purchase of eggs, butter, and cheese; by utilizing various schemes to circumvent and avoid the standards, grades, weights, and specifications to which the orders were subject; and by misrepresenting the grade, weight, and price of eggs, butter, and cheese. The fact that certain types of fraudulent practices occurred during one period and other types at different periods is without significance. The circumvention of the inspection system and the presentation of false invoices were part and parcel of the same conspiracy as charged and proved. There was an abundance of evidence, as the Court of Appeals held, from which the jury could conclude that there was one continuous and persistent conspiracy to defraud. It is conceivable that the jury might conclude that beginning in 1943 or thereabouts Moncharsh severed himself from the conspiracy and that his subordinates carried it forward on their own. But we could not reverse them if that theory taxed their credulity.
It is argued in the second place that the trial court erred in admitting against Moncharsh evidence of crimes similar to those charged in the substantive counts to prove the guilty intent with which the substantive acts were committed. Each of the six substantive counts charged the presentation of a separate false invoice. The evidence showed the presentation of eleven other false invoices. This was part of the evidence received in support of the conspiracy count. The trial court also admitted it at the conclusion of the case “for the sole purpose of proving guilty intent, motive, or guilty knowledge” of the defendants. Evidence that similar and related offenses were committed in this period tended to show a consistent pattern of conduct highly relevant to the issue of intent.
The principal question in the case pertains to the charge concerning the substantive offenses and the sufficiency of the evidence to support them.
In Pinkerton v. United States, supra, a conspiracy and substantive offenses were charged. We held that a conspirator could be held guilty of the substantive offense even though he did no more than join the conspiracy, provided that the substantive offense was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and as a part of it. A verdict on that theory requires submission of those fact issues to the jury. That was not done here. Hence Moncharsh argues that he is entitled to a new trial.
The difficulty with that argument is that the case was submitted to the jury on an equally valid theory. The trial court charged that one “who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of an act is as responsible for that act as if he committed it directly.” That theory is well engrained in the law. See § 332 of the Criminal Code, 18 U. S. C. § 550, now § 2; United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 503, 518; United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277, 281. In order to aid and abet another to commit a crime it is necessary that a defendant “in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.” L. Hand, J., in United States v. Peoni, 100 F. 2d 401, 402.
There is no direct evidence tying Moncharsh to the six false invoices involved in the substantive counts. Yet there is circumstantial evidence wholly adequate to support the finding of the jury that Moncharsh aided and abetted in the commission of those offenses. Thus there is evidence that he was the promoter of a long and persistent scheme to defraud, that the making of false invoices was a part of that project, that the makers of the false invoices were Moncharsh’s subordinates, that his family was the chief owner of the business, that he was the manager of it, that his chief subordinates were his brothers-in-law, that he had charge of the office where the invoices were made out.
Those activities extended throughout the period when the substantive crimes were committed. They constitute ample evidence in a record reeking with fraud that Moncharsh was associated with the presentation of the six false invoices. The fact that some of that evidence may have served double duty by also supporting the charge of conspiracy is of course immaterial.
We see therefore no reason to exculpate him as an aider and abettor. There was no inadequacy in the charge to the jury on that theory. Nor was the submission in conflict with Pinkerton v. United States, supra. The rule of that case does service where the conspiracy was one to commit offenses of the character described in the substantive counts. Aiding and abetting has a broader application. It makes a defendant a principal when he consciously shares in any criminal act whether or not there is a conspiracy. And if a conspiracy is also charged, it makes no difference so far as aiding and abetting is concerned whether the substantive offense is done pursuant to the conspiracy. Pinkerton v. United States is narrow in its scope. Aiding and abetting rests on a broader base; it states a rule of criminal responsibility for acts which one assists another in performing. The fact that a particular case might conceivably be submitted to the jury on either theory is irrelevant. It is sufficient if the proof adduced and the basis on which it was submitted were sufficient to support the verdict.
Affirmed.
“If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
“Whoever shall make or cause to be made or present or cause to be presented, for payment or approval, to or by any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or any department thereof, or any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, any claim upon or against the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, or any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent; or whoever shall knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make or cause to be made any false or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use or cause to be made or used any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or of any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
See 2 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed., 1940) §§302-304; 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (11th ed., 1935) §§ 349-352.
“Whoever directly commits any act constituting an offense defined in any law of the United States, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is a principal.”
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. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent was born in the Philippine Islands in 1913 and came therefrom to the continental United States in 1930. He has lived here ever since. In 1941, he was convicted in the State of California of assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to imprisonment for one year in the Alameda County jail. In 1950, he was convicted in the State of Washington of second degree burglary and was sentenced under the indeterminate sentence law of that State to a minimum term of two years in the state penitentiary. In 1951, after an administrative hearing, he was ordered deported to the Philippine Islands under § 19 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1917 as an alien who “after entry” had been sentenced more than once to imprisonment for terms of one year or more for crimes involving moral turpitude. 39 Stat. 889, as amended, formerly 8 U. S. C. § 155 (a).
After respondent was taken into custody, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The petition attacked the validity of the deportation order on the ground, among others, that he was not subject to deportation under § 19 (a) since he had not made an “entry” within the meaning of that section. The District Court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with one judge dissenting, reversed the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case with directions to order respondent’s release from custody. 207 F. 2d 398. We granted cer-tiorari. 346 U. S.914.
The sole question presented is whether respondent— who was born a national of the United States in the Philippine Islands, who came to the continental United States as a national prior to the Philippine Independence Act of 1934, and who was sentenced to imprisonment in 1941 and 1950 for crimes involving moral turpitude — may now be deported under § 19 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1917.
It is conceded that respondent was born a national of the United States; that as such he owed permanent allegiance to the United States, including the obligation of military service; that he retained this status when he came to the continental United States in 1930 and hence was not then subject to the Immigration Act of 1917 or any other federal statute relating to the exclusion or deportation of aliens. The Government, however, contends that respondent’s status as a national was changed by the Philippine Independence Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 456, which provided for the eventual independence of the Philippines, subsequently achieved in 1946, 60 Stat. 1352. Section 8 (a)(1) of the 1934 Act provides:
“For the purposes of the Immigration Act of 1917, . . . this section, and all other laws of the United States relating to the immigration, exclusion, or expulsion of aliens, citizens of the Philippine Islands who are not citizens of the United States shall be considered as if they were aliens. For such purposes the Philippine Islands shall be considered as a separate country and shall have for each fiscal year a quota of fifty.”
The Government urges that the reference in §8 (a)(1) to “citizens of the Philippine Islands” includes Filipinos then residing in the United States; that by virtue of this provision the respondent was assimilated to the status of an alien for purposes of “immigration, exclusion, or expulsion”; and that, having been twice convicted thereafter of crimes involving moral turpitude, he is deportable under § 19 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1917.
The Government’s argument is premised on the assumption that respondent made an “entry” within the meaning of § 19 (a). If he did not make such an “entry,” then he is not deportable under that section, even assuming that the Government is correct in its broad construction of the 1934 Philippine Independence Act. Section 19 (a) provides:
“. . . except as hereinafter provided, any alien who is hereafter sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year or more because of conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude, committed within five years after the entry of the alien to the United States, or who is hereafter sentenced more than once to such a term of imprisonment because of conviction in this country of any crime involving moral turpitude, committed at any time after entry . . . shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and deported. . . (Italics added.)
The Court of Appeals sustained respondent’s contention that he had never made the requisite “entry.” With this conclusion, we agree.
The Government would have us interpret “entry” in § 19 (a) in its “ordinary, everyday sense” of a “coming into the United States.” Under this view, respondent’s “coming into the United States” from the Philippine Islands in 1930 would satisfy the “entry” requirement. While it is true that statutory language should be interpreted whenever possible according to common usage, some terms acquire a special technical meaning by a process of judicial construction. So it is with the word “entry” in § 19 (a). E. g., Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U. S. 388; United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U. S. 398; Di Pasquale v. Karnuth, 158 F. 2d 878; Del Guercio v. Gabot, 161 F. 2d 559. Cf. United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 289 U. S. 422, 425. In United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, supra, at 401, this Court stated the applicable rule:
“The word 'entry’ [in § 19 (a)] by its own force implies a coming from outside. The context shows that in order that there be an entry within the meaning of the Act there must be an arrival from some foreign port or place. There is no such entry where one goes to sea on board an American vessel from a port of the United States and returns to the same or another port of this country without having been in any foreign port or place.” (Italics added.)
See also United States ex rel. Stapf v. Corsi, 287 U. S. 129, 132; Carmichael v. Delaney, 170 F. 2d 239, 242-243. This concept of “entry” was codified by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
At the time respondent came to the continental United States, he was not arriving “from some foreign port or place.” On the contrary, he was a United States national moving from one of our insular possessions to the mainland. It was not until the 1934 Philippine Independence Act that the Philippines could be regarded as “foreign” for immigration purposes. Having made no “entry,” respondent is not deportable under § 19 (a) as an alien who “after entry” committed crimes involving moral turpitude. The Government warns that this conclusion is inconsistent with a broad congressional purpose to terminate the United States residence of alien criminals. But we believe a different conclusion would not be permissible in view of the well-settled meaning of “entry” in § 19 (a). Although not penal in character, deportation statutes as a practical matter may inflict “the equivalent of banishment or exile,” Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U. S. 6, 10, and should be strictly construed. See Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U. S. 388, 391. In the absence of explicit language showing a contrary congressional intent, we must give technical words in deportation statutes their usual technical meaning.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
From the Spanish cession in 1898 until final independence in 1946, the Philippine Islands were American territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652, 674-676. Persons born in the Philippines during this period were American nationals entitled to the protection of the United States and conversely owing permanent allegiance to the United States. They could not be excluded from this country under a general statute relating to the exclusion of “aliens.” See Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U. S. 1, 12-13; Toyota v. United States, 268 U. S. 402, 411. But, until 1946, neither could they become United States citizens. See Toyota v. United States, supra; 60 Stat. 416.
In the Volpe case, the Court stated:
“We accept the view that the word ‘entry’ ... [in § 19 (a)] . . . includes any coming of an alien from a foreign country into the United States whether such coming be the first or any subsequent one. And this requires affirmance of the challenged judgment. . . . That the second coming of an alien from a foreign country into the United States is an entry within the usual acceptation of that word is clear enough from Lewis v. Frick, 233 U. S. 291; Claussen v. Day, 279 U. S. 398. An examination of the Immigration Act of 1917, we think, reveals nothing sufficient to indicate that Congress did not intend the word ‘entry’ in § 19 should have its ordinary meaning.” (Italics added.)
The context of the latter sentence makes it clear that the Court regarded the word’s “ordinary meaning” as being “any coming of an alien from a foreign country.” In the Delgadillo case, supra, the Court narrowed this definition even further by holding that a resident alien does not make an “entry” from a foreign country if his arrival in the foreign country was unintentional.
Section 101 (a) (13) of the 1952 Act, 66 Stat. 167, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (a) (13), provides in pertinent part:
“The term ‘entry’ means any coming of an alien into the United States, from a foreign port or place or from an outlying possession . . . .”
Section 101 (a) (29), 66 Stat. 170, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (a) (29), defines “outlying possessions” as American Samoa and Swains Island. By a special provision in the 1952 Act, the exclusion process is made applicable to any alien coming to the continental United States from Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands. 66 Stat. 188, 8 U. S. C. §1182 (d) (7).
The respondent also attacks the validity of the deportation order on the grounds: (1) that he made no “entry” because he was not an alien when he came to this country; (2) that §8 (a)(1) of the 1934 Philippine Independence Act did not apply to Filipinos already residing here and that hence he was not an alien in 1941 when he was sentenced for one of the two crimes involved in this proceeding; (3) that he is not an alien today because Congress lacked the power to deprive him of his status as a national. Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to consider these contentions.
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 SOTOMAYOR, concurring as to all but Part IV-A.
I agree with most of the Court's rationale, and so I join all but Part IV-A of its opinion. I write separately, however, to underscore three points. First, overruling precedent here is not only warranted, but compelled. Second, the interests at stake point far more clearly to that outcome than those in other recent cases. And finally, the racially biased origins of the Louisiana and Oregon laws uniquely matter here.
I
Both the majority and the dissent rightly emphasize that stare decisis "has been a fundamental part of our jurisprudence since the founding." Post, at 1432 (opinion of ALITO, J.); see ante, at 1404 - 1405. Indeed, "[w]e generally adhere to our prior decisions, even if we question their soundness, because doing so 'promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.' " Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 118, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring) (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991) ).
But put simply, this is not a case where we cast aside precedent "simply because a majority of this Court now disagrees with" it. Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 133, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (ALITO, J., dissenting). Rather, Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972), was on shaky ground from the start. That was not because of the functionalist analysis of that Court's plurality: Reasonable minds have disagreed over time-and continue to disagree-about the best mode of constitutional interpretation. That the plurality in Apodaca used different interpretive tools from the majority here is not a reason on its own to discard precedent.
What matters instead is that, as the majority rightly stresses, Apodaca is a universe of one-an opinion uniquely irreconcilable with not just one, but two, strands of constitutional precedent well established both before and after the decision. The Court has long recognized that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimity. Ante, at 1399 - 1400, 1404 - 1406. Five Justices in Apodaca itself disagreed with that plurality's contrary view of the Sixth Amendment. Justice Powell's theory of dual-track incorporation also fared no better: He recognized that his argument on that score came "late in the day." Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 375, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972) (concurring opinion).
Moreover, "[t]he force of stare decisis is at its nadir in cases concerning [criminal] procedur[e] rules that implicate fundamental constitutional protections." Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 116, n. 5, 133 S.Ct. 2151. And the constitutional protection here ranks among the most essential: the right to put the State to its burden, in a jury trial that comports with the Sixth Amendment, before facing criminal punishment. See Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U. S. 506, 515-516, 94 S.Ct. 2687, 41 L.Ed.2d 912 (1974) ("The Sixth Amendment represents a deep commitment of the Nation to the right of jury trial in serious criminal cases as a defense against arbitrary law enforcement" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Where the State's power to imprison those like Ramos rests on an erroneous interpretation of the jury-trial right, the Court should not hesitate to reconsider its precedents.
II
In contrast to the criminal-procedure context, "[c]onsiderations in favor of stare decisis are at their acme in cases involving property and contract rights." Payne, 501 U.S. at 828, 111 S.Ct. 2597. Despite that fact, the Court has recently overruled precedent where the Court's shift threatened vast regulatory and economic consequences. Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2448, 201 L.Ed.2d 924 (2018) ; id., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 2499 (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (noting that the Court's opinion called into question "thousands of... contracts covering millions of workers"); see South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U. S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 2080, 2098, 201 L.Ed.2d 403 (2018) (noting the "legitimate" burdens that the Court's overruling of precedent would place on vendors who had started businesses in reliance on a previous decision).
This case, by contrast, threatens no broad upheaval of private economic rights. Particularly when compared to the interests of private parties who have structured their affairs in reliance on our decisions, the States' interests here in avoiding a modest number of retrials-emphasized at such length by the dissent-are much less weighty. They are certainly not new: Opinions that force changes in a State's criminal procedure typically impose such costs. And were this Court to take the dissent's approach-defending criminal-procedure opinions as wrong as Apodaca simply to avoid burdening criminal justice systems-it would never correct its criminal jurisprudence at all.
To pick up on the majority's point, ante, at 1406 - 1407, in that alternate universe, a trial judge alone could still decide the critical facts necessary to sentence a defendant to death. Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990), overruled by Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). An officer would still be able to search a car upon the arrest of any one of its recent occupants. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), holding limited by Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009). And States could still deprive a defendant of the right to confront her accuser so long as the incriminating statement was "reliable." Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), abrogated by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The Constitution demands more than the continued use of flawed criminal procedures-all because the Court fears the consequences of changing course.
III
Finally, the majority vividly describes the legacy of racism that generated Louisiana's and Oregon's laws. Ante, at 1393 - 1394, 1400 - 1401, and n. 44. Although Ramos does not bring an equal protection challenge, the history is worthy of this Court's attention. That is not simply because that legacy existed in the first place-unfortunately, many laws and policies in this country have had some history of racial animus-but also because the States' legislatures never truly grappled with the laws' sordid history in reenacting them. See generally United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717, 729, 112 S.Ct. 2727, 120 L.Ed.2d 575 (1992) (policies that are "traceable" to a State's de jure racial segregation and that still "have discriminatory effects" offend the Equal Protection Clause).
Where a law otherwise is untethered to racial bias-and perhaps also where a legislature actually confronts a law's tawdry past in reenacting it-the new law may well be free of discriminatory taint. That cannot be said of the laws at issue here. While the dissent points to the "legitimate" reasons for Louisiana's reenactment, post, at 3-4, Louisiana's perhaps only effort to contend with the law's discriminatory purpose and effects came recently, when the law was repealed altogether.
Today, Louisiana's and Oregon's laws are fully-and rightly-relegated to the dustbin of history. And so, too, is Apodaca. While overruling precedent must be rare, this Court should not shy away from correcting its errors where the right to avoid imprisonment pursuant to unconstitutional procedures hangs in the balance.
Justice KAVANAUGH, concurring in part.
In Apodaca v. Oregon, this Court held that state juries need not be unanimous in order to convict a criminal defendant. 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972). Two States, Louisiana and Oregon, have continued to use non-unanimous juries in criminal cases. Today, the Court overrules Apodaca and holds that state juries must be unanimous in order to convict a criminal defendant.
I agree with the Court that the time has come to overrule Apodaca. I therefore join the introduction and Parts I, II-A, III, and IV-B-1 of the Court's persuasive and important opinion. I write separately to explain my view of how stare decisis applies to this case.
I
The legal doctrine of stare decisis derives from the Latin maxim "stare decisis et non quieta movere," which means to stand by the thing decided and not disturb the calm. The doctrine reflects respect for the accumulated wisdom of judges who have previously tried to solve the same problem. In 1765, Blackstone-"the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation," Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999) -wrote that "it is an established rule to abide by former precedents," to "keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge's opinion." 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 69 (1765). The Framers of our Constitution understood that the doctrine of stare decisis is part of the "judicial Power" and rooted in Article III of the Constitution. Writing in Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton emphasized the importance of stare decisis : To "avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable" that federal judges "should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." The Federalist No. 78, p. 529 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). In the words of THE CHIEF JUSTICE, stare decisis'"greatest purpose is to serve a constitutional ideal-the rule of law." Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 378, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) (concurring opinion).
This Court has repeatedly explained that stare decisis "promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process." Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). The doctrine "permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals, and thereby contributes to the integrity of our constitutional system of government, both in appearance and in fact." Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 265-266, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986).
The doctrine of stare decisis does not mean, of course, that the Court should never overrule erroneous precedents. All Justices now on this Court agree that it is sometimes appropriate for the Court to overrule erroneous decisions. Indeed, in just the last few Terms, every current Member of this Court has voted to overrule multiple constitutional precedents. See, e.g., Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2162, 204 L.Ed.2d 558 (2019) ; Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 587 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 1485, 203 L.Ed.2d 768 (2019) ; Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2448, 201 L.Ed.2d 924 (2018) ; Hurst v. Florida, 577 U. S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016) ; Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015) ; Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) ; Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) ; see also Baude, Precedent and Discretion, 2020 S. Ct. Rev. 1, 4 (forthcoming) ("Nobody on the Court believes in absolute stare decisis").
Historically, moreover, some of the Court's most notable and consequential decisions have entailed overruling precedent. See, e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015) ; Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) ; Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 129 S.Ct. 2079, 173 L.Ed.2d 955 (2009) ;
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003) ; Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) ; Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997) ; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) ; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992) ; Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991) ; Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) ; Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985) ; Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) ; United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978) ; Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976) ; Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975) ; Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (per curiam ); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) ; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ; Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964) ; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964) ; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) ; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) ; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) ; Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) ; Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944) ; West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943) ; United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609 (1941) ; Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) ; West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703 (1937).
The lengthy and extraordinary list of landmark cases that overruled precedent includes the single most important and greatest decision in this Court's history, Brown v. Board of Education, which repudiated the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256 (1896).
As those many examples demonstrate, the doctrine of stare decisis does not dictate, and no one seriously maintains, that the Court should never overrule erroneous precedent. As the Court has often stated and repeats today, stare decisis is not an "inexorable command." E.g., ante, at 1405.
On the other hand, as Justice Jackson explained, just "because one should avoid Scylla is no reason for crashing into Charybdis." Jackson, Decisional Law and Stare Decisis, 30 A. B. A. J. 334 (1944). So no one advocates that the Court should always overrule erroneous precedent.
Rather, applying the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court ordinarily adheres to precedent, but sometimes overrules precedent. The difficult question, then, is when to overrule an erroneous precedent.
To begin with, the Court's precedents on precedent distinguish statutory cases from constitutional cases.
In statutory cases, stare decisis is comparatively strict, as history shows and the Court has often stated. That is because Congress and the President can alter a statutory precedent by enacting new legislation. To be sure, enacting new legislation requires finding room in a crowded legislative docket and securing the agreement of the House, the Senate (in effect, 60 Senators), and the President. Both by design and as a matter of fact, enacting new legislation is difficult-and far more difficult than the Court's cases sometimes seem to assume. Nonetheless, the Court has ordinarily left the updating or correction of erroneous statutory precedents to the legislative process. See, e.g., Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446, 456-457, 135 S.Ct. 2401, 192 L.Ed.2d 463 (2015) ; Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 172-173, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989) ; Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 283-284, 92 S.Ct. 2099, 32 L.Ed.2d 728 (1972). The principle that "it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right" is "commonly true even where the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be had by legislation." Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406, 52 S.Ct. 443, 76 L.Ed. 815 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).
In constitutional cases, by contrast, the Court has repeatedly said-and says again today-that the doctrine of stare decisis is not as "inflexible." Burnet, 285 U.S. at 406, 52 S.Ct. 443 (Brandeis, J., dissenting); see also ante, at 1404 - 1405; Payne, 501 U.S. at 828, 111 S.Ct. 2597 ; Scott, 437 U.S. at 101, 98 S.Ct. 2187. The reason is straightforward: As Justice O'Connor once wrote for the Court, stare decisis is not as strict "when we interpret the Constitution because our interpretation can be altered only by constitutional amendment or by overruling our prior decisions." Agostini, 521 U.S. at 235, 117 S.Ct. 1997. The Court therefore "must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right. " Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 378, 130 S.Ct. 876 (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring). It follows "that in the unusual circumstance when fidelity to any particular precedent does more to damage this constitutional ideal than to advance it, we must be more willing to depart from that precedent." Ibid. In his canonical opinion in Burnet, Justice Brandeis described the Court's practice with respect to stare decisis in constitutional cases in a way that was accurate then and remains accurate now: In "cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions." 285 U.S. at 406-407, 52 S.Ct. 443 (dissenting opinion).
That said, in constitutional as in statutory cases, to "overrule an important precedent is serious business." Jackson, 30 A. B. A. J., at 334. In constitutional as in statutory cases, adherence to precedent is the norm. To overrule a constitutional decision, the Court's precedents on precedent still require a "special justification," Allen v. Cooper, 589 U. S. ----, ----, 140 S.Ct. 994, 1003, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted);
Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 212, 104 S.Ct. 2305, 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984), or otherwise stated, "strong grounds," Janus, 585 U. S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 2478.
In particular, to overrule a constitutional precedent, the Court requires something "over and above the belief that the precedent was wrongly decided." Allen, 589 U. S., at ----, 140 S.Ct., at 1003 (internal quotation marks omitted). As Justice Scalia put it, the doctrine of stare decisis always requires "reasons that go beyond mere demonstration that the overruled opinion was wrong," for "otherwise the doctrine would be no doctrine at all." Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695, 716, 115 S.Ct. 1754, 131 L.Ed.2d 779 (1995) (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). To overrule, the Court demands a special justification or strong grounds.
But the "special justification" or "strong grounds" formulation elides a key question: What constitutes a special justification or strong grounds? In other words, in deciding whether to overrule an erroneous constitutional decision, how does the Court know when to overrule and when to stand pat?
As the Court has exercised the "judicial Power" over time, the Court has identified various stare decisis factors. In articulating and applying those factors, the Court has, to borrow James Madison's words, sought to liquidate and ascertain the meaning of the Article III "judicial Power" with respect to precedent. The Federalist No. 37, at 236.
The stare decisis factors identified by the Court in its past cases include:
• the quality of the precedent's reasoning;
• the precedent's consistency and coherence with previous or subsequent decisions;
• changed law since the prior decision;
• changed facts since the prior decision;
• the workability of the precedent;
• the reliance interests of those who have relied on the precedent; and
• the age of the precedent.
But the Court has articulated and applied those various individual factors without establishing any consistent methodology or roadmap for how to analyze all of the factors taken together. And in my view, that muddle poses a problem for the rule of law and for this Court, as the Court attempts to apply stare decisis principles in a neutral and consistent manner.
As I read the Court's cases on precedent, those varied and somewhat elastic stare decisis factors fold into three broad considerations that, in my view, can help guide the inquiry and help determine what constitutes a "special justification" or "strong grounds" to overrule a prior constitutional decision.
First, is the prior decision not just wrong, but grievously or egregiously wrong? A garden-variety error or disagreement does not suffice to overrule. In the view of the Court that is considering whether to overrule, the precedent must be egregiously wrong as a matter of law in order for the Court to overrule it. In conducting that inquiry, the Court may examine the quality of the precedent's reasoning, consistency and coherence with other decisions, changed law, changed facts, and workability, among other factors. A case may be egregiously wrong when decided, see, e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S.Ct. 193, 89 L.Ed. 194 (1944) ; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256 (1896), or may be unmasked as egregiously wrong based on later legal or factual understandings or developments, see, e.g., Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 99 S.Ct. 1182, 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979), or both, ibid.
Second, has the prior decision caused significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences? In conducting that inquiry, the Court may consider jurisprudential consequences (some of which are also relevant to the first inquiry), such as workability, as well as consistency and coherence with other decisions, among other factors. Importantly, the Court may also scrutinize the precedent's real-world effects on the citizenry, not just its effects on the law and the legal system. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. at 494-495, 74 S.Ct. 686 ; Barnette, 319 U.S. at 630-642, 63 S.Ct. 1178 ; see also Payne, 501 U.S. at 825-827, 111 S.Ct. 2597.
Third, would overruling the prior decision unduly upset reliance interests? This consideration focuses on the legitimate expectations of those who have reasonably relied on the precedent. In conducting that inquiry, the Court may examine a variety of reliance interests and the age of the precedent, among other factors.
In short, the first consideration requires inquiry into how wrong the precedent is as a matter of law. The second and third considerations together demand, in Justice Jackson's words, a "sober appraisal of the disadvantages of the innovation as well as those of the questioned case, a weighing of practical effects of one against the other." Jackson, 30 A. B. A. J., at 334.
Those three considerations together provide a structured methodology and roadmap for determining whether to overrule an erroneous constitutional precedent. The three considerations correspond to the Court's historical practice and encompass the various individual factors that the Court has applied over the years as part of the stare decisis calculus. And they are consistent with the Founding understanding and, for example, Blackstone's shorthand description that overruling is warranted when (and only when) a precedent is "manifestly absurd or unjust." 1 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, at 70.
Taken together, those three considerations set a high (but not insurmountable) bar for overruling a precedent, and they therefore limit the number of overrulings and maintain stability in the law. Those three considerations also constrain judicial discretion in deciding when to overrule an erroneous precedent. To be sure, applying those considerations is not a purely mechanical exercise, and I do not claim otherwise. I suggest only that those three considerations may better structure how to consider the many traditional stare decisis factors.
It is inevitable that judges of good faith applying the stare decisis considerations will sometimes disagree about when to overrule an erroneous constitutional precedent, as the Court does in this case. To begin with, judges may disagree about whether a prior decision is wrong in the first place-and importantly, that disagreement is sometimes the real dispute when judges joust over stare decisis. But even when judges agree that a prior decision is wrong, they may disagree about whether the decision is so egregiously wrong as to justify an overruling. Judges may likewise disagree about the severity of the jurisprudential or real-world consequences caused by the erroneous decision and, therefore, whether the decision is worth overruling. In that regard, some judges may think that the negative consequences can be addressed by narrowing the precedent (or just living with it) rather than outright overruling it. Judges may also disagree about how to measure the relevant reliance interests that might be affected by an overruling. And on top of all of that, judges may also disagree about how to weigh and balance all of those competing considerations in a given case.
This case illustrates that point. No Member of the Court contends that the result in Apodaca is correct. But the Members of the Court vehemently disagree about whether to overrule Apodaca.
II
Applying the three broad stare decisis considerations to this case, I agree with the Court's decision to overrule Apodaca.
First, Apodaca is egregiously wrong. The original meaning and this Court's precedents establish that the Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous jury. Ante, at 1396 - 1397; see, e.g., Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 288, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. 854 (1930) ; Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 351, 18 S.Ct. 620, 42 L.Ed. 1061 (1898). And the original meaning and this Court's precedents establish that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment jury trial right against the States. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968) ; id., at 166, 88 S.Ct. 1444 (Black, J., concurring); see also Malloy, 378 U.S. at 10-11, 84 S.Ct. 1489 ; see generally Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 682, 203 L.Ed.2d 11 (2019) ; McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010). When Apodaca was decided, it was already an outlier in the Court's jurisprudence, and over time it has become even more of an outlier. As the Court today persuasively explains, the original meaning of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and this Court's two lines of decisions-the Sixth Amendment jury cases and the Fourteenth Amendment incorporation cases-overwhelmingly demonstrate that Apodaca's holding is egregiously wrong.
Second, Apodaca causes significant negative consequences. It is true that Apodaca is workable. But Apodaca sanctions the conviction at trial or by guilty plea of some defendants who might not be convicted under the proper constitutional rule (although exactly how many is of course unknowable). That consequence has traditionally supplied some support for overruling an egregiously wrong criminal-procedure precedent. See generally Malloy, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653.
In addition, and significant to my analysis of this case, the origins and effects of the non-unanimous jury rule strongly support overruling Apodaca. Louisiana achieved statehood in 1812. And throughout most of the 1800s, the State required unanimous juries in criminal cases. But at its 1898 state constitutional convention, Louisiana enshrined non-unanimous juries into the state constitution. Why the change? The State wanted to diminish the influence of black jurors, who had won the right to serve on juries through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868
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 Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The ultimate question in this case is one of jurisdiction of civil courts of the United States vis-a-vis military authorities in dealing with enemy aliens overseas. The issues come here in this way:
Twenty-one German nationals petitioned the District Court of the District of Columbia for writs of habeas corpus. They alleged that, prior to May 8, 1945, they were in the service of German armed forces in China. They amended to allege that their employment there was by civilian agencies of the German Government. Their exact affiliation is disputed, and, for our purposes, immaterial. On May 8, 1945, the German High Command executed an act of unconditional surrender, expressly obligating all forces under German control at once to cease active hostilities. These prisoners have been convicted of violating laws of war, by engaging in, permitting or ordering continued military activity against the United States after surrender of Germany and before surrender of Japan. Their hostile operations consisted principally of collecting and furnishing intelligence concerning American forces and their movements to the Japanese armed forces. They, with six others who were acquitted, were taken into custody by the United States Army after the Japanese surrender and were tried and convicted by a Military Commission constituted by our Commanding General at Nanking by delegation from the Commanding General, United States Forces, China Theatre, pursuant to authority specifically granted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States. The Commission sat in China, with express consent of the Chinese Government. The proceeding was conducted wholly under American auspices and involved no international participation. After conviction, the sentences were duly reviewed and, with immaterial modification, approved by military reviewing authority.
The prisoners were repatriated to Germany to serve their sentences. Their immediate custodian is Commandant of Landsberg Prison, an American Army officer under the Commanding General, Third United States Army, and the Commanding General, European Command. He could not be reached by process from the District Court. Respondents named in the petition are Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States.
The petition alleges, and respondents denied, that the jailer is subject to their direction. The Court of Appeals assumed, and we do likewise, that, while prisoners are in immediate physical custody of an officer or officers not parties to the proceeding, respondents named in the petition have lawful authority to effect their release.
The petition prays an order that the prisoners be produced before the District Court, that it may inquire into their confinement and order them discharged from such offenses and confinement. It is claimed that their trial, conviction and imprisonment violate Articles I and III of the Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment thereto, and other provisions of the Constitution and laws of the United States and provisions of the Geneva Convention governing treatment of prisoners of war.
A rule to show cause issued, to which the United States made return. Thereupon the petition was dismissed on authority of Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188.
The Court of Appeals reversed and, reinstating the petition, remanded for further proceedings. 84 U. S. App. D. C. 396, 174 F. 2d 961. It concluded that any person, including an enemy alien, deprived of his liberty anywhere under any purported authority of the United States is entitled to the writ if he can show that extension to his case of any constitutional rights or limitations would show his imprisonment illegal; that, although no statutory jurisdiction of such cases is given, courts must be held to possess it as part of the judicial power of the United States; that where deprivation of liberty by an official act occurs outside the territorial jurisdiction of any District Court, the petition will lie in the District Court which has territorial jurisdiction over officials who have directive power over the immediate jailer.
The obvious importance of these holdings to both judicial administration and military operations impelled us to grant certiorari. 338 U. S. 877. The case is before us only on issues of law. The writ of habeas corpus must be granted “unless it appears from the application” that the applicants are not entitled to it. 28 U. S. C. § 2243.
We are cited to no instance where a court, in this or any other country where the writ is known, has issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes. Absence of support from legislative or juridical sources is implicit in the statement of the court below that “The answers stem directly from fundamentals. They cannot be found by casual reference to statutes or cases.” The breadth of the court’s premises and solution requires us to consider questions basic to alien enemy and kindred litigation which for some years have been beating upon our doors.
I,
Modern American law has come a long way since the time when outbreak of war made every enemy national an outlaw, subject to both public and private slaughter, cruelty and plunder. But even by the most magnanimous view, our law does not abolish inherent distinctions recognized throughout the civilized world between citizens and aliens, nor between aliens of friendly and of enemy allegiance, nor between resident enemy aliens who have submitted themselves to our laws and nonresident enemy aliens who at all times have remained with, and adhered to, enemy governments.
With the citizen we are now little concerned, except to set his case apart as untouched by this decision and to take measure of the difference between his status and that of all categories of aliens. Citizenship as a head of jurisdiction and a ground of protection was old when Paul invoked it in his appeal to Caesar. The years have not destroyed nor diminished the importance of citizenship nor have they sapped the vitality of a citizen’s claims upon his government for protection. If a person’s claim to United States citizenship is denied by any official, Congress has directed our courts to entertain his action to declare him to be a citizen “regardless of whether he is within the United States or abroad.” 54 Stat. 1171, 8 U. S. C. § 903. This Court long ago extended habeas corpus to one seeking admission to the country to assure fair hearing of his claims to citizenship, Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8, and has secured citizenship against forfeiture by involuntary formal acts, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325. Because the Government’s obligation of protection is correlative with the duty of loyal support inherent in the citizen’s allegiance, Congress has directed the President to exert the full diplomatic and political power of the United States on behalf of any citizen, but of no other, in jeopardy abroad. When any citizen is deprived of his liberty by any foreign government, it is made the duty of the President to demand the reasons and, if the detention appears wrongful, to use means not amounting to acts of war to effectuate his release. It is neither sentimentality nor chauvinism to repeat that "Citizenship is a high privilege.” United States v. Manzi, 276 U. S. 463, 467.
The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society. Mere lawful presence in the country creates an implied assurance of safe conduct and gives him certain rights; they become more extensive and secure when he makes preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen, and they expand to those of full citizenship upon naturalization. During his probationary residence, this Court has steadily enlarged his right against Executive deportation except upon full and fair hearing. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86; Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U. S. 460; Tisi v. Tod, 264 U. S. 131; United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Comm’r, 273 U. S. 103; Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33. And, at least since 1886, we have extended to the person and property of resident aliens important constitutional guaranties — such as the due process of law of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356.
But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien’s presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act. In the pioneer case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court said of the Fourteenth Amendment, “These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality;....” (Italics supplied.) 118 U. S. 356, 369. And in The Japanese Immigrant Case, the Court held its processes available to “an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here.” 189 U. S. 86, 101.
Since most cases involving aliens afford this ground of jurisdiction, and the civil and property rights of immigrants or transients of foreign nationality so nearly approach equivalence to those of citizens, courts in peace time have little occasion to inquire whether litigants before them are alien or citizen.
It is war that exposes the relative vulnerability of the alien’s status. The security and protection enjoyed while the nation of his allegiance remains in amity with the United States are greatly impaired when his nation takes up arms against us. While his lot is far more humane and endurable than the experience of our citizens in some enemy lands, it is still not a happy one. But disabilities this country lays upon the alien who becomes also an enemy are imposed temporarily as an incident of war and not as an incident of alienage. Judge Cardozo commented concerning this distinction: “Much of the obscurity which surrounds the rights of aliens has its origin in this confusion of diverse subjects.” Techt v. Hughes, 229 N. Y. 222, 237, 128 N. E. 185, 189.
American doctrine as to effect of war upon the status of nationals of belligerents took permanent shape following our first foreign war. Chancellor Kent, after considering the leading authorities of his time, declared the law to be that “... in war, the subjects of each country were enemies to each other, and bound to regard and treat each other as such.” Griswold v. Waddington, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 438, 480. If this was ever something of a fiction, it is one validated by the actualities of modern total warfare. Conscription, compulsory service and measures to mobilize every human and material resource and to utilize nationals — wherever they may be — in arms, intrigue and sabotage, attest the prophetic realism of what once may have seemed a doctrinaire and artificial principle. With confirmation of recent history, we may reiterate this Court’s earlier teaching that in war “every individual of the one nation must acknowledge every individual of the other nation as his own enemy — because the enemy of his country.” The Rapid, 8 Cranch 155, 161. See also White v. Burnley, 20 How. 235, 249; Lamar v. Browne, 92 U. S. 187, 194. And this without regard to his individual sentiments or disposition. The Benito Estenger, 176 U. S. 568, 571. The alien enemy is bound by an allegiance which commits him to lose no opportunity to forward the cause of our enemy; hence the United States, assuming him to be faithful to his aliegiance, regards him as part of the enemy resources. It therefore takes measures to disable him from commission of hostile acts imputed as his intention because they are a duty to his sovereign.
The United States does not invoke this enemy allegiance only for its own interest, but respects it also when to the enemy’s advantage. In World War I our conscription act did not subject the alien enemy to compulsory military service. 40 Stat. 885, c. XII, § 4. The Selective Service Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 604, 50 U. S. C. App. § 454 (a), exempts aliens who have not formally declared their intention to become citizens from military training, service and registration, if they make application, but if so relieved, they are barred from becoming citizens. Thus the alien enemy status carries important immunities as well as disadvantages. The United States does not ask him to violate his allegiance or to commit treason toward his own country for the sake of ours. This also is the doctrine and the practice of other states comprising our Western Civilization.
The essential pattern for seasonable Executive constraint of enemy aliens, not on the basis of individual prepossessions for their native land but on the basis of political and legal relations to the enemy government, was laid down in the very earliest days of the Republic and has endured to this day. It was established by the Alien Enemy Act of 1798. 1 Stat. 577, as amended, 50 U. S. C. § 21. And it is to be noted that, while the Alien and Sedition Acts of that year provoked a reaction which helped sweep the party of Mr. Jefferson into power in 1800, and though his party proceeded to undo what was regarded as the mischievous legislation of the Federalists, this enactment was never repealed. Executive power over enemy aliens, undelayed and unhampered by litigation, has been deemed, throughout our history, essential to war-time security. This is in keeping with the practices of the most enlightened of nations and has resulted in treatment of alien enemies more considerate than that which has prevailed among any of our enemies and some of our allies. This statute was enacted or suffered to continue by men who helped found the Republic and formulate the Bill of Rights, and although it obviously denies enemy aliens the constitutional immunities of citizens, it seems not then to have been supposed that a nation’s obligations to its foes could ever be put on a parity with those to its defenders.
The resident enemy alien is constitutionally subject to summary arrest, internment and deportation whenever a “declared war” exists. Courts will entertain his plea for freedom from Executive custody only to ascertain the existence of a state of war and whether he is an alien enemy and so subject to the Alien Enemy Act. Once these jurisdictional elements have been determined, courts will not inquire into any other issue as to his internment. Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160.
The standing of the enemy alien to maintain any action in the courts of the United States has been often challenged and sometimes denied. The general statement was early made on combined authority of Kent and Story “That they have no power to sue in the public courts of the enemy nation.” Griswold v. Waddington, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 438, 477. Our rule of generous access to the resident enemy alien was first laid down by Chancellor Kent in 1813, when, squarely faced with the plea that an alien enemy could not sue upon a debt contracted before the War of 1812, he reviewed the authorities to that time and broadly declared that “A lawful residence implies protection, and a capacity to sue and be sued. A contrary doctrine would be repugnant to sound policy, no less than to justice and humanity.” Clarke v. Morey, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 70, 72. A unanimous Court recently clarified both the privilege of access to our courts and the limitations upon it. We said: “The ancient rule against suits by resident alien enemies has survived only so far as necessary to prevent use of the courts to accomplish a purpose which might hamper our own war efforts or give aid to the enemy. This may be taken as the sound principle of the common law today.” Ex parte Kawato, 317 U. S. 69, 75.
But the nonresident enemy alien, especially one who has remained in the service of the enemy, does not have even this qualified access to our courts, for he neither has comparable claims upon our institutions nor could his use of them fail to be helpful to the enemy. Our law on this subject first emerged about 1813 when the Supreme Court of the State of New York had occasion, in a series of cases, to examine the foremost authorities of the Continent and of England. It concluded the rule of the common law and the law of nations to be that alien enemies resident in the country of the enemy could not maintain an action in its courts during the period of hostilities. Bell v. Chapman, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 183; Jackson v. Decker, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 418; Clarke v. Morey, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 70, 74-75. This Court has recognized that rule, Caperton v. Bowyer, 14 Wall. 216, 236; Masterson v. Howard, 18 Wall. 99,105, and followed it, Ex parte Colonna, 314 U. S. 510, and it continues to be the law throughout this country and in England.
II.
The foregoing demonstrates how much further we must go if we are to invest these enemy aliens, resident, captured and imprisoned abroad, with standing to demand access to our courts.
We are here confronted with a decision whose basic premise is that these prisoners are entitled, as a constitutional right, to sue in some court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus. To support that assumption we must hold that a prisoner of our military authorities is constitutionally entitled to the writ, even though he (a) is an enemy alien; (b) has never been or resided in the United States; (c) was captured outside of our territory and there held in military custody as a prisoner of war; (d) was tried and convicted by a Military Commission sitting outside the United States; (e) for offenses against laws of war committed outside the United States; (f) and is at all times imprisoned outside the United States.
We have pointed out that the privilege of litigation has been extended to aliens, whether friendly or enemy, only because permitting their presence in the country implied protection. No such basis can be invoked here, for these prisoners at no relevant time were within any territory over which the United States is sovereign, and the scenes of their offense, their capture, their trial and their punishment were all beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States.
Another reason for a limited opening of our courts to resident aliens is that among them are many of friendly personal disposition to whom the status of enemy is only one imputed by law. But these prisoners were actual enemies, active in the hostile service of an enemy power. There is no fiction about their enmity. Yet the decision below confers upon them a right to use our courts, free even of the limitation we have imposed upon resident alien enemies, to whom we deny any use of our courts that would hamper our war effort or aid the enemy.
A basic consideration in habeas corpus practice is that the prisoner will be produced before the court. This is the crux of the statutory scheme established by the Congress; indeed, it is inherent in the very term “habeas corpus.” And though production of the prisoner may be dispensed with where it appears on the face of the application that no cause for granting the writ exists, Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275, 284, we have consistently adhered to and recognized the general rule. Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188, 190-191. To grant the writ to these prisoners might mean that our army must transport them across the seas for hearing. This would require allocation of shipping space, guarding personnel, billeting and rations. It might also require transportation for whatever witnesses the prisoners desired to call as well as transportation for those necessary to defend legality of the sentence. The writ, since it is held to be a matter of right, would be equally available to enemies during active hostilities as in the present twilight between war and peace. Such trials would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy. They would diminish the prestige of our commanders, not only with enemies but with wavering neutrals. It would be difficult to devise more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home. Nor is it unlikely that the result of such enemy litigiousness would be a conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to enemies of the United States.
Moreover, we could expect no reciprocity for placing the litigation weapon in unrestrained enemy hands. The right of judicial refuge from military action, which it is proposed to bestow on the enemy, can purchase no equivalent for benefit of our citizen soldiers. Except in England, whose law appears to be in harmony with the views we have expressed, and other English-speaking peoples in whose practice nothing has been cited to the contrary, the writ of habeas corpus is generally unknown.
The prisoners rely, however, upon two decisions of this Court to get them over the threshold — Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, and In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1. Reliance on the Quirin case is clearly mistaken. Those prisoners were in custody in the District of Columbia. One was, or claimed to be, a citizen. They were tried by a Military Commission sitting in the District of Columbia át a time when civil courts were open and functioning normally. They were arrested by civil authorities and the prosecution was personally directed by the Attorney General, a civilian prosecutor, for acts committed in the United States. They waived arraignment before a civil court and it was contended that the civil courts thereby acquired jurisdiction and could not be ousted by the Military. None of the places where they were acting, arrested, tried or imprisoned were, it was contended, in a zone of active military operations or under martial law or any other military control, and no circumstances justified transferring them from civil to military jurisdiction. None of these grave grounds for challenging military jurisdiction can be urged in the case now before us.
Nor can the Court’s decision in the Yamashita case aid the prisoners. This Court refused to receive Yamashita’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eor hearing and opinion, it was consolidated with another application for a writ of certiorari to review the refusal of habeas corpus by the Supreme Court of the Philippines over whose decisions the statute then gave this Court a right of review. 28 U. S. C. § 349, repealed by Act of June 25, 1948, c. 646, § 39, 62 Stat. 992, 1000. By reason of our sovereignty at that time over these insular possessions, Yamashita stood much as did Quirin before American courts. Yamashita’s offenses were committed on our territory, he was tried within the jurisdiction of our insular courts and he was imprisoned within territory of the United States. None of these heads of jurisdiction can be invoked by these prisoners.
Despite this, the doors of our courts have not been summarily closed upon these prisoners. Three courts have considered their application and have provided their counsel opportunity to advance every argument in their support and to show some reason in the petition why they should not be subject to the usual disabilities of nonresident enemy aliens. This is the same preliminary hearing as to sufficiency of application that was extended in Quirin, supra, Yamashita, supra, and Hirota v. MacArthur, 338 U. S. 197. After hearing all contentions they have seen fit to advance and considering every contention we can base on their application and the holdings below, we arrive at the same conclusion the Court reached in each of those cases, vis.: that no right to the writ of habeas corpus appears.
III.
The Court of Appeals dispensed with all requirement of territorial jurisdiction based on place of residence, captivity, trial, offense, or confinement. It could not predicate relief upon any intraterritorial contact of these prisoners with our laws or institutions. Instead, it gave our Constitution an extraterritorial application to embrace our enemies in arms. Right to the writ, it reasoned, is a subsidiary procedural right that follows from possession of substantive constitutional rights. These prisoners, it considered, are invested with a right of personal liberty by our Constitution and therefore must have the right to the remedial writ. The court stated the steps in its own reasoning as follows: “First. The Fifth Amendment, by its terms, applies to ‘any person.’ Second. Action of Government officials in violation of the Constitution is void. This is the ultimate essence of the present controversy. Third. A basic and inherent function of the judicial branch of a government built upon a constitution is to set aside void action by government officials, and so to restrict executive action to the confines of the constitution. In our jurisprudence, no Government action which is void under the Constitution is exempt from judicial power. Fourth. The writ of habeas corpus is the established, time-honored process in our law for testing the authority of one who deprives another of his liberty, — 'the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.'...'' 84 U. S. App. D. C. 396, 398-399, 174 F. 2d 961, 963-964.
The doctrine that the term “any person” in the Fifth Amendment spreads its protection over alien enemies anywhere in the world engaged in hostilities against us, should be weighed in light of the full text of that Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
When we analyze the claim prisoners are asserting and the court below sustained, it amounts to a right not to be tried at all for an offense against our armed forces. If the Fifth Amendment protects them from military trial, the Sixth Amendment as clearly prohibits their trial by civil courts. The latter requires in all criminal prosecutions that “the accused” be tried “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 if the Fifth be held to embrace these prisoners because it uses the inclusive term “no person,” the Sixth must, for it applies to all “accused.” No suggestion is advanced by the court below, or by prisoners, of any constitutional method by which any violations of the laws of war endangering the United States forces could be reached or punished, if it were not by a Military Commission in the theatre where the offense was committed.
The Court of Appeals has cited no authority whatever for holding that the Fifth Amendment confers rights upon all persons, whatever their nationality, wherever they are located and whatever their offenses, except to quote extensively from a dissenting opinion in In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, 26. The holding of the Court in that case is, of course, to the contrary.
If this Amendment invests enemy aliens in unlawful hostile action against us with immunity from military trial, it puts them in a more protected position than our own soldiers. American citizens conscripted into the military service are thereby stripped of their Fifth Amendment rights and as members of the military establishment are subject to its discipline, including military trials for offenses against aliens or Americans. Cf. Humphrey v. Smith, 336 U. S. 695; Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S. 684. Can there be any doubt that our foes would also have been excepted, but for the assumption “any person” would never be read to include those in arms against us? It would be a paradox indeed if what the Amendment denied to Americans it guaranteed to enemies. And, of course, it cannot be claimed that such shelter is due them as a matter of comity for any reciprocal rights conferred by enemy governments on American soldiers.
The decision below would extend coverage of our Constitution to nonresident alien enemies denied to resident alien enemies. The latter are entitled only to judicial hearing to determine what the petition of these prisoners admits: that they are really alien enemies. When that appears, those resident here may be deprived of liberty by Executive action without hearing. Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160. While this is preventive rather than punitive detention, no reason is apparent why an alien enemy charged with having committed a crime should have greater immunities from Executive action than one who it is only feared might at some future time commit a hostile act.
If the Fifth Amendment confers its rights on all the world except Americans engaged in defending it, the same must be true of the companion civil-rights Amendments, for none of them is limited by its express terms, territorially or as to persons. Such a construction would mean that during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and “werewolves” could require the American Judiciary to assure them freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against “unreasonable” searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Such extraterritorial application of organic law would have been so significant an innovation in the practice of governments that, if intended or apprehended, it could scarcely have failed to excite contemporary comment. Not one word can be cited. No decision of this Court supports such a view. Cf. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244. None of the learned commentators on our Constitution has even hinted at it. The practice of every modern government is opposed to it.
We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States.
IV.
The Court of Appeals appears to have been of opinion that the petition shows some action by some official of the United States in excess of his authority which confers a private right to have it judicially voided. Its Second and Third propositions were that “action by Government officials in violation of the Constitution is void” and “a basic and inherent function of the judicial branch... is to set aside void action by government officials....” For this reason it thought the writ could be granted.
The petition specifies four reasons why conviction by the Military Commission was in excess of its jurisdiction: two based on the Geneva Convention of July 27, 1929, 47 Stat. 2021, with which we deal later; and two apparently designed to raise constitutional questions. The constitutional contentions are that “the detention of the prisoners as convicted war criminals is illegal and in violation of Articles I and III of the Constitution of the United States and of the Fifth Amendment thereto, and of other provisions of said Constitution and laws of the United States..., in that:
“(a) There being no charge of an offense against the laws of war by the prisoners, the Military Commission was without jurisdiction.
“(b) In the absence of hostilities, martial law, or American military occupation of China, and in view of treaties between the United States and China dated February 4, 1943, and May 4, 1943, and between Germany and China, dated May 18, 1921, the Military Commission was without jurisdiction.”
The petition does not particularize, and neither does the court below, the specific respects in which it is claimed acts of the Military were ultra vires.
The jurisdiction of military authorities, during or following hostilities, to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war is long-established. By the Treaty of Versailles, “The German Government recognises the right of the Allied and Associated Powers to bring before military tribunals persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war.” Article 228. This Court has characterized as “well-established” the “power of the military to exercise jurisdiction over members of the armed forces, those directly connected with such forces, or enemy belligerents, prisoners of war, or others charged with violating the laws of war.” Duncan v. Kahanamoka, 327 U. S. 304, 312, 313-314. And we have held in the Quirin and Yamashita cases, supra, that the Military Commission is a lawful tribunal to adjudge enemy offenses against the laws of war.
It is not for us to say whether these prisoners were or were not guilty of a war crime, or whether if we were to retry the case we would agree to the findings of fact or the application of the laws of war made by the Military Commission. The petition shows that these prisoners were formally accused of violating the laws of war and fully informed of particulars of these charges. As we observed in the Yamashita case, “If the military tribunals have lawful authority to hear, decide and condemn, their action is not subject to judicial review merely because they have made a wrong decision on disputed facts. Correction of their errors of decision is not for the courts but for the military authorities which are alone authorized to review their decisions.” 327 U. S. 1, 8. “We consider here only the lawful power of the commission to try the petitioner for the offense charged.” Ibid.
That there is a basis in conventional and long-established law by which conduct ascribed to them might amount to a violation seems beyond question. Breach of the terms of an act of surrender is no novelty among war crimes. “That capitulations must be scrupulously adhered to is an old customary rule, since enacted by Article 35 of the Hague Regulations. Any act contrary to a capitulation would constitute an international delinquency if ordered by a belligerent Government, and a war crime if committed without such order. Such violation may be met by reprisals or punishment of the offenders as war criminals.” II Oppenheim, International Law 433 (6th ed. rev., Lauterpacht, 1944). Vattel tells us: “If any of the subjects, whether military men or private citizens, offend against the truce... the delinquents should be compelled to make ample compensation for the damage, and severely punished....” Law of Nations, Book III, c. XVI, § 241. And so too, Lawrence, who says, “If... the breach of the conditions agreed upon is the act of unauthorized individuals, the side that suffers... may demand the punishment of the guilty parties and an indemnity for any losses it has sustained.” Principles of International Law (5th ed.) p. 566. It being within the jurisdiction of a Military Commission to try the prisoners, it was for it to determine whether the laws of war applied and whether an offense against them had been committed.
We can only read “(b)” to mean either that the presence of the military forces of the United States in China at the times in question was unconstitutional or, if lawfully there, that they had no right under the Constitution to set up a Military Commission on Chinese territory. But it can hardly be meant that it was unconstitutional for the Government of -the United States to wage a war in foreign parts. Among powers granted to Congress by the Constitution is power to provide for the common defense, to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Art. I, § 8, Const. It also gives power to make rules concerning captures on land and water, ibid., which
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.
We brought this case here, 364 U. S. 813, believing that it presented a question under Anderson v. United States, 318 U. S. 350. After hearing oral argument and fully examining the transcript of the proceedings in the trial court, we conclude that the particular facts of the case are not ruled by Anderson. We find no merit in the other argument advanced by the petitioner.
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: | 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 Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed a trial court judgment, which had entered a jury verdict of $50 million. Five justices heard the case, and the vote to reverse was 8 to 2. The question presented is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated when one of the justices in the majority denied a recusal motion. The basis for the motion was that the justice had received campaign contributions in an extraordinary amount from, and through the efforts of, the board chairman and principal officer of the corporation found liable for the damages.
Under our precedents there are objective standards that require recusal when “the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S. 35, 47 (1975). Applying those precedents, we find that, in all the circumstances of this case, due process requires recusal.
I
In August 2002 a West Virginia jury returned a verdict that found respondents A. T. Massey Coal Co. and its affiliates (hereinafter Massey) liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, and tortious interference with existing contractual relations. The jury awarded petitioners Hugh Caperton, Harman Development Corp., Harman Mining Corp., and Sovereign Coal Sales (hereinafter Caperton) the sum of $50 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
In June 2004 the state trial court denied Massey’s post-trial motions challenging the verdict and the damages award, finding that Massey “intentionally acted in utter disregard of [Caperton’s] rights and ultimately destroyed [Caperton’s] businesses because, after conducting cost-benefit analyses, [Massey] concluded it was in its financial interest to do so.” App. 32a, ¶ 10(p). In March 2005 the trial court denied Massey’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Don Blankenship is Massey’s chairman, chief executive officer, and president. After the verdict but before the appeal, West Virginia held its 2004 judicial elections. Knowing the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia would consider the appeal in the case, Blankenship decided to support an attorney who sought to replace Justice McGraw. Justice McGraw was a candidate for reelection to that court. The attorney who sought to replace him was Brent Benjamin.
In addition to contributing the $1,000 statutory maximum to Benjamin’s campaign committee, Blankenship donated almost $2.5 million to “And For The Sake Of The Kids,” a political organization formed under 26 U. S. C. § 527. The § 527 organization opposed McGraw and supported Benjamin. 223 W. Va. 624, 700, 679 S. E. 2d 223, 299 (2008) (Benjamin, Acting C. J., concurring). Blankenship’s donations accounted for more than two-thirds of the total funds it raised. App. 150a. This was not all. Blankenship spent, in addition, just over $500,000 on independent expenditures — for direct mailings and letters soliciting donations as well as television and newspaper advertisements — “‘to support... Brent Benjamin.’ ” Id., at 184a, 186a, 200a (quoting Blankenship’s state campaign financial disclosure filings; bold typeface omitted).
To provide some perspective, Blankenship’s $3 million in contributions were more than the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and three times the amount spent by Benjamin’s own committee. Id., at 288a. Caper-ton contends that Blankenship spent $1 million more than the total amount spent by the campaign committees of both candidates combined. Brief for Petitioners 28.
Benjamin won. He received 382,036 votes (53.3%), and McGraw received 334,301 votes (46.7%). 223 W. Va., at 702, 679 S. E. 2d, at 301 (Benjamin, Acting C. J., concurring).
In October 2005, before Massey filed its petition for appeal in West Virginia’s highest court, Caperton moved to disqualify now-Justice Benjamin under the Due Process Clause and the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct, based on the conflict caused by Blankenship’s campaign involvement. Justice Benjamin denied the motion in April 2006. He indicated that he “carefully considered the bases and accompanying exhibits proffered by the movants.” But he found “no objective information... to show that this Justice has a bias for or against any litigant, that this Justice has prejudged the matters which comprise this litigation, or that this Justice will be anything but fair and impartial.” App. 336a-337a. In December 2006 Massey filed its petition for appeal to challenge the adverse jury verdict. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals granted review.
In November 2007 that court reversed the $50 million verdict against Massey. The majority opinion, authored by then-Chief Justice Davis and joined by Justices Benjamin and Maynard, found that “Massey’s conduct warranted the type of judgment rendered in this case.” Id., at 357a. It reversed, nevertheless, based on two independent grounds— first, that a forum-selection clause contained in a contract to which Massey was not a party barred the suit in West Virginia, and, second, that res judicata barred the suit due to an out-of-state judgment to which Massey was not a party. Id., at 345a. Justice Stareher dissented, stating that the “majority’s opinion is morally and legally wrong.” Id., at 420a-422a. Justice Albright also dissented, accusing the majority of “misapplying the law and introducing sweeping ‘new law’ into our jurisprudence that may well come back to haunt us.” Id., at 430a-431a.
Caperton sought rehearing, and the parties moved for disqualification of three of the five justices who decided the appeal. Photos had surfaced of Justice Maynard vacationing with Blankenship in the French Riviera while the case was pending. Id., at 440a-441a, 456a. Justice Maynard granted Caperton’s recusal motion. On the other side Justice Stareher granted Massey’s recusal motion, apparently based on his public criticism of Blankenship’s role in the 2004 elections. In his recusal memorandum Justice Starcher urged Justice Benjamin to recuse himself as well. He noted that “Blankenship’s bestowal of his personal wealth, political tactics, and ‘friendship’ have created a cancer in the affairs of this Court.” Id., at 459a-460a. Justice Benjamin declined Justice Starcher’s suggestion and denied Caperton’s recusal motion.
The court granted rehearing. Justice Benjamin, now in the capacity of acting chief justice, selected Judges Cookman and Fox to replace the recused justices. Caperton moved a third time for disqualification, arguing that Justice Benjamin had failed to apply the correct standard under West Virginia law — i. e., whether “a reasonable and prudent person, knowing these objective facts, would harbor doubts about Justice Benjamin’s ability to be fair and impartial.” Id., at 466a, ¶ 8. Caperton also included the results of a public opinion poll, which indicated that over 67% of West Virginians doubted Justice Benjamin would be fair and impartial. Justice Benjamin again refused to withdraw, noting that the “push poll” was “neither credible nor sufficiently reliable to serve as the basis for an elected judge’s disqualification.” Id., at 483a.
In April 2008 a divided court again reversed the jury verdict, and again it was a 3-to-2 decision. Justice Davis filed a modified version of her prior opinion, repeating the two earlier holdings. She was joined by Justice Benjamin and Judge Fox. Justice Albright, joined by Judge Cookman, dissented: “Not only is the majority opinion unsupported by the facts and existing case law, but it is also fundamentally unfair. Sadly, justice was neither honored nor served by the majority.” 223 W. Va., at 685, 679 S. E. 2d, at 284. The dissent also noted “genuine due process implications arising under federal law” with respect to Justice Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself. Id., at 686, n. 16, 679 S. E. 2d, at 285, n. 16 (citing Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U. S. 813 (1986); In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955)).
Four months later — a month after the petition for writ of certiorari was filed in this Court — Justice Benjamin filed a concurring opinion. He defended the merits of the majority opinion as well as his decision not to recuse. He rejected Caperton’s challenge to his participation in the case under both the Due Process Clause and West Virginia law. Justice Benjamin reiterated that he had no “ ‘direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest’ in this case.” 223 W. Va., at 702, 679 S. E. 2d, at 301 (quoting Lavoie, supra, at 822). Adopting “a standard merely of ‘appearances,’” he concluded, “seems little more than an invitation to subject West Virginia’s justice system to the vagaries of the day — a framework in which predictability and stability yield to supposition, innuendo, half-truths, and partisan manipulations.” 223 W. Va., at 707, 679 S. E. 2d, at 306.
We granted certiorari. 555 U. S. 1028 (2008).
II
It is axiomatic that “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” Murchison, supra, at 136. As the Court has recognized, however, “most matters relating to judicial disqualification [do] not rise to a constitutional level.” FTC v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683, 702 (1948). The early and leading case on the subject is Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927). There, the Court stated that “matters of kinship, personal bias, state policy, remoteness of interest, would seem generally to be matters merely of legislative discretion.” Id., at 523.
The Tumey Court concluded that the Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has “a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in a case. Ibid. This rule reflects the maxim that “[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” The Federalist No. 10, p. 59 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (J. Madison); see Frank, Disqualification of Judges, 56 Yale L. J. 605, 611-612 (1947). Under this rule, “disqualification for bias or prejudice was not permitted”; those matters were left to statutes and judicial codes. Lavoie, supra, at 820; see also Part IV, infra (discussing judicial codes). Personal bias or prejudice “alone would not be sufficient basis for imposing a constitutional requirement under the Due Process Clause.” Lavoie, supra, at 820.
As new problems have emerged that were not discussed at common law, however, the Court has identified additional instances which, as an objective matter, require recusal. These are circumstances “in which experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” Withrow, 421 U. S., at 47. To place the present case in proper context, two instances where the Court has required recusal merit further discussion.
A
The first involved the emergence of local tribunals where a judge had a financial interest in the outcome of a case, although the interest was less than what would have been considered personal or direct at common law.
This was the problem addressed in Tumey. There, the mayor of a village had the authority to sit as a judge (with no jury) to try those accused of violating a state law prohibiting the possession of alcoholic beverages. Inherent in this structure were two potential conflicts. First, the mayor received a salary supplement for performing judicial duties, and the funds for that compensation derived from the fines assessed in a case. No fines were assessed upon acquittal. The mayor-judge thus received a salary supplement only if he convicted the defendant. 273 U. S., at 520. Second, sums from the criminal fines were deposited to the village’s general treasury fund for village improvements and repairs. Id., at 522.
The Court held that the Due Process Clause required disqualification “both because of [the mayor-judge’s] direct pecuniary interest in the outcome, and because of his official motive to convict and to graduate the fine to help the financial needs of the village.” Id., at 535. It so held despite observing that “[t]here are doubtless mayors who would not allow such a consideration as $12 costs in each case to affect their judgment in it.” Id., at 532. The Court articulated the controlling principle:
“Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law.” Ibid.
The Court was thus concerned with more than the traditional common-law prohibition on direct pecuniary interest. It was also concerned with a more general concept of interests that tempt adjudicators to disregard neutrality.
This concern with conflicts resulting from financial incentives was elaborated in Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U. S. 57 (1972), which invalidated a conviction in another mayor’s court. In Monroeville, unlike in Turney, the mayor received no money; instead, the fines the mayor assessed went to the town’s general fisc. The Court held that “[t]he fact that the mayor [in Tumey] shared directly in the fees and costs did not define the limits of the principle.” 409 U. S., at 60. The principle, instead, turned on the “ ‘possible temptation’ ” the mayor might face; the mayor’s “executive responsibilities for village finances may make him partisan to maintain the high level of contribution [to those finances] from the mayor’s court.” Ibid. As the Court reiterated in another case that Term, “the [judge’s] financial stake need not be as direct or positive as it appeared to be in Tumey.” Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564, 579 (1973) (an administrative board composed of optometrists had a pecuniary interest of “sufficient substance” so that it could not preside over a hearing against competing optometrists).
The Court in Lavoie further clarified the reach of the Due Process Clause regarding a judge’s financial interest in a case. There, a justice had cast the deciding vote on the Alabama Supreme Court to uphold a punitive damages award against an insurance company for bad-faith refusal to pay a claim. At the time of his vote, the justice was the lead plaintiff in a nearly identical lawsuit pending in Alabama’s lower courts. His deciding vote, this Court surmised, “undoubtedly ‘raised the stakes’ ” for the insurance defendant in the justice’s suit. 475 U. S., at 823-824.
The Court stressed that it was “not required to decide whether in fact [the justice] was influenced.” Id., at 825. The proper constitutional inquiry is “whether sitting on the case then before the Supreme Court of Alabama ‘“would offer a possible temptation to the average... judge to... lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true.”’” Ibid, (quoting Monroeville, supra, at 60, in turn quoting Turney, supra, at 532). The Court underscored that “what degree or kind of interest is sufficient to disqualify a judge from sitting ‘cannot be defined with precision.’” 475 U. S., at 822 (quoting Murchison, 349 U. S., at 136). In the Court’s view, however, it was important that the test have an objective component.
The Lavoie Court proceeded to distinguish the state-court justice’s particular interest in the case, which required recusal, from interests that were not a constitutional concern. For instance, “while [the other] justices might conceivably have had a slight pecuniary interest” due to their potential membership in a class-action suit against their own insurance companies, that interest is “ ‘too remote and insubstantial to violate the constitutional constraints.’” 475 U. S., at 825-826 (quoting Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U. S. 238, 243 (1980)).
B
The second instance requiring recusal that was not discussed at common law emerged in the criminal contempt context, where a judge had no pecuniary interest in the case but was challenged because of a conflict arising from his participation in an earlier proceeding. This Court characterized that first proceeding (perhaps pejoratively) as a “ ‘one-man grand jury.’ ” Murchison, 349 U. S., at 133.
In that first proceeding, and as provided by state law, a judge examined witnesses to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. The judge called the two petitioners before him. One petitioner answered questions, but the judge found him untruthful and charged him with perjury. The second declined to answer on the ground that he did not have counsel with him, as state law seemed to permit. The judge charged him with contempt. The judge proceeded to try and convict both petitioners. Id., at 134-135.
This Court set aside the convictions on grounds that the judge had a conflict of interest at the trial stage because of his earlier participation followed by his decision to charge them. The Due Process Clause required disqualification. The Court recited the general rule that “no man can be a judge in his own case,” adding that “no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.” Id., at 136. It noted that the disqualifying criteria “cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances and relationships must be considered.” Ibid. These circumstances and the prior relationship required recusal: “Having been a part of [the one-man grand jury] process a judge cannot be, in the very nature of things, wholly disinterested in the conviction or acquittal of those accused.” Id., at 137. That is because “[a]s a practical matter it is difficult if not impossible for a judge to free himself from the influence of what took place in his ‘grand-jury’ secret session.” Id., at 138.
The Murchison Court was careful to distinguish the circumstances and the relationship from those where the Constitution would not require recusal. It noted that the single-judge grand jury is “more a part of the accusatory process than an ordinary lay grand juror,” and that “adjudication by a trial judge of a contempt committed in [a judge’s] presence in open court cannot be likened to the proceedings here.” Id., at 137. The judge’s prior relationship with the defendant, as well as the information acquired from the prior proceeding, was of critical import.
Following Murchison the Court held in Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U. S. 455, 466 (1971), “that by reason of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a defendant in criminal contempt proceedings should be given a public trial before a judge other than the one reviled by the contemnor.” The Court reiterated that this rule rests on the relationship between the judge and the defendant: “[A] judge, vilified as was this Pennsylvania judge, necessarily becomes embroiled in a running, bitter controversy. No one so cruelly slandered is likely to maintain that calm detachment necessary for fair adjudication.” Id., at 465.
Again, the Court considered the specific circumstances presented by the case. It noted that “not every attack on a judge... disqualifies him from sitting.” Ibid. The Court distinguished the case from Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U. S. 575 (1964), in which the Court had “ruled that a lawyer’s challenge, though ‘disruptive, recalcitrant and disagreeable commentary,’ was still not ‘an insulting attack upon the integrity of the judge carrying such potential for bias as to require disqualification.’” Mayberry, supra, at 465-466 (quoting Ungar, supra, at 584). The inquiry is an objective one. The Court asks not whether the judge.is actually, subjectively biased, but whether the average judge in his position is “likely” to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional “potential for bias.”
Ill
Based on the principles described in these cases we turn to the issue before us. This problem arises in the context of judicial elections, a framework not presented in the precedents we have reviewed and discussed.
Caperton contends that Blankenship’s pivotal role in getting Justice Benjamin elected created a constitutionally intolerable probability of actual bias. Though not a bribe or criminal influence, Justice Benjamin would nevertheless feel a debt of gratitude to Blankenship for his extraordinary efforts to get him elected. That temptation, Caperton claims, is as strong and inherent in human nature as was the conflict the Court confronted in Turney and Monroeville when a mayor-judge (or the city) benefited financially from a defendant’s conviction, as well as the conflict identified in Murchison and Mayberry when a judge was the object of a defendant’s contempt.
Justice Benjamin was careful to address the recusal motions and explain his reasons why, on his view of the controlling standard, disqualification was not in order. In four separate opinions issued during the course of the appeal, he explained why no actual bias had been established. He found no basis for recusal because Caperton failed to provide “objective evidence” or “objective information,” but merely “subjective belief” of bias. App. 336a, 337a-338a, 444a-445a. Nor could anyone “point to any actual conduct or activity on [his] part which could be termed ‘improper.’” 223 W. Va., at 694, 679 S. E. 2d, at 293. In other words, based on the facts presented by Caperton, Justice Benjamin conducted a probing search into his actual motives and inclinations; and he found none to be improper. We do not question his subjective findings of impartiality and propriety. Nor do we determine whether there was actual bias.
Following accepted principles of our legal tradition respecting the proper performance of judicial functions, judges often inquire into their subjective motives and purposes in the ordinary course of deciding a case. This does not mean the inquiry is a simple one. “The work of deciding cases goes on every day in hundreds of courts throughout the land. Any judge, one might suppose, would find it easy to describe the process which he had followed a thousand times and more. Nothing could be farther from the truth.” B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 9 (1921).
The judge inquires into reasons that seem to be leading to a particular result. Precedent and stare decisis and the text and purpose of the law and the Constitution; logic and scholarship and experience and common sense; and fairness and disinterest and neutrality are among the factors at work. To bring coherence to the process, and to seek respect for the resulting judgment, judges often explain the reasons for their conclusions and rulings. There are instances when the introspection that often attends this process may reveal that what the judge had assumed to be a proper, controlling factor is not the real one at work. If the judge discovers that some personal bias or improper consideration seems to be the actuating cause of the decision or to be an influence so difficult to dispel that there is a real possibility of undermining neutrality, the judge may think it necessary to consider withdrawing from the case.
The difficulties of inquiring into actual bias, and the fact that the inquiry is often a private one, simply underscore the need for objective rules. Otherwise there may be no adequate protection against a judge who simply misreads or misapprehends the real motives at work in deciding the case. The judge’s own inquiry into actual bias, then, is not one that the law can easily superintend or review, though actual bias, if disclosed, no doubt would be grounds for appropriate relief. In lieu of exclusive reliance on that personal inquiry, or on appellate review of the judge’s determination respecting actual bias, the Due Process Clause has been implemented by objective standards that do not require proof of actual bias. See Turney, 273 U. S., at 532; Mayberry, supra, at 465-466; Lavoie, 475 U. S., at 825. In defining these standards the Court has asked whether, “under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness,” the interest “poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.” Withrow, 421 U. S., at 47.
We turn to the influence at issue in this case. Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s recusal, but this is an exceptional case. Cf. Mayberry, 400 U. S., at 465 (“It is, of course, not every attack on a judge that disqualifies him from sitting”); Lavoie, supra, at 825-826 (some pecuniary interests are “‘too remote and insubstantial’”). We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias — based on objective and reasonable perceptions — when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge’s election campaign when the case was pending or imminent. The inquiry centers on the contribution’s relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election.
Applying this principle, we conclude that Blankenship’s campaign efforts had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing Justice Benjamin on the case. Blankenship contributed some $3 million to unseat the incumbent and replace him with Benjamin. His contributions eclipsed the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and exceeded by 300% the amount spent by Benjamin’s campaign committee. App. 288a. Caperton claims Blankenship spent $1 million more than the total amount spent by the campaign committees of both candidates combined. Brief for Petitioners 28.
Massey responds that Blankenship’s support, while significant, did not cause Benjamin’s victory. In the end the people of West Virginia elected him, and they did so based on many reasons other than Blankenship’s efforts. Massey points out that every major state newspaper, but one, endorsed Benjamin. Brief for Respondents 54. It also contends that then-Justice McGraw cost himself the election by giving a speech during the campaign, a speech the opposition seized upon for its own advantage. Ibid.
Justice Benjamin raised similar arguments. He asserted that “the outcome of the 2004 election was due primarily to [his own] campaign’s message,” as well as McGraw’s “devastating] ” speech in which he “made a number of controversial claims which became a matter of statewide discussion in the media, on the internet, and elsewhere.” 223 W. Va., at 701, and n. 29, 679 S. E. 2d, at 300, and n. 29; see also id., at 702-703, and nn. 35-39, 679 S. E. 2d, at 301-302, and nn. 35-39.
Whether Blankenship’s campaign contributions were a necessary and sufficient cause of Benjamin’s victory is not the proper inquiry. Much like determining whether a judge is actually biased, proving what ultimately drives the electorate to choose a particular candidate is a difficult endeavor, not likely to lend itself to a certain conclusion. This is particularly true where, as here, there is no procedure for judicial factfinding and the sole trier of fact is the one accused of bias. Due process requires an objective inquiry into whether the contributor’s influence on the election under all the circumstances “would offer a possible temptation to the average... judge to... lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true.” Tumey, supra, at 532. In an election decided by fewer than 50,000 votes (382, 036 to 334, 301), see 223 W. Va., at 702, 679 S. E. 2d, at 301, Blankenship’s campaign contributions — in comparison to the total amount contributed to the campaign, as well as the total amount spent in the election — had a significant and disproportionate influence on the electoral outcome. And the risk that Blankenship’s influence engendered actual bias is sufficiently substantial that it “must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.” Withrow, supra, at 47.
The temporal relationship between the campaign contributions, the justice’s election, and the pendency of the case is also critical. It wras reasonably foreseeable, when the campaign contributions were made, that the pending case would be before the newly elected justice. The $50 million adverse jury verdict had been entered before the election, and the Supreme Court of Appeals was the next step once the state trial court dealt with post-trial motions. So it became at once apparent that, absent recusal, Justice Benjamin would review a judgment that cost his biggest donor’s company $50 million. Although there is no allegation of a quid pro quo agreement, the fact remains that Blankenship’s extraordinary contributions were made at a time when he had a vested stake in the outcome. Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when — without the consent of the other parties — a man chooses the judge in his own cause. And applying this principle to the judicial election process, there was here a serious, objective risk of actual bias that required Justice Benjamin’s recusal.
Justice Benjamin did undertake an extensive search for actual bias. But, as we have indicated, that is just one step in the judicial process; objective standards may also require recusal whether or not actual bias exists or can be proved. Due process “may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties.” Murchison, 349 U. S., at 136. The failure to consider objective standards requiring recusal is not consistent with the imperatives of due process. We find that Blankenship’s significant and disproportionate influence — coupled with the temporal relationship between the election and the pending case— “ ‘ “offer[s] a possible temptation to the average... judge to... lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true.” ’ ” Lavoie, 475 U. S., at 825 (quoting Monroeville, 409 U. S., at 60, in turn quoting Tumey, 273 U. S., at 532). On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level.
IV
Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal. Massey and its amici predict that various adverse consequences will follow from recognizing a constitutional violation here — ranging from a flood of recusal motions to unnecessary interference with judicial elections. We disagree. The facts now before us are extreme by any measure. The parties point to no other instance involving judicial campaign contributions that presents a potential for bias comparable to the circumstances in this case.
It is true that extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles, and sometimes no administrable standard may be available to address the perceived wrong. But it is also true that extreme cases are more likely to cross constitutional limits, requiring this Court’s intervention and formulation of objective standards. This is particularly true when due process is violated. See, e. g., County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 846-847 (1998) (reiterating the due process prohibition on "executive abuse of power... which shocks the conscience”); id., at 858 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (explaining that "objective considerations, including history and precedent, are the controlling principle” of this due process standard).
This Court’s recusal cases are illustrative. In each case the Court dealt with extreme facts that created an unconstitutional probability of bias that “ ‘cannot be defined with precision.’” Lavoie, supra, at 822 (quoting Murchison, supra, at 136). Yet the Court articulated an objective standard to protect the parties’ basic right to a fair trial in a fair tribunal. The Court was careful to distinguish the extreme facts of the cases before it from those interests that would not rise to a constitutional level. See, e. g., Lavoie, supra, at 825-826; Mayberry, 400 U. S., at 465-466; Murchison, supra, at 137; see also Part II, supra. In this case we do nothing more than what the Court has done before.
As such, it is worth noting the effects, or lack thereof, of the Court’s prior decisions. Even though the standards announced in those cases raised questions similar to those that might be asked after our decision today, the Court was not flooded with Monroeville or Murchison motions. That is perhaps due in part to the extreme facts those standards sought to address. Courts proved quite capable of applying the standards to less extreme situations.
One must also take into account the judicial reforms the States have implemented to eliminate even the appearance of partiality. Almost every State — West Virginia included — has adopted the American Bar Association’s objective standard: “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” ABA Annotated Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 (2004); see Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 14, and n. 29. The ABA Model Code’s test for appearance of impropriety is “whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.” Canon 2A, Commentary; see also W. Va. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2A, and Commentary (2009) (same).
The West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct also requires a judge to “disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Canon SE(1); see also 28 U. S. C. § 455(a) (“Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”). Under Canon 3E(1), “‘[t]he question of disqualification focuses on whether an objective assessment of the judge’s conduct produces a reasonable question about impartiality, not on the judge’s subjective perception of the ability to act fairly.’” State ex rel. Brown v. Dietrick, 191 W. Va. 169, 174, n. 9, 444 S. E. 2d 47, 52, n. 9 (1994); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U. S. 540, 558 (199
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.
Per Curiam.
In 1958 respondent was tried and convicted in Middle-sex Superior Court, Massachusetts, for armed robbery of a bank and related offenses. He appealed, and in 1961 his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, sub nom. Commonwealth v. Binkiewicz, 342 Mass. 740, 175 N. E. 2d 473.
Respondent eventually filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal District Court. Testimony was taken by the District Court on December 30, 1965. It ruled that respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the entry into his apartment, by his arrest, and by the search and seizure of certain articles in his apartment which were introduced in evidence against him. Accordingly, it set aside his conviction and ordered his release. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961). The Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the constitutional issues presented.
At the time of respondent’s trial in 1958, Massachusetts did not have an exclusionary rule for evidence obtained by an illegal search or seizure, Commonwealth v. Wilkins, 243 Mass. 356, 138 N. E. 11 (1923); Commonwealth v. Spofford, 343 Mass. 703, 706, 180 N. E. 2d 673, 675 (1962), and the parties did not focus upon the issues now before us. The evidentiary hearing in 1965 took place almost eight years after the events.
After oral argument and study of the record, we have reached the conclusion that the record is not sufficiently clear and specific to permit decision of the important constitutional questions involved in this case. The writ is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted. Cf. Smith v. Mississippi, 373 U. S. 238 (1963).
Dismissed.
252 F. Supp. 851 (D. C. Mass. 1966).
368 F. 2d 142 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1966).
386 U. S. 931 (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.
Per Curiam.
This decision supplements Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U. S. 647 (1978), decided last Term. Respondents in Elkins represented a class of nonimmigrant alien residents of Maryland who either held or were financially dependent upon a person who held a “G-4 visa/’ that is, a nonimmigrant visa granted to “officers, or employees of . . . international organizations, and the members of their immediate families” pursuant to 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (a)(15)(G)(iv). Respondents were not granted “in-state” status for tuition purposes at the University of Maryland because they were conclusively presumed by the University to be nondomiciliaries of the State. Respondents brought suit against the University and its President, alleging that the University’s failure to grant respondents in-state status violated various federal laws, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supremacy Clause. The District Court held for respondents on the ground that the University’s procedures for determining in-state status violated principles established in Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441 (1973), and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Moreno v. University of Maryland, 420 F. Supp. 541 (Md. 1976), affirmance order, 556 F. 2d 573 (CA4 1977).
In Elkins v. Moreno, supra, we held that “[bjecause petitioner makes domicile the ‘paramount’ policy consideration and because respondents’ contention is that they can be domiciled in Maryland but are conclusively presumed to be unable to do so, this case is squarely within Vlandis as limited by Salfi to those situations in which a State ‘purport [s] to be concerned with [domicile, but] at the same time den[ies] to one seeking to meet its test of [domicile] the opportunity to show factors clearly bearing on that issue.’ Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. [749,] 771 [1975].” 435 U. S., at 660. Since the applicability of Vlandis depended on whether respondents could in fact become Maryland domicili-arles, we certified, pursuant to Subtit. 6 of Tit. 12 of the Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code (1974), the following question to the Maryland Court of Appeals:
“Are persons residing in Maryland who hold or are named in a visa under 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (a) (15) (G) (iv) (1976 ed.), or who are financially dependent upon a person holding or named in such a visa, incapable as a matter of state law of becoming domiciliaries of Maryland?” Elkins v. Moreno, supra, at 668-669.
On June 23, 1978, approximately two months after the decision in Elkins the Board of Regents of the University of Maryland unanimously adopted “A Resolution Clarifying the Purposes, Meaning, and Application of the Policy of the University of Maryland for Determination of In-State Status for Admission, Tuition, and Charge-Differential Purposes, Insofar as It Denies In-State Status to Nonimmigrant Aliens.” In this resolution, the Board of Regents stated, inter alia:
“Purposes and Interests of In-State Policy. The Board of Regents finds and declares that the policy approved on September 21, 1973, insofar as it denies in-state status to nonimmigrant aliens, serves a number of substantial purposes and interests, whether or not it conforms to the generally or otherwise applicable definition of domicile under the Maryland common law, including but not limited to:
“(a) limiting the University’s expenditures by granting a higher subsidy toward the expenses of providing educational services to that class of persons who, as a class, are more likely to have a close affinity to the State and to contribute more to its economic well-being;
“(b) achieving equalization between the affected classes of the expenses of providing educational services;
“(c) efficiently administering the University’s in-state determination and appeals process; and
“(d) preventing disparate treatment among categories of nonimmigrants with respect to admissions, tuition, and charge-differentials.
“Reaffirmation of In-State Policy. Regardless of whether or not the policy approved by the Board of Regents on September 21, 1973, conforms with the generally or otherwise applicable definition of domicile under the Maryland common law, the Board of Regents reaffirms that policy because it intends and deems it to serve a number of substantial purposes and interests, including but not limited to those set forth above.”
On February 21, 1979, the Maryland Court of Appeals unanimously answered our certified question in the negative, stating that “[s]ince nothing in the general Maryland law of domicile renders G-4 visa holders, or their dependents, incapable of becoming domiciled in this State, the answer to the certified question is ‘No.’ ” Toll v. Moreno, 284 Md. 425, 444, 397 A. 2d 1009, 1019. The Maryland Court of Appeals also declined to consider the implications of the Board of Regents’ clarifying resolution, because, although the resolution represented a change of the University’s position, the implications of that change were beyond the scope of the certified question. Id., at 436-437, 397 A. 2d, at 1014-1015.
The Attorney General of Maryland now requests that this case “be restored to the Supreme Court’s active docket for further briefing and argument . . . .” We must deny this request because the Board of Regents’ clarifying resolution has fundamentally altered the posture of the case. Our decision in Elkins rests on the premise that “the University apparently has no interest in continuing to deny in-state status to G-4 aliens as a class if they can become Maryland domiciliarles since it has indicated both here and in the District Court that it would redraft its policy To accommodate’ G-4 aliens were the Maryland courts to hold that G-4 aliens can” acquire such domicile. 435 U. S., at 661. After the clarifying resolution, this premise no longer appears to be true. And if domicile is not the “paramount” policy consideration of the University, this case is no longer “squarely within Vlandis as limited by Salfi . . . Id., at 660. The clarifying resolution thus raises new issues of constitutional law which should be addressed in the first instance by the District Court. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the District Court for further consideration in light of our opinion and judgment in Elkins, the opinion and judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals in Toll, and the Board of Regents’ clarifying resolution of June 23, 1978.
So ordered.
The order certifying the question to the Maryland Court of Appeals was dated April 25, 1978.
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner city of Dallas adopted an ordinance restricting admission to certain dance halls to persons between the ages of 14 and 18. Respondent, the owner of one of these “teenage” dance halls, sued to contest the constitutional validity of the ordinance. The Texas Court of Appeals held that the ordinance violated the First Amendment right of persons between the ages of 14 and 18 to associate with persons outside that age group. We now reverse, holding that the First Amendment secures no such right.
In 1985, in response to requests for dance halls open only to teenagers, the city of Dallas authorized the licensing of “Class E” dance halls. The purpose of the ordinance was to provide a place where teenagers could socialize with each other, but not be subject to the potentially detrimental influences of older teenagers and young adults. The provision of the ordinance at issue here, Dallas City Code § 14-8.1 (1985), restricts the ages of admission to Class E dance halls to persons between the ages of 14 and 18. This provision, as enacted, restricted admission to those between 14 and 17, but it was subsequently amended to include 18-year-olds. Parents, guardians, law enforcement, and dance-hall personnel are excepted from the ordinance’s age restriction. The ordinance also limits the hours of operation of Class E dance halls to between 1 p.m. and midnight daily when school is not in session. § 14 — 5(d)(2).
Respondent operates the Twilight Skating Rink in Dallas and obtained a license for a Class E dance hall. He divided the floor of his roller-skating rink into two sections with moveable plastic cones or pylons. On one side of the pylons, persons between the ages of 14 and 18 dance, while on the other side, persons of all ages skate to the same music — usually soul and “funk” music played by a disc jockey. No age or hour restrictions are applicable to the skating rink. Respondent does not serve alcohol on the premises, and security personnel are present. The Twilight does not have a selective admissions policy. It charges between $3.50 and $5 per person for admission to the dance hall and between $2.50 and $5 per person for admission to the skating rink. Most of the patrons are strangers to each other, and the establishment serves as many as 1,000 customers per night.
Respondent sued in the District Court of Dallas County to enjoin enforcement of the age and hour restrictions of the ordinance. He contended that the ordinance violated substantive due process and equal protection under the United States and Texas Constitutions, and that it unconstitutionally infringed the rights of persons between the ages of 14 and 17 (now 18) to associate with persons outside that age bracket. The trial court upheld the ordinance, finding that it was rationally related to the city’s legitimate interest in ensuring the safety and welfare of children.
The Texas Court of Appeals upheld the ordinance’s time restriction, but it struck down the age restriction. 744 S. W. 2d 165 (1987). The Court of Appeals held that the age restriction violated the First Amendment associational rights of minors. To support a restriction on the fundamental right of “social association,” the court said that “the legislative body must show a compelling interest,” and the regulation “must be accomplished by the least restrictive means.” Id., at 168. The court recognized the city’s interest in “protecting] minors from detrimental, corrupting influences,” ibid., but held that the “City’s stated purposes . . . may be achieved in ways that are less intrusive on minors’ freedom to associate,” id., at 169. The Court of Appeals stated that “[a] child’s right of association may not be abridged simply on the premise that he ‘might’ associate with those who would persuade him into bad habits,” and that “neither the activity of dancing per se, nor association of children aged fourteen through eighteen with persons of other ages in the context of dancing renders such children peculiarly vulnerable to the evils that defendant City seeks to prevent.” Ibid. We granted certiorari, 488 U. S. 815 (1988), and now reverse.
The dispositive question in this case is the level of judicial “scrutiny” to be applied to the city’s ordinance. Unless laws “create suspect classifications or impinge upon constitutionally protected rights,” San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 40 (1973), it need only be shown that they bear “some rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose,” id., at 44. Respondent does not contend that dance-hall patrons are a “suspect classification,” but he does urge that the ordinance in question interferes with associational rights of such patrons guaranteed by the First Amendment.
While the First Amendment does not in terms protect a “right of association,” our cases have recognized that it embraces such a right in certain circumstances. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609 (1984), we noted two different sorts of “freedom of association” that are protected by the United States Constitution:
“Our decisions have referred to constitutionally protected ‘freedom of association’ in two distinct senses. In one line of decisions, the Court has concluded that choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships must be secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme. In this respect, freedom of association receives protection as a fundamental element of personal liberty. In another set of decisions, the Court has recognized a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment — speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion.” Id., at 617-618.
It is clear beyond cavil that dance-hall patrons, who may number 1,000 on any given night, are not engaged in the sort of “intimate human relationships” referred to in Roberts. The Texas Court of Appeals, however, thought that such patrons were engaged in a form of expressive activity that was protected by the First Amendment. We disagree.
The Dallas ordinance restricts attendance at Class E dance halls to minors between the ages of 14 and 18 and certain excepted adults. It thus limits the minors’ ability to dance with adults who may not attend, and it limits the opportunity of such adults to dance with minors. These opportunities might be described as “associational” in common parlance, but they simply do not involve the sort of expressive association that the First Amendment has been held to protect. The hundreds of teenagers who congregate each night at this particular dance hall are not members of any organized association; they are patrons of the same business establishment. Most are strangers to one another, and the dance hall admits all who are willing to pay the admission fee. There is no suggestion that these patrons “take positions on public questions” or perform any of the other similar activities described in Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U. S. 537, 548 (1987).
The cases cited in Roberts recognize that “freedom of speech” means more than simply the right to talk and to write. It is possible to find some kernel of expression in almost every activity a person undertakes — for example, walking down the street or meeting one’s friends at a shopping mall — but such a kernel is not sufficient to bring the activity within the protection of the First Amendment. We think the activity of these dance-hall patrons — coming together to engage in recreational dancing — is not protected by the First Amendment. Thus this activity qualifies neither as a form of “intimate association” nor as a form of “expressive association” as those terms were described in Roberts.
Unlike the Court of Appeals, we do not think the Constitution recognizes a generalized right of “social association” that includes chance encounters in dance halls. The Court of Appeals relied, mistakenly we think, on a statement from our opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 483 (1965), that “[t]he right to freely associate is not limited to ‘political’ assemblies, but includes those that ‘pertain to the social, legal, and economic benefit’ of our citizens.” 744 S. W. 2d, at 168, quoting Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, at 483. But the quoted language from Griswold recognizes nothing more than that the right of expressive association extends to groups organized to engage in speech that does not pertain directly to politics.
The Dallas ordinance, therefore, implicates no suspect class and impinges on no constitutionally protected right. The question remaining is whether the classification engaged in by the city survives “rational-basis” scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The city has chosen to impose a rule that separates 14- to 18-year-olds from what may be the corrupting influences of older teenagers and young adults. Ray Couch, an urban planner for the city’s Department of Planning and Development, testified:
“ ‘[0]lder kids [whom the ordinance prohibits from entering Class E dance halls] can access drugs and alcohol, and they have more mature sexual attitudes, more liberal sexual attitudes in general. . . . And we’re concerned about mixing up these [older] individuals with youngsters that [sic] have not fully matured.’” 744 S. W. 2d, at 168, n. 3.
A Dallas police officer, Wesley Michael, testified that the age restriction was intended to discourage juvenile crime.
Respondent claims that this restriction “has no real connection with the City’s stated interests and objectives.” Brief for Respondent 13. Except for saloons and teenage dance halls, respondent argues, teenagers and adults in Dallas may associate with each other, including at the skating area of the Twilight Skating Rink. Id., at 14. Respondent also states, as did the court below, that the city can achieve its objectives through increased supervision, education, and prosecution of those who corrupt minors. Id., at 15.
We think respondent’s arguments misapprehend the nature of rational-basis scrutiny, which is the most relaxed and tolerant form of judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. In Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970), in rejecting the claim that Maryland welfare legislation violated the Equal Protection Clause, the Court said:
“[A] State does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’ Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78.
‘The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific.’ Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 69-70. . . .
“. . . [The rational-basis standard] is true to the principle that the Fourteenth Amendment gives the federal courts no power to impose upon the States their views of what constitutes wise economic or social policy.” Id., at 485-486 (footnote omitted).
We think that similar considerations support the age restriction at issue here. As we said in New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297, 303-304 (1976): “[I]n the local economic sphere, it is only the invidious discrimination, the wholly arbitrary act, which cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.” See also United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U. S. 166, 177 (1980). The city could reasonably conclude, as Couch stated, that teenagers might be susceptible to corrupting influences if permitted, unaccompanied by their parents, to frequent a dance hall with older persons. See 7 E. McQuillin, Law of Municipal Corporations §24.210 (3d ed. 1981) (“Public dance halls have been regarded as being in that category of businesses and vocations having potential evil consequences”). The city could properly conclude that limiting dance-hall contacts between juveniles and adults would make less likely illicit or undesirable juvenile involvement with alcohol, illegal drugs, and promiscuous sex. It is true that the city allows teenagers and adults to roller-skate together, but skating involves less physical contact than dancing. The differences between the two activities may not be striking, but differentiation need not be striking in order to survive rational-basis scrutiny.
We hold that the Dallas ordinance does not infringe on any constitutionally protected right of association, and that a rational relationship exists between the age restriction for Class E dance halls and the city’s interest in promoting the welfare of teenagers. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Dallas also licenses Class A, B, and C dance halls, which differ in the number of days per week dancing is permitted; Class D is for dance instruction. Persons under 17 must be accompanied by a parent for admission to Class A, B, and C dance halls. Dallas City Code §§ 14-1, 14-8 (1985-1986). A dance-hall license is not needed if the dance is at any of the following locations: a private residence from which the general public is excluded; a place owned by the federal, state, or local government; a public or private elementary school, secondary school, college, or university; a place owned by a religious organization; or a private club. Ibid.
Section 14-8.1 of the Dallas City Code provides:
“(a) No person under the age of 14 years or over the age of 18 years may enter a Class E dance hall.
“(b) A person commits an offense if he is over the age of 18 years and:
“(1) enters a Class E dance hall; or
“(2) for the purposes of gaining admittance into a Class E dance hall, he falsely represents himself to be:
“(A) of an age from 14 years through 18 years;
“(B) a licensee or an employee of the dance hall;
“(C) a parent or guardian of a person inside the dance hall;
“(D) a governmental employee in the performance of his duties.
“(c) A licensee or an employee of a Class E dance hall commits an offense if he knowingly allows a person to enter or remain on the premises of a dance hall who is:
“(1) under the age of 14 years; or
“(2) over the age of 18 years.
“(d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (b)(1) and (c)(2) that the person is:
“(1) a licensee or employee of a dance hall;
“(2) a parent or guardian of a person inside the dance hall; or
“(3) a governmental employee in the performance of his duties.”
The Court of Appeals held that respondent had standing to assert the associational rights of the teenage patrons of his establishment. 744 S. W. 2d 165, 168 (1987). That issue has not been raised before us.
The Court considered similar factors in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944), where it upheld, over claims of infringement on religious freedom and equal protection, a statute prohibiting children under 12 from selling newspapers on the street. After noting that the statute would have been invalid if applied to adults, the Court said:
“The state’s authority over children’s activities is broader than over like actions of adults. This is peculiarly true of public activities and in matters of employment. . . . Among evils most appropriate for such action are the crippling effects of child employment, more especially in public places, and the possible harms arising from other activities subject to all the diverse influences of the street. It is too late now to doubt that legislation appropriately designed to reach such evils is within the state’s police power.” Id., at 168-169 (footnotes omitted).
See also Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U. S. 622, 635 (1979) (plurality opinion), quoting McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U. S. 528, 550 (plurality opinion) (“State is entitled to adjust its legal system to account for children’s vulnerability and their need for ‘concern, . . . sympathy, and . . . paternal attention’ ”); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968) (upholding right of State to prohibit sale of “girlie” magazines to minors).'
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 BREYERdelivered the opinion of the Court.
In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 99 S.Ct. 1182, 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979), this Court held that one State (here, Nevada) can open the doors of its courts to a private citizen's lawsuit against another State (here, California) without the other State's consent. In this case, a private citizen, a resident of Nevada, has brought a suit in Nevada's courts against the Franchise Tax Board of California, an agency of the State of California. The board has asked us to overrule Hall and hold that the Nevada courts lack jurisdiction to hear this lawsuit. The Court is equally divided on this question, and we consequently affirm the Nevada courts' exercise of jurisdiction over California. See, e.g., Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 484, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 171 L.Ed.2d 570 (2008)(citing Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107, 112, 19 L.Ed. 154 (1869)).
California also asks us to reverse the Nevada court's decision insofar as it awards the private citizen greater damages than Nevada law would permit a private citizen to obtain in a similar suit against Nevada's own agencies. We agree that Nevada's application of its damages law in this case reflects a special, and constitutionally forbidden, " 'policy of hostility to the public Acts' of a sister State," namely, California. U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 1(Full Faith and Credit Clause); Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488, 499, 123 S.Ct. 1683, 155 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003)(quoting Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408, 413, 75 S.Ct. 804, 99 L.Ed. 1183 (1955)). We set aside the Nevada Supreme Court's decision accordingly.
I
Gilbert P. Hyatt, the respondent here, moved from California to Nevada in the early 1990's. He says that he moved to Nevada in September 1991. California's Franchise Tax Board, however, after an investigation and tax audit, claimed that Hyatt moved to Nevada later, in April 1992, and that he consequently owed California more than $10 million in taxes, associated penalties, and interest.
Hyatt filed this lawsuit in Nevada state court against California's Franchise Tax Board, a California state agency. Hyatt sought damages for what he considered the board's abusive audit and investigation practices, including rifling through his private mail, combing through his garbage, and examining private activities at his place of worship. See App. 213-245, 267-268.
California recognized that, under Hall, the Constitution permits Nevada's courts to assert jurisdiction over California despite California's lack of consent. California nonetheless asked the Nevada courts to dismiss the case on other constitutional grounds. California law, it pointed out, provided state agencies with immunity from lawsuits based upon actions taken during the course of collecting taxes. Cal. Govt.Code Ann. § 860.2 (West 1995); see also § 860.2 (West 2012). It argued that the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause required Nevada to apply California's sovereign immunity law to Hyatt's case. Nevada's Supreme Court, however, rejected California's claim. It held that Nevada's courts, as a matter of comity, would immunize California where Nevada law would similarly immunize its own agencies and officials (e.g., for actions taken in the performance of a "discretionary" function), but they would not immunize California where Nevada law permitted actions against Nevada agencies, say, for acts taken in bad faith or for intentional torts. App. to Pet. for Cert. in Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, O.T. 2002, No. 42, p. 12. We reviewed that decision, and we affirmed. Franchise Tax Bd., supra, at 499, 123 S.Ct. 1683.
On remand, the case went to trial. A jury found in Hyatt's favor and awarded him close to $500 million in damages (both compensatory and punitive) and fees (including attorney's fees). California appealed. It argued that the trial court had not properly followed the Nevada Supreme Court's earlier decision. California explained that in a similar suit against similar Nevada officials, Nevada statutory law would limit damages to $50,000, and it argued that the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause required Nevada to limit damages similarly here.
The Nevada Supreme Court accepted the premise that Nevada statutes would impose a $50,000 limit in a similar suit against its own officials. See 130 Nev. ----, ----, 335 P.3d 125, 145-146 (2014); see also Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.035(1)(1995). But the court rejected California's conclusion. Instead, while setting aside much of the damages award, it nonetheless affirmed $1 million of the award (earmarked as compensation for fraud), and it remanded for a retrial on the question of damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In doing so, it stated that "damages awarded on remand ... are not subject to any statutory cap." 130 Nev., at ----, 335 P.3d, at 153. The Nevada Supreme Court explained its holding by stating that California's efforts to control the actions of its own agencies were inadequate as applied to Nevada's own citizens. Hence, Nevada's "policy interest in providing adequate redress to Nevada's citizens [wa]s paramount to providing [California] a statutory cap on damages under comity." Id., at ----, 335 P.3d, at 147.
California petitioned for certiorari. We agreed to decide two questions. First, whether to overrule Hall . And, second, if we did not do so, whether the Constitution permits Nevada to award Hyatt damages against a California state agency that are greater than those that Nevada would award in a similar suit against its own state agencies.
II
In light of our 4-to-4 affirmance of Nevada's exercise of jurisdiction over California's state agency, we must consider the second question: Whether the Constitution permits Nevada to award damages against California agencies under Nevada law that are greater than it could award against Nevada agencies in similar circumstances. We conclude that it does not. The Nevada Supreme Court has ignored both Nevada's typical rules of immunity and California's immunity-related statutes (insofar as California's statutes would prohibit a monetary recovery that is greater in amount than the maximum recovery that Nevada law would permit in similar circumstances). Instead, it has applied a special rule of law that evinces a " 'policy of hostility' " toward California. Franchise Tax Bd., supra, at 499, 123 S.Ct. 1683(quoting Carroll v. Lanza, supra, at 413, 75 S.Ct. 804). Doing so violates the Constitution's requirement that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Art. IV, § 1.
The Court's precedents strongly support this conclusion. A statute is a "public Act" within the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. See, e.g., Carroll v. Lanza, supra, at 411, 75 S.Ct. 804; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1738(referring to "[t]he Acts of the legislature" in the full faith and credit context). We have said that the Clause "does not require a State to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the statute of another State reflecting a conflicting and opposed policy." Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S., at 412, 75 S.Ct. 804. But when affirming a State's decision to decline to apply another State's statute on this ground, we have consistently emphasized that the State had "not adopt[ed] any policy of hostility to the public Acts" of that other State. Id., at 413, 75 S.Ct. 804.
In Carroll v. Lanza, the Court considered a negligence action brought by a Missouri worker in Arkansas' courts. We held that the Arkansas courts need not apply a time limitation contained in Missouri's (but not in Arkansas') workman's compensation law. Id ., at 413-414, 75 S.Ct. 804. In doing so, we emphasized both that (1) Missouri law (compared with Arkansas law) embodied "a conflicting and opposed policy," and (2) Arkansas law did not embody "any policy of hostility to the public Acts of Missouri." Id., at 412-413, 75 S.Ct. 804. This second requirement was well established in earlier law. See, e.g., Broderick v. Rosner, 294 U.S. 629, 642-643, 55 S.Ct. 589, 79 L.Ed. 1100 (1935)(New Jersey may not enforce a jurisdictional statute that would permit enforcement of certain claims under New Jersey law but "deny the enforcement" of similar, valid claims under New York law); Hughes v. Fetter, 341 U.S. 609, 611-612, 71 S.Ct. 980, 95 L.Ed. 1212 (1951)(invalidating a Wisconsin statute that "close[d] the doors of its courts" to an Illinois cause of action while permitting adjudication of similar Wisconsin claims).
We followed this same approach when we considered the litigation now before us for the first time. See Franchise Tax Bd., 538 U.S., at 498-499, 123 S.Ct. 1683. Nevada had permitted Hyatt to sue California in Nevada courts. See id., at 497, 123 S.Ct. 1683(citing Hall, 440 U.S., at 414-421, 99 S.Ct. 1182). Nevada's courts recognized that California's law of complete immunity would prevent any recovery in this case. The Nevada Supreme Court consequently did not apply California law. It applied Nevada law instead. We upheld that decision as consistent with the Full Faith and Credit Clause. But in doing so, we emphasized both that (1) the Clause does not require one State to apply another State's law that violates its "own legitimate public policy," Franchise Tax Bd., supra, at 497-498, 123 S.Ct. 1683(citing Hall, supra, at 424, 99 S.Ct. 1182), and (2) Nevada's choice of law did not "exhibi[t] a 'policy of hostility to the public Acts' of a sister State." Franchise Tax Bd., supra, at 499, 123 S.Ct. 1683(quoting Carroll v. Lanza, supra, at 413, 75 S.Ct. 804). Rather, Nevada had evinced "a healthy regard for California's sovereign status," we said, by "relying on the contours of Nevada's own sovereign immunity from suit as a benchmark for its analysis." Franchise Tax Bd., supra, at 499, 123 S.Ct. 1683.
The Nevada decision before us embodies a critical departure from its earlier approach. Nevada has not applied the principles of Nevada law ordinarily applicable to suits against Nevada's own agencies. Rather, it has applied a special rule of law applicable only in lawsuits against its sister States, such as California. With respect to damages awards greater than $50,000, the ordinary principles of Nevada law do not "conflic[t]" with California law, for both laws would grant immunity. Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S., at 412, 75 S.Ct. 804. Similarly, in respect to such amounts, the "polic [ies]" underlying California law and Nevada's usual approach are not "opposed"; they are consistent. Id., at 412-413, 75 S.Ct. 804.
But that is not so in respect to Nevada's special rule. That rule, allowing damages awards greater than $50,000, is not only "opposed" to California law, ibid. ; it is also inconsistent with the general principles of Nevada immunity law, see Franchise Tax Bd., supra, at 499, 123 S.Ct. 1683. The Nevada Supreme Court explained its departure from those general principles by describing California's system of controlling its own agencies as failing to provide "adequate" recourse to Nevada's citizens. 130 Nev., at ----, 335 P.3d, at 147. It expressed concerns about the fact that California's agencies " 'operat[e] outside' " the systems of " 'legislative control, administrative oversight, and public accountability' " that Nevada applies to its own agencies. Ibid. (quoting Faulkner v. University of Tenn., 627 So.2d 362 (Ala.1992)). Such an explanation, which amounts to little more than a conclusory statement disparaging California's own legislative, judicial, and administrative controls, cannot justify the application of a special and discriminatory rule. Rather, viewed through a full faith and credit lens, a State that disregards its own ordinary legal principles on this ground is hostile to another State. A constitutional rule that would permit this kind of discriminatory hostility is likely to cause chaotic interference by some States into the internal, legislative affairs of others. Imagine, for example, that many or all States enacted such discriminatory, special laws, and justified them on the sole basis that (in their view) a sister State's law provided inadequate protection to their citizens. Would each affected sister State have to change its own laws? Entirely? Piece-by-piece, in order to respond to the new special laws enacted by every other State? It is difficult to reconcile such a system of special and discriminatory rules with the Constitution's vision of 50 individual and equally dignified States. In light of the "constitutional equality" among the States, Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 580, 31 S.Ct. 688, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911), Nevada has not offered "sufficient policy considerations" to justify the application of a special rule of Nevada law that discriminates against its sister States, Carroll v. Lanza, supra, at 413, 75 S.Ct. 804. In our view, Nevada's rule lacks the "healthy regard for California's sovereign status" that was the hallmark of its earlier decision, and it reflects a constitutionally impermissible " 'policy of hostility to the public Acts' of a sister State." Franchise Tax Bd., supra, at 499, 123 S.Ct. 1683(quoting Carroll v. Lanza, supra, at 413, 75 S.Ct. 804).
In so holding we need not, and do not, intend to return to a complex "balancing-of-interests approach to conflicts of law under the Full Faith and Credit Clause." Franchise Tax Bd., 538 U.S., at 496, 123 S.Ct. 1683. Long ago this Court's efforts to apply that kind of analysis led to results that seemed to differ depending, for example, upon whether the case involved commercial law, a shareholders' action, insurance claims, or workman's compensation statutes. See, e.g., Bradford Elec. Light Co. v. Clapper, 286 U.S. 145, 157-159, 52 S.Ct. 571, 76 L.Ed. 1026 (1932); Carroll v. Lanza, supra, at 414-420, 75 S.Ct. 804(Frankfurter, J., dissenting) (listing, and trying to classify, nearly 50 cases). We have since abandoned that approach, and we continue to recognize that a State need not " 'substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.' " Franchise Tax Bd., supra, at 496, 123 S.Ct. 1683(quoting Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493, 501, 59 S.Ct. 629, 83 L.Ed. 940 (1939)). But here, we can safely conclude that, in devising a special-and hostile-rule for California, Nevada has not "sensitively applied principles of comity with a healthy regard for California's sovereign status." Franchise Tax Bd., supra, at 499, 123 S.Ct. 1683; see Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 272, 100 S.Ct. 2647, 65 L.Ed.2d 757 (1980)(plurality opinion) (Clause seeks to prevent "parochial entrenchment on the interests of other States"); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 323, and n. 10, 101 S.Ct. 633, 66 L.Ed.2d 521 (1981)(Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (Clause is properly brought to bear when a State's choice of law "threatens the federal interest in national unity by unjustifiably infringing upon the legitimate interests of another State"); cf. Supreme Court of N.H. v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 288, 105 S.Ct. 1272, 84 L.Ed.2d 205 (1985)(Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents the New Hampshire Supreme Court from promulgating a rule that limits bar admission to state residents, discriminating against out-of-state lawyers); Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., 486 U.S. 888, 894, 108 S.Ct. 2218, 100 L.Ed.2d 896 (1988)(Commerce Clause invalidates a statute of limitations that "imposes a greater burden on out-of-state companies than it does on [in-state] companies").
For these reasons, insofar as the Nevada Supreme Court has declined to apply California law in favor of a special rule of Nevada law that is hostile to its sister States, we find its decision unconstitutional. We vacate its judgment and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice ALITOconcurs in the judgment.
Chief Justice ROBERTS, with whom Justice THOMASjoins, dissenting.
Petitioner Franchise Tax Board is the California agency that collects California's state income tax. Respondent Gilbert Hyatt, a resident of Nevada, filed suit in Nevada state court against the Board, alleging that it had committed numerous torts in the course of auditing his California tax returns. The Board is immune from such a suit in California courts. The last time this case was before us, we held that the Nevada Supreme Court could apply Nevada law to resolve the Board's claim that it was immune from suit in Nevada as well. Following our decision, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld a $1 million jury award against the Board after concluding that the Board did not enjoy immunity under Nevada law.
Today the Court shifts course. It now holds that the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires the Nevada Supreme Court to afford the Board immunity to the extent Nevada agencies are entitled to immunity under Nevada law. Because damages in a similar suit against Nevada agencies are capped at $50,000 by Nevada law, the Court concludes that damages against the Board must be capped at that level as well.
That seems fair. But, for better or worse, the word "fair" does not appear in the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court's decision is contrary to our precedent holding that the Clause does not block a State from applying its own law to redress an injury within its own borders. The opinion also departs from the text of the Clause, which-when it applies-requires a State to give full faith and credit to another State's laws. The Court instead permits partial credit: To comply with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Nevada Supreme Court need only afford the Board the same limited immunity that Nevada agencies enjoy.
I respectfully dissent.
I
In 1991 Gilbert Hyatt sold his house in California and rented an apartment, registered to vote, and opened a bank account in Nevada. When he filed his 1991 and 1992 tax returns, he claimed Nevada as his place of residence. Unlike California, Nevada has no state income tax, and the move saved Hyatt millions of dollars in California taxes. California's Franchise Tax Board was suspicious, and it initiated an audit.
In the course of the audit, employees of the Board traveled to Nevada and allegedly peered through Hyatt's windows, rummaged around in his garbage, contacted his estranged family members, and shared his personal information not only with newspapers but also with his business contacts and even his place of worship. Hyatt claims that one employee in particular had it in for him, referring to him in antisemitic terms and taking "trophy-like pictures" in front of his home after the audit. Brief for Respondent 3. As a result of the audit, the Board determined that Hyatt was a resident of California for 1991 and part of 1992, and that he accordingly owed over $10 million in unpaid state income taxes, penalties, and interest.
Hyatt protested the audit before the Board, which upheld the audit following an 11-year administrative proceeding. Hyatt is still challenging the audit in California court. In 1998, Hyatt also filed suit against the Board in Nevada state court. In that suit, which is the subject of this case, Hyatt claimed that the Board committed a variety of torts, including fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. The Board is immune from suit under California law, and it argued that Nevada was required under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to enforce California's immunity law.
When the case reached the Nevada Supreme Court, that court held, applying general principles of comity under Nevada law, that the Board was entitled to immunity for its negligent but not intentional torts-the same immunity afforded Nevada state agencies. Not satisfied, the Board pursued its claim of complete immunity to this Court, but we affirmed. We ruled that the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not prohibit Nevada from applying its own immunity law to the dispute. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488, 498-499, 123 S.Ct. 1683, 155 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003).
On remand, the trial court conducted a four-month jury trial. The jury found for Hyatt, awarding him $1 million for fraud, $52 million for invasion of privacy, $85 million for emotional distress, and $250 million in punitive damages. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court significantly reduced the award, concluding that the invasion of privacy claims failed as a matter of law. Applying principles of comity, the Nevada Supreme Court also held that because Nevada state agencies are not subject to punitive damages, the Board was not liable for the $250 million punitive damages award. The court did hold the Board responsible for the $1 million fraud judgment, however, and it remanded for a new trial on damages for the emotional distress claim. Although tort liability for Nevada state agencies was capped at $50,000 under Nevada law, the court held that it was against Nevada's public policy to apply that cap to the Board's liability for the fraud and emotional distress claims. The Board sought review by this Court, and we again granted certiorari. 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2940, 192 L.Ed.2d 975 (2015).
II
A
The Full Faith and Credit Clause provides that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 1. The purpose of the Clause "was to alter the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore obligations created under the laws or by the judicial proceedings of the others, and to make them integral parts of a single nation." Milwaukee County v. M.E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 276-277, 56 S.Ct. 229, 80 L.Ed. 220 (1935).
The Full Faith and Credit Clause applies in a straightforward fashion to state court judgments: "A judgment entered in one State must be respected in another provided that the first State had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter." Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 421, 99 S.Ct. 1182, 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979). The Clause is more difficult to apply to "public Acts," which include the laws of other States. See Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408, 411, 75 S.Ct. 804, 99 L.Ed. 1183 (1955). State courts must give full faith and credit to those laws. But what does that mean in practice?
It is clear that state courts are not always required to apply the laws of other States. State laws frequently conflict, and a "rigid and literal enforcement of the full faith and credit clause, without regard to the statute of the forum, would lead to the absurd result that, wherever the conflict arises, the statute of each state must be enforced in the courts of the other, but cannot be in its own." Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n of Cal., 294 U.S. 532, 547, 55 S.Ct. 518, 79 L.Ed. 1044 (1935). Accordingly, this Court has treated the Full Faith and Credit Clause as a "conflicts of law" provision that dictates when a State must apply the laws of another State rather than its own. Franchise Tax Bd., 538 U.S., at 496, 123 S.Ct. 1683; see also Hall, 440 U.S., at 424, 99 S.Ct. 1182(California court is not required to apply Nevada law).
Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, "it is frequently the case" that "a court can lawfully apply either the law of one State or the contrary law of another." Franchise Tax Bd., 538 U.S., at 496, 123 S.Ct. 1683(internal quotation marks omitted). As we have explained,
"the very nature of the federal union of states, to which are reserved some of the attributes of sovereignty, precludes resort to the full faith and credit clause as the means for compelling a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate." Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493, 501, 59 S.Ct. 629, 83 L.Ed. 940 (1939).
This Court has generally held that when a State chooses "to apply its own rule of law to give affirmative relief for an action arising within its borders," the Full Faith and Credit Clause is satisfied. Carroll, 349 U.S., at 413, 75 S.Ct. 804; see Hall, 440 U.S., at 424, 99 S.Ct. 1182(California court may apply California law consistent with the State's interest in "providing full protection to those who are injured on its highways" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
A State may not apply its own law, however, if doing so reflects a "policy of hostility to the public Acts" of another State. Carroll, 349 U.S., at 413, 75 S.Ct. 804. A State is considered to have adopted such a policy if it has "no sufficient policy considerations to warrant" its refusal to apply the other State's laws. Ibid. For example, when a State "seeks to exclude from its courts actions arising under a foreign statute" but permits similar actions under its own laws, the State has adopted a policy of hostility to the "public Acts" of another State. Ibid. ; see Hughes v. Fetter, 341 U.S. 609, 611-613, 71 S.Ct. 980, 95 L.Ed. 1212 (1951). In such cases, this Court has held that the forum State must open its doors and permit the plaintiff to seek relief under another State's laws. See, e.g., id., at 611, 71 S.Ct. 980("Wisconsin cannot escape [its] constitutional obligation to enforce the rights and duties validly created under the laws of other states by the simple device of removing jurisdiction from courts otherwise competent").
B
According to the Court, the Nevada Supreme Court violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause by applying "a special rule of law that evinces a policy of hostility toward California." Ante, at 1280 (internal quotation marks omitted). As long as Nevada provides immunity to its state agencies for awards above $50,000, the majority reasons, the State has no legitimate policy rationale for refusing to give similar immunity to the agencies of other States. The Court concludes that the Nevada Supreme Court is accordingly required to rewrite Nevada law to afford the Board the same immunity to which Nevada agencies are entitled. In the majority's view, that result is "strongly" supported by this Court's precedents. Ibid. I disagree.
Carroll explains that the Full Faith and Credit Clause prohibits a State from adopting a "policy of hostility to the public Acts" of another State. 349 U.S., at 413, 75 S.Ct. 804. But it does not stop there. Carroll goes on to describe what adopting a "policy of hostility" means: A State may not refuse to apply another State's law where there are "no sufficient policy considerations to warrant such refusal." Ibid. (emphasis added). Where a State chooses a different rule from a sister State in order "to give affirmative relief for an action arising within its borders," the State has a sufficient policy reason for applying its own law, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause is satisfied. Ibid.
In this case, the Nevada Supreme Court applied Nevada rather than California immunity law in order to uphold the "state's policy interest in providing adequate redress to Nevada citizens." 130 Nev. ----, ----, 335 P.3d 125, 147 (2014). This Court has long recognized that "[f]ew matters could be deemed more appropriately the concern of the state in which the injury occurs or more completely within its power" than "the bodily safety and economic protection" of people injured within its borders. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 306 U.S., at 503, 59 S.Ct. 629; see Hall, 440 U.S., at 424, 99 S.Ct. 1182. Hyatt alleges that the Board committed multiple torts, including fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See 130 Nev., at ----, 335 P.3d, at 130. Under Pacific Employers Insurance and Carroll, there is no doubt that Nevada has a "sufficient" policy interest in protecting Nevada residents from such injuries.
The majority, however, does not regard that policy interest as sufficient justification for denying the Board immunity. Despite this Court's decision to get out of the business of "appraising and balancing state interests under the Full Faith and Credit Clause," Franchise Tax Bd., 538 U.S., at 498, 123 S.Ct. 1683the majority concludes that Nevada cannot really have a state policy to protect its citizens from the kinds of torts alleged here, because the State capped its own liability at $50,000 in similar situations. See ante, at 1281 - 1283. But that fails to credit the Nevada Supreme Court's explanation for why a damages cap for Nevada state agencies is fully consistent with the State's policy of protecting its citizens.
According to the Nevada Supreme Court, Nevada law treats its own agencies differently from the agencies of other States because Nevada agencies are "subject to legislative control, administrative oversight, and public accountability" in Nevada. 130 Nev., at ----, 335 P.3d, at 147(internal quotation marks omitted). The same is not true of other litigants, such as the Board, who operate "outside such controls." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). The majority may think that Nevada is being unfair, but it cannot be said that the State failed to articulate a sufficient policy explanation for its decision to apply a damages cap to Nevada state agencies, but not to the agencies of other States.
As the Court points out, the Constitution certainly has a "vision of 50 individual and equally dignified States," ante, at 1282, which is why California remains free to adopt a policy similar to that of Nevada, should it wish to do so. See Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 567, 31 S.Ct. 688, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911)(The Union "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself"). Nevada is not, however, required to treat its sister State as equally committed to the protection of Nevada citizens.
It is true that this Court in the prior iteration of this case found no Full Faith and Credit Clause violation in part because the "Nevada Supreme Court sensitively applied principles of comity with a healthy regard for California's sovereign status, relying on the contours of Nevada's own sovereign immunity from suit as a benchmark for its analysis." Franchise Tax Bd., 538 U.S., at 499, 123 S.Ct. 1683. But the Nevada court adhered to its policy of sensitivity to comity concerns this time around as well. In deference to the Board's sovereignty, the court threw out a $250 million punitive damages award, on top of its previous decision that the Board was not liable at all for its negligent acts. That is more than a "healthy regard" for California's sovereign status.
Even if the Court is correct that Nevada violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause, however, it is wrong about the remedy. The majority concludes that in the sovereign immunity context, the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not a choice of law provision, but a create-your-own-law provision:
The Court does not require the Nevada Supreme Court to apply either Nevada law (no immunity for the Board) or California law (complete immunity for the Board), but instead requires a new hybrid rule, under which the Board enjoys partial immunity.
The majority's approach is nowhere to be found in the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Where the Clause applies, it expressly requires a State to give full faith and credit to another State's laws. If the majority is correct that Nevada has no sufficient policy justification for applying Nevada immunity law, then California law applies. And under California law, the Board is entitled to full immunity. Or, if Nevada has a sufficient policy reason to apply its own law, then Nevada law applies, and the Board is subject to full liability.
I respectfully dissent.
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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 706(k) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(k), provides in relevant part that a “court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the [Equal Employment Opportunity] Commission or the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” In this case we must determine under what circumstances § 706(k) permits a court to award attorney’s fees against in-tervenors who have not been found to have violated the Civil Rights Act or any other federal law.
I—
This controversy began in 1970 when respondents, female flight attendants of Trans World Airlines, brought this class action against TWA claiming that its policy of terminating flight attendants who became mothers constituted sex discrimination that violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. Respondents were represented by petitioner’s predecessor union, the Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Association (ALSSA). Soon after the suit was filed, TWA abandoned the challenged policy and entered into a settlement agreement with ALSSA. This agreement was approved by the District Court, but class members dissatisfied with certain of its terms appealed. Discerning a potential conflict between ALSSA’s obligations to respondents and its obligations to incumbent flight attendants, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s judgment and ordered that ALSSA be replaced as the representative of respondents’ class. Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn., Local 550, TWU, AFL-CIO v. American Air Lines, Inc., 490 F. 2d 636, 643 (CA7 1973). On remand the District Court granted summary judgment to respondents on the merits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s determination that TWA’s policy violated Title VII. In re Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings in Airline Cases, 582 F. 2d 1142, 1144 (CA7 1978). However, holding that the timely filing of charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court, the court went on to find that over 90% of the respondents’ claims were on that ground jurisdictionally barred. Id., at 1149-1150. Both parties filed petitions for certiorari; at their request we deferred consideration of the petitions pending the outcome of ongoing settlement negotiations. Sub nom. Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 442 U. S. 916 (1979). The parties again reached a settlement, in which TWA agreed to establish a $3 million fund to benefit all class members and to credit class members with full company and union “competitive” seniority from the date of termination.
At this point petitioner, which had replaced ALSSA as the collective-bargaining agent for TWA’s flight attendants, sought permission to intervene in the lawsuit on behalf of incumbent flight attendants not affected by the challenged TWA policy and flight attendants hired since TWA’s termination of respondents’ employment. Petitioner objected to the proposed settlement on two grounds: first, that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to approve equitable relief for the time-barred respondents (designated by the District Court as “Subclass B”); second, that reinstatement of respondents with full retroactive “competitive” seniority would violate the collective-bargaining agreement between petitioner’s members and TWA. The District Court permitted petitioner’s intervention but rejected its objections, approving the settlement in all respects. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn., Local 550 v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 630 F. 2d 1164 (CA7 1980). Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, raising essentially the same objections to the settlement agreement that it had pressed in the two lower courts. This Court granted the petition and consolidated it with the earlier petition filed by respondents, consideration of which had been deferred. In Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U. S. 385, 393 (1982), we agreed with respondents that the timeliness requirement of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(c), was not jurisdictional and thus that the District Court had jurisdiction to approve the settlement even as to members of Subclass B. We also rejected petitioner’s second challenge to the settlement agreement, concluding that reinstatement of all respondents with full competitive seniority was a remedy authorized by Title VII and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. 455 U. S., at 398-400.
To come, finally, to the aspect of this lengthy litigation giving rise to the issues now before us: Respondents’ attorneys petitioned the District Court for an award of attorney’s fees against petitioner under § 706(k) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(k). The District Court held that “[unsuccessful Title VII union intervenors are, like unsuccessful Title VII defendants, consistently held responsible for attorneys’ fees,” Airline Stewards and Stewardesses Assn., Local 550, TWU, AFL-CIO v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 861, 867 (ND Ill. 1986), and thus awarded respondents a total of $180,915.84 in fees against petitioner-in addition to approximately $1.25 million it had earlier awarded against TWA from the settlement fund. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed. Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 846 F. 2d 434 (1988). We granted the union’s petition for certiorari, 488 U. S. 1029 (1989).
H h — I
In Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240 (1975), this Court reaffirmed what has come to be known as the “American Rule.” Put simply, “[i]n the United States, the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable attorneys’ fee from the loser.” Id., at 247. At issue in this case is one of the congressionally created exceptions to that rule. As part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352, Tit. VII, 78 Stat. 253, Congress enacted §706(k), 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(k), which provides that a federal district court “in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the [EEOC] or the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee.” Although the text of the provision does not specify any limits upon the district courts’ discretion to allow or disallow fees, in a system of laws discretion is rarely without limits. In the case of §706(k) and other federal fee-shifting statutes, just as in the case of discretion regarding appropriate remedies, we have found limits in “the large objectives” of the relevant Act, Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 416 (1975), which embrace certain “equitable considerations,” Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412, 418 (1978). Thus, in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402 (1968), we held that under § 204(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000a-3(b), a prevailing plaintiff should “ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” We thought this constraint on district court discretion necessary to carry out Congress’ intention that individuals injured by racial discrimination act as “‘private attorney[s] general,’ vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority.” 390 U. S., at 402. See also Albemarle Paper Co., supra, at 415 (applying the Newman standard to §706(k)); Northcross v. Memphis Bd. of Education, 412 U. S. 427, 428 (1973) (applying the Newman standard to §718 of the Emergency School Aid Act, 20 U. S. C. § 1617).
Similarly, in Christiansburg Garment, supra, we held that even though the term “prevailing party” in §706(k) does not distinguish between plaintiffs and defendants, the principle of Newman would not be applied to a prevailing defendant. Unlike the Title VII plaintiff, we reasoned, the Title VII defendant is not “‘the chosen instrument of Congress,’” 434 U. S., at 418, quoting Newman, supra, at 402; and unlike the losing defendant, the losing plaintiff is not “a violator of federal law,” 434 U. S., at 418. We also rejected, however, the losing plaintiff’s argument that sound exercise of § 706(k) discretion would remand the prevailing defendant to the American Rule, providing attorney’s fees only if the plaintiff’s suit was brought in bad faith. Such an unequal disposition, we thought, “giving the private plaintiff substantial incentives to sue, while foreclosing to the defendant the possibility of recovering his expenses in resisting even a groundless action unless he can show that it was brought in bad faith,” would so “distort” the “fair adversary process” that Congress could not lightly be assumed to have intended it. Id., at 419. We thus concluded that the prevailing defendant could be awarded fees under § 706(k) against the plaintiff whose suit was brought in good faith, but only “upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation,” id., at 421.
The dissent contends that construing § 706(k) in such fashion as to allow competing rights and equities to be taken into account “ignore[s] its express language,” post, at 771, in two ways: first, because “the only party mentioned in § 706(k) is ‘the prevailing party,”’ and thus, “when a district court decides whether to award fees, it must be guided first and foremost by the interests of the prevailing party,” ibid. This seems to us something less than an “express language” argument — and also a non sequitur. To say that only the prevailing party gets fees is not to say that the prevailing party’s interests are always first and foremost in determining whether he gets them. In any case, as discussed above, we decided long ago that in some circumstances the interests of the losing party trump those of the prevailing party under §706(k), so that the latter cannot obtain fees. See Chris-tiansburg Garment, supra. The second respect in which the dissent contends we ignore the “express language” of the statute is that we fail to give effect to its “hostility to categorical rules for the award of attorney’s fees,” post, at 771, supposedly enshrined in the language that the court “in its discretion, may allow” (emphasis added) a reasonable attorney’s fee. We have already described how the law in general, and the law applied to §706(k) in particular, does not interpret a grant of discretion to eliminate all “categorical rules.” In Newman, supra, at 402, we held that in absence of special circumstances a district court not merely “may” but must award fees to the prevailing plaintiff; and in Christians-burg Garment, supra, at 421, we held that unless the plaintiff’s action is frivolous a district court cannot award fees to the prevailing Title VII defendant. The prescriptions in those cases are no less “categorical” than the rule we set forth today.
Proceeding, then, to interpret the statute in light of the competing equities that Congress normally takes into account, we conclude that district courts should similarly award Title VII attorney’s fees against losing intervenors only where the intervenors’ action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. It is of course true that the central purpose of §706(k) is to vindicate the national policy against wrongful discrimination by encouraging victims to make the wrongdoers pay at law — assuring that the incentive to such suits will not be reduced by the prospect of attorney’s fees that consume the recovery. See Newman, supra, at 401-402. Assessing fees against blameless intervenors, however, is not essential to that purpose. In every lawsuit in which there is a prevailing. Title VII plaintiff there will also be a losing defendant who has committed a legal wrong. That defendant will, under Newman, be liable for all of the fees expended by the plaintiff in litigating the claim against him, and that liability alone creates a substantial added incentive for victims of Title VII violations to sue. In the present case, for example, TWA paid over $1.25 million in fees to respondents’ attorneys. Respondents argue that this incentive will be reduced by the potential presence of inter-venors whose claims the plaintiff must litigate without prospect of fee compensation. It is not clear to us that that consequence will follow. Our decision in Martin v. Wilks, 490 U. S. 755, 762-763 (1989), establishes that a party affected by the decree in a Title VII case need not intervene but may attack the decree collaterally — in which suit the original Title VII plaintiff defending the decree would have no basis for claiming attorney’s fees. Thus, even if we held that fees could routinely be recovered against losing intervenors, Title VII plaintiffs would still face the prospect of litigation without compensation for attorney’s fees before the fruits of their victory can be secure.
But even if the inability generally to recover fees against intervenors did create some marginal disincentive against Title VII suits, we would still have to weigh that against other considerations, as we did in Christiansburg Garment. Foremost among these is the fact that, in contrast to losing Title VII defendants who are held presumptively liable for attorney’s fees, losing intervenors like petitioner have not been found to have violated anyone’s civil rights. See Christiansburg Garment, 434 U. S., at 418. In this case, for example, petitioner became a party to the lawsuit not because it bore any responsibility for the practice alleged to have violated Title VII, but because it sought to protect the bargained-for seniority rights of its employees. Awarding attorney’s fees against such an intervenor would further neither the general policy that wrongdoers make whole those whom they have injured nor Title VII’s aim of deterring employers from engaging in discriminatory practices.
Our cases have emphasized the crucial connection between liability for violation of federal law and liability for attorney’s fees under federal fee-shifting statutes. In Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S. 159 (1985), the plaintiffs had brought suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against police officers in their individual capacities, alleging that the officers had violated their constitutional rights. After settling with the officers, they sought attorney’s fees from the officers’ employer, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, under 42 U. S. C. § 1988. In rejecting that claim, we stated:
“Section 1988 does not in so many words define the parties who must bear these costs. Nonetheless, it is clear that the logical place to look for recovery of fees is to the losing party — the party legally responsible for relief on the merits. That is the party who must pay the costs of litigation . . . and it is clearly the party who should also bear fee liability under § 1988.” 473 U. S., at 164.
See also id., at 165 (“[Liability on the merits and responsibility for fees go hand in hand”); id., at 168 (“[F]ee liability runs with merits liability”); ibid. (“Section 1988 simply does not create fee liability where merits liability is nonexistent”); id., at 171 (“[F]ee and merits liability run together”). Cf. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U. S. 719, 738 (1980) (holding that § 1988 fees were not recoverable against defendants immune from merits liability). We have also distinguished between wrongdoers and the blameless in the related area of constraints upon district courts’ discretion to fashion Title VII remedies. See, e. g., Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U. S. 219, 239-240 (1982); General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S. 375, 399-400 (1982).
While innocent intervenors raising non-Title VII claims are not, like Title VII plaintiffs, “the chosen instruments] of Congress,” Christiansburg Garment, supra, at 418, neither are they disfavored participants in Title VII proceedings. An intervenor of the sort before us here is particularly welcome, since we have stressed the necessity of protecting, in Title VII litigation, “the legitimate expectations of . . . employees innocent of any wrongdoing,” Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 372 (1977). Even less with regard to an innocent intervenor than with regard to an allegedly lawbreaking defendant would Congress have wished to “distort” the adversary process, see Christiansburg Garment, supra, at 419, by giving the plaintiff a disproportionate advantage with regard to fee entitlement. Moreover, establishing such one-way fee liability against intervenors would foster piecemeal litigation of complex civil rights controversies — a result that is strongly disfavored. See Martin v. Wilks, supra, at 768. Adopting the regime proposed by respondents —that those who intervene in a Title VII suit are presumptively liable for fees, while those who take the alternative course of becoming plaintiffs in independent lawsuits attacking provisions of the decree are presumptively shielded from liability — would encourage interested parties to await the entry of judgment and collaterally attack remedial schemes. This would serve the interests of no one: not plaintiffs, not defendants, not intervenors.
Intervention that, is in good faith is by definition not a means of prolonging litigation, but rather of protecting legal rights — ranging from contract-based rights, see, e. g., Richardson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 750 F. 2d 763 (CA9 1984) (collective-bargaining agreement), to statutory rights, see, e. g., Prate v. Freedman, 583 F. 2d 42 (CA2 1978) (Title VII), to constitutional rights, see, e. g., Reeves v. Harrell, 791 F. 2d 1481 (CA11 1986) (Equal Protection Clause); Grano v. Barry, 251 U. S. App. D. C. 289, 783 F. 2d 1104 (1986) (Takings Clause) — which are entitled to no less respect than the rights asserted by plaintiffs in the subject suit. In this case petitioner intervened to assert the collectively bargained contract rights of its incumbent employees, rights that neither respondents nor TWA had any interest in protecting in their settlement agreement. Just this Term we recognized that competitive seniority rights — the specific interests asserted by petitioner — are among the most important ingredients in flight attendants’ collective-bargaining agreements. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Flight Attendants, 489 U. S. 426, 428-430 (1989). While a labor union’s good-faith advocacy of its members’ vital interests was not the specific type of conduct § 706(k) was intended to encourage, it is certainly not conduct that the statute aimed to deter.
Of course, an intervenor may sometimes raise an argument that brings into question not merely the appropriateness of the remedy but the plaintiff’s very entitlement to relief. Here, for example, petitioner advanced one argument that would have prevented the District Court’s approval of any relief for Subclass B respondents. But that an intervenor can advance the same argument as a defendant does not mean that the two must be treated alike for purposes of fee assessments. The central fact remains that petitioner litigated (and lost) not to avoid liability for violation of the law but to prevent TWA’s bargaining away of its members’ seniority rights in order to settle with respondents. It was entitled, like any litigant, to pursue that legitimate end through arguments that go to the merits no less than through arguments that go only to the scope of the relief. It would hardly serve the congressional policy in favor of “vigorous” adversary proceedings, Christiansburg Garment, 434 U. S., at 419, to require intervenors to disguise or avoid their strongest arguments in order to escape liability for attorney’s fees. Moreover, it is often quite difficult to separate arguments directed to the appropriate remedy from arguments directed to the existence or extent of past violations, so that making fees turn upon that distinction would violate our admonition that “a request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424, 437 (1983).
* * *
Because the courts below incorrectly presumed that petitioner was liable for attorney’s fees to respondents, and accordingly made no inquiry as to whether petitioner’s intervention was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, 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.
Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“Competitive status” seniority is used “to allocate entitlements to scarce benefits among competing employees," Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 766 (1976), while “benefit” seniority is used “to compute noncompetitive benefits earned under the contract of employment,” ibid.
The language of §706(k) is substantially the same as § 204(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a-3(b), which we interpreted in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400 (1968), and 42 U. S. C. § 1988, which we interpreted in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424 (1983). We have stated in the past that fee-shifting statutes’ similar language is “a strong indication” that they are to be interpreted alike. Northcross v. Memphis Bd. of Educaticm, 412 U. S. 427, 428 (1973). See also Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U. S. 754, 758, n. 4 (1980) (noting that § 1988 was patterned on § 204(b) and § 706(k)); Hensley, supra, at 433, n. 7 (noting that the standards set forth in the opinion apply to all fee-shifting statutes with “prevailing party” language).
The dissent, post, at 772, n. 1, distorts our holding in United States v. Monsanto, ante, at 613, by describing it as “concludfing] that statutory construction that transforms the word ‘may' into the words ‘may not’ . . . impermissibly frustrates legislative intent.” What we plainly said there was that “may” cannot be transformed into “may not” in such fashion as to frustrate the legislative intent.
The dissent repeatedly implies that intervenors are no more than in-termeddlers who get in the way of tidy settlement agreements between Title VII plaintiffs and wrongdoers. See post, at 770, 774, 775, 777, 778, 779. That characterization might be understandable if our opinion addressed intervenors who are not themselves affected by the outcome of the lawsuit; but it does not. See infra, at 765. What is at issue here is only the liability of intervenors who enter lawsuits to defend their own constitutional or statutory rights. It seems to us that the dissent dismisses out of hand the legitimate claims of these people, not because they are intermed-dlers, but rather because the dissenters have established a judge-made ranking of rights, authorizing Title VII claims to prevail over all others. That is the essential difference between us. Whereas we think that the fee-award provision is subject to “the competing equities that Congress normally takes into account,” supra, at 761, the dissent believes that we “must be guided first and foremost by the interests of the prevailing party” (so long as that is the Title VII plaintiff and not the defendant, see Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC. 434 U. S. 412 (1978)). post, at 771, and that the only criterion of our decision is that it “respect the objectives of Title VII," post, at 772. Those objectives must of course be respected. But nothing in the statute gives them hegemony over all the other rights and equities that exist in the world. Here as elsewhere, the judicial role is to reconcile competing rights that Congress has established and competing interests that it normally takes into account. See, e. g., Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U. S. 219, 239-240 (1982). When Congress wishes Title VII rights to sweep away all others it will say so.
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: | F | 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 Stewart
delivered .the opinion of the Court.
.. Section 302 (b) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 provides: “(b) It shall be unlawful for any representative of any employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce to receive or accept, or to agree to receive or accept, from the employer of such employees any money or other thing of value.” Under § 302 (c) of the Act: this broad prohibition is made inapplicable in five situations, one being, “with respect to money or other thing of value paid to a trust fund established by such representative, for the sole and'exclusive benefit of the employees of such employer . . .” pro- . vided that the trust fund meets certain standards specified in that subsection.
The petitioner, a representative of employees in an industry affecting commerce, was convicted in the United States District Court for Puerto Rico of violating § 302 (b) of the' Act by receiving $15,000 from two of their employers. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. 256 F. 2d 549. Certiorari was granted because the case presents an important question as to the scope of this provision of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. 358 U. S. 812.
The facts are substantially undisputed. In 1953 the petitioner was president of a union which represented the employees of two affiliated corporations. In that capacity he negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with the employers. This agreement provided for the establishment of a welfare fund, which, it is unquestioned, met the requisite criteria of § 302 (c) (5) of the Act. It was agreed that the petitioner would be the union repre--sentative on the joint committee which was to administer the fund. After the agreement was signed, the petitioner told the employers’ representative that there was to be a union meeting that evening, and that he wanted to exhibit the welfare fund checks to the union members. Accordingly, the petitioner was given two checks for $7,500. Attached vouchers identified the checks as the employers’ contributions to the welfare fund.
Instead of subsequently depositing the checks in the existing welfare- fund bank account, however, the petitioner used them to opén an account in the name of the fund in another bank. A few days thereafter, he gave the bank a purported resolution from the union’s board of directors authorizing withdrawals from this account upon his signature alone. As soon as the employers learned what had happened, they attempted to secure performance of the agreement for joint administration of the fund. Over a period of several months, however, the petitioner used the money for his own personal purposes and, after transferring the funds to another account, for nonwelfare union purposes as well.
The Government does not maintain that embezzlement by an employee representative from an employer-financed welfare fund would violate the federal statute under which the petitioner was convicted. It contends, however, that in this case the jury could properly find that the petitioner when he accepted the two checks intended to use the funds for his personal purposes, and that he was therefore guilty not of embezzlement, but of conduct amounting to larceny, by trick. We agree that the evidence could properly support an inference that the petitioner’s purpose from the outset was to appropriate the two checks for his own usé. We cannot agree, however, that this conduct violated § 302 (b) of the Act.
Section 302 (b) is a reciprocal of § 302 (a), applicable to employers, which provides that “(a) It shall be unlawful for any employer to pay or deliver, or to agree to pay or deliver, any money or other thing of value to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce.” The good faith of the employers in delivering the two checks to the petitioner— their intent that the money go to the welfare fund created by .the collective bargaining agreement — was not questioned throughout the trial and is not questioned here. The sole purpose of the delivery of the checks, therefore, was /to make a lawful payment. What the petitioner received were checks “paid to a trust fund.” The transaction, therefore, was within the precise language of § 302 (c), and thus was not a violation of § 302 (b).
This is not to say that the statute requires mutuality of guilt for the conviction of éither the employer or the representative of employees. An employer might be guilty under subsection (a) if he paid money to a representative of employees even though the latter had no .intention of accepting. Cf. Lunsford v. United States, 200 F. 2d 237; Schneider v. United States, 192 F. 2d 498. A representative might be guilty if he coerced payments from an innocent and unwilling employer. Cf. United States v. Waldin, 149 F. Supp. 912, aff’d 253 F. 2d 551. Both would be guilty if the payment were ostensibly made for one of the lawful purposes’specified in § 302 (c) if both knew that such a purpose, was merely a sham.
The present case, however, is not an analogue to any of those situations. The checks were drawn by the employers and delivered to the petitioner as payment to a union welfare- fund. Their receipt by him,-therefore, was not a violation of the federal statute, whether his intent to misappropriate existed at the time of receipt or was formed later.
We cpnstrue a criminal statute. “It is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.” United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95; United States v. Halseth, 342 U. S. 277; Krichman v. United States, 256 U. S. 363. We are mindful, :'of course, that, “though penal laws are to be construed strictly, they are not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intention of the legislature.” United States v. Wiltberger, supra, at 95. As Mr. Justice Holmes put it, “Wp* agree to all the generalities about not supplying criminal laws-with what they omit, but there is no canon against using common sense in construing laws as saying, what they obviously mean.” Roschen v. Ward, 279 U. S. 337, 339.
An examination o.f the legislative history confirms that á literal construction of this-statute does no violence to common sense') .When Congress enacted § 302 its purpose was not .to assist the States in punishing criminal.conduct traditionally within their jurisdiction, but to deal with problems peculiar to collective bargaining. The provision was enacted as part of a comprehensive revision of federal labor policy in the light of experience acquired during the years following passage of the Wagner Act, .and was aimed at practices which Congress considered inimical to the integrity of the collective bargaining process.
Throughout the. debates in the Seventy-ninth and Eightieth Congresses there was not the slightest indication that § 302 was intended to duplicate state criminal laws. Those members of Congress who supported the amendment were concerned with corruption of collective bargaining through bribery of employee representatives by employers, with extortion by employee representatives, and with the possible abuse by union officers of the power which they might achieve if welfare funds were left to their sole control. Congressional attention was focussed particularly upon the latter problem because of the demands which had then recently been made by a large international union for the establishment of a welfare fund to be financed by employers’ contributions and administered exclusively by union officials. See United States v. Ryan, 350 U. S. 299.
Congress believed that if welfare funds were established which did not define with specificity the benefits payable thereunder, a substantial danger existed' that such funds might be employed to perpetuate control of .union officers, for political purposes,' or even for personal gain. See 92 Cong. Rec. 4892-4894, 4899, 5181, 5345-5346; S. Rep.. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., at 52; 93 Cong; Rec. 4678, 4746-4747.' To remove these dangers, specific standards were established to assure that welfare funds would be established only for purposes which Congress' considered proper and expended-only for the purposes for which they were established. See Cox, Some Aspects of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Harv. L. Rev¡ 274, 290. Continuing compliance with these standards in the administration of welfare funds was made explicitly enforceable in federal district courts by civil proceedings under § 302 (e). The legislative history is devoid of any suggestion that defalcating trustees were to be held accountable under federal law, except by way of the injunctive remedy provided in that subsection.
Without doubt the petitioner’s conduct was reprehensible and immoral. It can be assumed also that he offended local criminal law. But, for the reasons stated, we hold that he did not criminally violate § 302 (b) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.
Reversed.
The relevant text of §302 (c), as it appears in 29 U. S. C. § 186 (e) is .as follows: “(c) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable ... (5) with respect to money or other thing of value paid to a trust fund established by such representative, for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of such employer, and their families and dependents (or of such employees, families, and dependents jointly with the employees of other employers making similar payments, and their families and dependents): Provided, That (A) such payments are held in trust for the purpose of paying, either fronrprineipal or income or both, for the benefit of employees, their families and dependents, for medical or hospital care, pensions on- retirement or death of .employees, compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupational activity or insurance to provide any of the foregoing, or unemployment benefits or life insurance, disability and sickness insurance, ór accident insurance; (B) the detailed basis on which such payments are to be made is specified in a .written agreement with the employer, and employees and employers are equally represented in the administration of such fund, together with such neutral persons as the representatives of the employers and the representatives of the employees may agree upon and in the event the employer and employee groups deadlock on the administration of such fund and there are no neutral persons empowered to break such deadlock, such agreement provides that the two groups shall agree on an impartial umpire to decide such dispute, or in event of their failure to agree within a reasonable length of time, an impartial umpire to decide such dispute shall, on petition of either group, be appointed by the district court of the United States for the district where the trust fund has its principal office, and shall also contain provision for an annual audit of the trust fund, a statement of the results of which shall be available for inspection by interested persons at the principal office of the trust fund and at such other places as may be designated in such written agreement; and (C) such payments as are intended to be used for the purpose of providing pensions or annuities for employees are made to a separate trust which provides that the funds held therein cannot be used for any purpose other than paying such'pensions or annuities.”
Sentence was imposed under authority of § 302 (d) of the Act, which provides: “(d) Any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction' thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and be subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. . .
The fund was to be-identical in amount and purpose to a weliare fund which had been created in 1952 under a previous collective bargaining agreement. The petitioner had also been the union representative on the committee which administered that fund.
Compare S. 3974, § 109 (a), 85th Cong., 2d Sess., the so-called Kennedy-Ives bill, which would have provided criminal penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of $10,000 for “Any person who embezzles, steals, or unlawfully and willfully abstracts or .converts to his own use or the use of another any of the moneys, funds, securities, property, or other assets of an organization which is exempt from taxation under section 501 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 of which he is an officer or by whom he is employed directly or indirectly . . .
In argument to the trial court, government counsel made the following statement: “The employer in this case, I would like to say, complied with the law. The employer set up a welfare fund in accordance with the law, and in accordance with the testimony by Mr. Goyco and other documentary evidence, the letter to the Banco de Ponce, the employer did all it could to make compliance with the law, because there could be a lawful welfare fund, so that’s as far as the employer is concerned.”
Section 302 had its origin in an amendment to the Case bill, H. R. 4908, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., proposed by Senator Byrd, 92 Cong. Rec. 4809, which prohibited payment by an employer, or receipt by a representative, of any money or other thing of value unless the payment was for wages or for union dues withheld by the employer under a checkoff agreement. After several modifications, including one substantially similar to subsection (c) (5) which was proposed by Senators Taft and Ball, the amendment was agreed to by the Senate, 92 Cong. Rec. 5521-5522, and the Case bill passed. 92 Cong. Rec. 5739. The House accepted the Senate amendments, 92 Cong. Rec. 5946, but the President vetoed the bill, 92 Cong. Rec. 6674^6678, and it failed of passage over his veto. 92 Cong. Rec. 6678.
In the Eightieth Congress the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare reported out an original bill, S. 1126, containing no reference to payments by an employer to a representative other than that which had been contained in § 8 (2) of the Wagner Act. A minority of the Committee, including Senators Taft and Ball, filed their “Supplemental Views” in which they stated their intention to offer from the floor “an amendment reinserting in the bill, a provision regarding so-called welfare funds similar to the section in the Case' bill approved by the Senate at the last session.” S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 52. The amendment was adopted by the Senate, 93 Cong. Rec. 4754, accepted by the Conference Committee, H. R. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 24-25, 67, and enacted as § 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
In explaining the necessity for adoption of the amendment which he offered to the Case bill, Senator Byrd stated: “My amendment would prevent an employer from paying a royalty to the representative of a union. He would be clearly liable, under the provisions of this amendment, if he paid a royalty or other'money to the representative of a labor union, the purpose mf which was to bribe that representative.” 92 Cong. Rec. 4893. See also 92 Cong. Rec. 5428; 93 Cong. Rec. 4678.
Senator Taft, in speaking for the amendment to S. 1126 which had previously been proposed on the floor of the Senate by Senator Ball, stated that it was intended to deal with “extortion or a case where the union representative is shakihg down the employer.” 93 Cong. Rec. 4746.
“(e) The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of the Territories and possessions shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, and subject to the provisions of section 381 of Title 28 (relating to notice to opposite party) to restrain violations of this section, without regard to the provisions of section 17 of Title 15 and section 52 of this title, and the provisions of sections 101-110 and 113-115 of this title.” 29 U. S. C. § 186 (e).
“(c) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable . . . (5) with respect to money or other thing of value paid to a trust fund established by such representative, for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of such employer, and their families and dependents (or of such employees, families, and dependents jointly with the employees of other employers making similar payments, and their families and dependents): Provided, That (A) such payments are held in trust for the purpose of paying, either from principal or income or both, for the benefit of employees, their families and dependents, for medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death of employees, compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupational activity or insurance to provide any of the foregoing, or unemployment benefits or life insurance, disability and sickness insurance, or 'accident insurance; (B) the detailed basis on which such payments are to be made is specified in a written agreement with the employer, and employees and employers are equally represented in the administration of such fund, together with such neutral persons as the representatives of the employers and the representatives of the employees may agree/upon and in the event the employer and employee groups deadlock on the administration of such fund and there are no neutral persons empowered to break such deadlock, such agreement provides that the two groups shall agree on an impartial umpire to decide such dispute, or in the event of their failure .to agree within a' reasonable length of time, an impartial umpire to decide such dispute shall, on petition of either group, be appointed by the district court of the United States for the district where the trust fund has its principal office, and shall also contain provisions for an annual audit of the trust fund, a statement of the results of which shall be available for inspection by interested persons at the principal office of the trust fund and at such other places as may be designated in such written agreement; and (C) such payments as are intended to be used for the purpose of providing pensions or annuities for employees are made to a separate trust which provides that the funds held therein cannot be used for any purpose other than paying such pensions or annuities.”
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners were convicted of conspiracy to import marihuana (Count I), in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 963, and conspiracy to distribute marihuana (Count II), in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846. Petitioners received consecutive sentences on each count. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed petitioners’ convictions and sentences. United States v. Rodriguez, 612 F. 2d 906 (1980). We granted certiorari to consider whether Congress intended consecutive sentences to be imposed for the violation of these two conspiracy statutes and, if so, whether such cumulative punishment violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 449 U. S. 818 (1980).
The facts forming the basis of petitioners’ convictions are set forth in the panel opinion of the Court of Appeals, United States v. Rodriguez, 585 F. 2d 1234 (1978), and need not be repeated in detail here. For our purposes, we need only relate that the petitioners were involved in an agreement, the objectives of which were to import marihuana and then to distribute it domestically. Petitioners were charged and convicted under two separate statutory provisions and received consecutive sentences. The length of each of their combined sentences exceeded the maximum 5-year sentence which could have been imposed either for a conviction of conspiracy to import or for a conviction of conspiracy to distribute.
The statutes involved in this case are part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1236, 21 U. S. C. § 801 et seq. Section 846 is in Sub-chapter I of the Act and provides:
“Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.”
This provision proscribes conspiracy to commit any offense defined in Subchapter I, including conspiracy to distribute marihuana which is specifically prohibited in 21 U. S. C. §841 (a)(1). Section 846 authorizes imposition of a sentence of imprisonment or a fine that does not exceed the penalty specified for the object offense.
Section 963, which is part of Subchapter II of the Act, contains a provision identical to § 846 and proscribes conspiracy to commit any offense defined in Subchapter II, including conspiracy to import marihuana which is specifically prohibited by 21 U. S. C. §960 (a)(1). As in §846, §963 authorizes a sentence of imprisonment or a fine that does not exceed the penalties specified for the object offense. Thus, a conspiratorial agreement which envisages both the importation and distribution of marihuana violates both statutory-provisions, each of which authorizes a separate punishment.
Petitioners do not dispute that their conspiracy to import and distribute marihuana violated both § 846 and § 963. Rather, petitioners contend it is not clear whether Congress intended to authorize multiple punishment for violation of these two statutes in a case involving only a single agreement or conspiracy, even though that isolated agreement had dual objectives. Petitioners argue that because Congress has not spoken with the clarity required for this Court to find an “unambiguous intent to impose multiple punishment/’ we should invoke the rule of lenity and hold that the statutory ambiguity on this issue prevents the imposition of multiple punishment. Petitioners further contend that even if cumulative punishment was authorized by Congress, such punishment is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
In resolving petitioners’ initial contention that Congress did not intend to authorize multiple punishment for violations of §§ 846 and 963, our starting point must be the language of the statutes. Absent a “clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumers Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980). Here, we confront separate offenses with separate penalty provisions that are contained in distinct Subchapters of the Act. The provisions are unambiguous on their face and each authorizes punishment for a violation of its terms. Petitioners contend, however, that the question presented is not whether the statutes are facially ambiguous, but whether consecutive sentences may be imposed when convictions under those statutes arise from participation in a single conspiracy with multiple objectives — a question raised, rather than resolved, by the existence of both provisions.
The answer to petitioners’ contention is found, we believe, in application of the rule announced by this Court in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U. S. 299 (1932), and most recently applied last Term in Whalen v. United States, 445 U. S. 684 (1980). In Whalen, the Court explained that the “rule of statutory construction” stated in Blockburger is to be used “to determine whether Congress has in a given situation provided that two statutory offenses may be punished cumulatively.” 445 U. S., at 691. The Court then referenced the following test set forth in Blockburger:
“The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, supra, at 304.
Our decision in Whalen was not the first time this Court has looked to the Blockburger rule to determine whether Congress intended that two statutory offenses be punished cumulatively. We previously stated in Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161, 166 (1977), although our analysis there was of necessity based on a claim of double jeopardy since the case came to us from a state court, that “[t]he established test for determining whether two offenses are sufficiently distinguishable to permit the imposition of cumulative punishment was stated in Blockburger v. United States . . . .” Similarly, in Iannelli v. United States, 420 U. S. 770, 785, n. 17 (1975), we explained:
“The test articulated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U. S. 299 (1932), serves a generally similar function of identifying congressional intent to impose separate sanctions for multiple offenses arising in the course of a single act or transaction. In determining whether separate punishment might be imposed, Blockburger requires that courts examine the offenses to ascertain 'whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.’ Id., at 304. As Blockburger and other decisions applying its principle reveal, . . . the Court’s application of the test focuses on the statutory elements of the offense. If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.”
In Gore v. United States, 357 U. S. 386 (1958), the Court rejected the opportunity to abandon Blockburger as the test to apply in determining whether Congress intended to impose multiple punishment for a single act which violates several statutory provisions. In reaffirming Blockburger, the Court explained:
"The fact that an offender violates by a single transaction several regulatory controls devised by Congress as means for dealing with a social evil as deleterious as it is difficult to combat does not make the several different regulatory controls single and identic.” 357 U. S., at 389.
Finally, in American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U. S. 781 (1946), defendants who had been convicted of conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U. S. C. § 1), and conspiracy to monopolize in violation of §2 (15 U. S. C. §2), sought review of their convictions contending that separate sentences for these offenses were impermissible because there was “but one conspiracy, namely, a conspiracy to fix prices.” 328 U. S., at 788. In rejecting this claim, the Court noted the presence of separate statutory offenses and then, relying on Block-burger, upheld the sentences on the ground that “§§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act require proof of conspiracies which are reciprocally distinguishable from and independent of each other although the objects of the conspiracies may partially overlap.” 328 U. S., at 788.
The statutory provisions at issue here clearly satisfy the rule announced in Blockburger and petitioners do not seriously contend otherwise. Sections 846 and 963 specify different ends as the proscribed object of the conspiracy— distribution as opposed to importation — and it is beyond peradventure that “each provision requires proof of a fact [that] the other does not.” Thus, application of the Block-burger rule to determine whether Congress has provided that these two statutory offenses be punished cumulatively results in the unequivocal determination that §§ 846 and 963, like §§ 1 and 2 of the.Sherman Act which were at issue in American Tobacco, proscribe separate statutory offenses the violations of which can result in the imposition of consecutive sentences.
Our conclusion in this regard is not inconsistent with our earlier decision in Braverman v. United States, 317 U. S. 49 (1942), on which petitioners rely so heavily. Petitioners argue that Blockburger cannot be used for divining legislative intent when the statutes at issue are conspiracy statutes. Quoting Braverman, they argue that whether the objective of a single agreement is to commit one or many crimes, it is in either case the agreement which constitutes the conspiracy which the statute punishes. “The one agreement cannot be taken to be several agreements and hence several conspiracies because it envisages the violation of several statutes rather than one.” 317 U. S., at 53. Braverman, however, does not support petitioners’ position. Unlike the instant case or this Court’s later decision in American Tobacco, the conspiratorial agreement in Braverman, although it had many objectives, violated but a single statute. The Braverman Court specifically noted:
“Since the single continuing agreement, which is the conspiracy here, thus embraces its criminal objects, it differs from successive acts which violate a single penal statute and from a single act which violates two statutes. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U. S. 299, 301-[30]4; Albrecht v. United States, 273 U. S. 1, 11-12. The single agreement is the prohibited conspiracy, and however diverse its objects it violates but a single statute, § 37 of the Criminal Code. For such a violation, only the single penalty prescribed by the statute can be imposed.” 317 U. S., at 54 (emphasis added).
Later in American Tobacco, the Court distinguished Braverman:
“In contrast to the single conspiracy described in \_Braverman\ in separate counts, all charged under the general conspiracy statute, ... we have here separate statutory offenses, one a conspiracy in restraint of trade that may stop short of monopoly, and the other a conspiracy to monopolize that may not be content with restraint short of monopoly. One is made criminal by § 1 and the other by § 2 of the Sherman Act.” 328 U. S., at 788.
See also Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U. S. 640, 642-643 (1946).
The Blockburger test is a “rule of statutory construction,” and because it serves as a means of discerning congressional purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent. Nothing, however, in the legislative history which has been brought to our attention discloses an intent contrary to the presumption which should be accorded to these statutes after application of the Blockburger test. In fact, the legislative history is silent on the question of whether consecutive sentences can be imposed for conspiracy to import and distribute drugs. Petitioners read this silence as an “ambiguity” over whether Congress intended to authorize multiple punishment. Petitioners, however, read much into nothing. Congress cannot be expected to specifically address each issue of statutory construction which may arise. But, as we have previously noted, Congress is “predominantly a lawyer’s body,” Callanan v. United States, 364 U. S. 587, 594 (1961), and it is appropriate for us “to assume that our elected representatives . . . know the law.” Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 696-697 (1979). As a result, if anything is to be assumed from the congressional silence on this point, it is that Congress was aware of the Blockburger rule and legislated with it in mind. It is not a function of this Court to presume that “Congress was unaware of what it accomplished. . . .” U. S. Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U. S. 166, 179 (1980).
Finally, petitioners contend that because the legislative history is “ambiguous” on the question of multiple punishment, we should apply the rule of lenity so as not to allow consecutive sentences in this situation. Last Term in Bifulco v. United States, 447 U. S. 381 (1980), we recognized that the rule of lenity is a principle of statutory construction which applies not only to interpretations of the substantive ambit of criminal prohibitions, but also to the penalties they impose. Quoting Ladner v. United States, 358 U. S. 169, 178 (1958), we stated: “‘This policy of lenity means that the Court will not interpret a federal criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what Congress intended.’ ” 447 U. S., at 387. We emphasized that the “touchstone” of the rule of lenity “is statutory ambiguity.” And we stated: “Where Congress has manifested its intention, we may not manufacture ambiguity in order to defeat that intent.” Ibid. Lenity thus serves only as an aid for resolving an ambiguity; it is not to be used to beget one. The rule comes into operation “at the end of the process of construing what Congress has expressed, not at the beginning as an overriding consideration of being lenient to wrongdoers.” Callanan v. United States, supra, at 596.
In light of these principles, the rule of lenity simply has no application in this case; we are not confronted with any statutory ambiguity. To the contrary, we are presented with statutory provisions which are unambiguous on their face and a legislative history which gives us no reason to pause over the manner in which these provisions should be interpreted.
The conclusion we reach today regarding the intent of Congress is reinforced by the fact that the two conspiracy statutes are directed to separate evils presented by drug trafficking. “Importation” and “distribution” of marihuana impose diverse societal harms, and, as the Court of . Appeals observed, Congress has in effect determined that a conspiracy to import drugs and to distribute them is twice as serious as a conspiracy to do either object singly. 612 F. 2d, at 918. This result is not surprising for, as we observed many years ago, the history of the narcotics legislation in this country “reveals the determination of Congress to turn the screw of the criminal machinery — detection, prosecution and punishment — tighter and tighter.” Gore v. United States, 357 U. S., at 390.
Having found that Congress intended to permit the imposition of consecutive sentences for violations of § 846 and § 963, we are brought to petitioners’ argument that notwithstanding this fact, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution precludes the imposition of such punishment. While the Clause itself simply states that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” the deci-sional law in the area is a veritable Sargasso Sea which could not fail to challenge the most intrepid judicial navigator. We have previously stated that the Double Jeopardy Clause “protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 717 (1969) (footnotes omitted).
Last Term in Whalen v. United States, this Court stated that “the question whether punishments imposed by a court after a defendant’s conviction upon criminal charges are unconstitutionally multiple cannot be resolved without determining what punishments the Legislative Branch has authorized.” 445 U. S., at 688; id., at 696 (White, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); ibid. (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment). In determining the permissibility of the imposition of cumulative punishment for the crime of rape and the crime of unintentional killing in the course of rape, the Court recognized that the “dispositive question” was whether Congress intended to authorize separate punishments for the two crimes. Id., at 689. This is so because the “power to define criminal offenses and to prescribe punishments to be imposed upon those found guilty of them, resides wholly with the Congress.” Ibid. As we previously noted in Brown v. Ohio, “[w]here consecutive sentences are imposed at a single criminal trial, the role of the constitutional guarantee is limited to assuring that the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense.” 432 U. S., at 165. Thus, the question of what punishments are constitutionally permissible is not different from the question of what punishments the Legislative Branch intended to be imposed. Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Affirmed.
Both petitioners and the Government concede that the legislative history is silent with regard to whether Congress intended to impose multiple punishment for a single conspiracy which violates both § 846 and § 963. See Brief for Petitioners 18-19 and Brief for United States 25. In support of their argument that this silence equals “ambiguity,” petitioners set forth an alternative explanation for the existence of the two separate conspiracy statutes. Petitioners contend that these different statutes were enacted because two different Committees in the House of Representatives had jurisdiction over the different Subehapters of the Act. The legislation was initially referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means and, following hearings, that Committee decided to consider only the provisions relating to imports and exports of narcotic drugs, transferring the remaining provisions — relating to domestic regulation and control — to the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. Petitioners argue that this background supports a conclusion that the dual structure of the Act was a result of congressional concern with committee jurisdiction and not an intent by Congress to authorize multiple punishment. The Government persuasively responds to this speculation by noting that Congress was unquestionably aware of the existence of the separate conspiracy provisions inasmuch as the enacted legislation evidences a great deal of coordination between the two House Committees. For example, Subchapter II of the Act incorporates the basic standards of Subchapter I and makes numerous express references to the provisions of that Subchapter. The Subchapters also have parallel penalty structures imposing similar penalties on similar crimes, and these penalties represent a change from both the administration’s proposal and prior law. Moreover, Congressman Boggs, the sponsor of the bill, stated when introducing a floor amendment to Title III (Subchapter II of the Act) that “section 1013 [now 21 U. S. C. § 963] — relating to attempts and conspiracies— . . . will take effect at the same time as the comparable provisions of title II [Subchapter I of the Act encompassing, inter alia, §846].” 116 Cong. Rec. 33665 (1970).
The petitioners also argue that in numerous instances the Government has charged a single conspiracy to import and distribute marihuana in one count. The inconsistency in the Government’s behavior supports a finding of an absence of clear congressional intent with regard to the appropriateness of multiple punishment. The Government responds to this argument by noting that in 1977 the Justice Department advised all United States Attorneys that conspiracy to import and distribute should be charged as separate counts. We find that neither argument sheds light on the intent of Congress in this regard.
Petitioners’ contention that a single conspiracy which violates both 846 and § 963 constitutes the "same offense” for double jeopardy purposes is wrong. We noted in Brown v. Ohio, that the established test for determining whether two offenses are the “same offense” is the rule set forth in Blockburger — the same rule on which we relied in determining congressional intent. As has been previously discussed, conspiracy to import marihuana in violation of § 963 and conspiracy to distribute marihuana in violation of § 846 clearly meet the Blockburger standard. It is well settled that a single transaction can give rise to distinct offenses under separate statutes without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. See, e. g., Harris v. United States, 359 U. S. 19 (1959); Gore v. United States, 357 U. S. 386 (1958). This is true even though the “single transaction” is an agreement or conspiracy. American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U. S. 781 (1946).
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. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether a city charter provision requiring proposed land use changes to be ratified by 55% of the votes cast violates the due process rights of a landowner who applies for a zoning change.
The city of Eastlake, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland, has a comprehensive zoning plan codified in a municipal ordinance. Respondent, a real estate developer, acquired an eight-acre parcel of real estate in Eastlake zoned for “light industrial” uses at the time of purchase.
In May 1971, respondent applied to the City Planning Commission for a zoning change to permit construction of a multifamily, high-rise apartment building. The Planning Commission recommended the proposed change to the City Council, which under Eastlake's procedures could either accept or reject the Planning Commission's recommendation. Meanwhile, by popular vote, the voters of Eastlake amended the city charter to require that any changes in land use agreed to by the Council be approved by a 55% vote in a referendum. The City Council approved the Planning Commission’s recommendation for reclassification of respondent’s property to permit the proposed project. Respondent then applied to the Planning Commission for “parking and yard” approval for the proposed building. The Commission rejected the application, on the ground that the City Council's rezoning action had not yet been submitted to the voters for ratification.
Respondent then filed an action in state court, seeking a judgment declaring the charter provision invalid as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the people. While the case was pending, the City Council’s action was submitted to a referendum, but the proposed zoning change was not approved by the requisite 55% margin. Following the election, the Court of Common Pleas and the Ohio Court of Appeals sustained the charter provision.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed. 41 Ohio St. 2d 187, 324 N. E. 2d 740 (1975). Concluding that enactment of zoning and rezoning provisions is a legislative function, the court held that a popular referendum requirement, lacking standards to guide the decision of the voters, permitted the police power to be exercised in a standardless, hence arbitrary and capricious manner. Relying on this Court’s decisions in Washington ex rel. Seattle Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U. S. 116 (1928), Thomas Cusack Co. v. Chicago, 242 U. S. 626 (1917), and Eubank v. Richmond, 226 U. S. 137 (1912), but distinguishing James v. Valtierra, 402 U. S. 137 (1971), the court concluded that the referendum provision constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power.
We reverse.
I
The conclusion that Eastlake’s procedure violates federal constitutional guarantees rests upon the proposition that a zoning referendum involves a delegation of legislative power. A referendum cannot, however, be characterized as a delegation of power. Under our constitutional assumptions, all power derives from the people, who can delegate it to representative instruments which they create. See, e. g., The Federalist No. 39 (J. Madison) . In establishing legislative bodies, the people can reserve to themselves power to deal directly with matters which might otherwise be assigned to the legislature. Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385, 392 (1969).
The reservation of such power is the basis for the town meeting, a tradition which continues to this day in some States as both a practical and symbolic part of our democratic processes. The referendum, similarly, is a means for direct political participation, allowing the people the final decision, amounting to a veto power, over enactments of representative bodies. The practice is designed to “give citizens a voice on questions of public policy.” James v. Valtierra, supra, at 141.
In framing a state constitution, the people of Ohio specifically reserved the power of referendum to the people of each municipality within the State.
“The initiative and referendum powers are hereby reserved to the people of each municipality on all questions which such municipalities may now or hereafter be authorized by law to control by legislative action Ohio Const., Art. II, § If.
To be subject to Ohio’s referendum procedure, the question must be one within the scope of legislative power. The Ohio Supreme Court expressly found that the City Council’s action in rezoning respondent’s eight acres from light industrial to high-density residential use was legislative in, nature. Distinguishing between administrative and legislative acts, the court separated the power to zone or rezone, by passage or amendment of a zoning ordinance, from the power to grant relief from unnecessary hardship. The former function was found to be legislative in nature. Accord, Denney v. Duluth, 295 Minn. 22, 28-29, 202 N. W. 2d 892, 895-896 (1972); Smith v. Township of Livingston, 106 N. J. Super. 444, 454, 256 A. 2d 85, 90 (1969); Wollen v. Borough of Fort Lee, 27 N. J. 408, 422, 142 A. 2d 881, 888-889 (1958); Johnston v. City of Claremont, 49 Cal. 2d 826, 835-836, 323 P. 2d 71, 76-77 (1958); Dwyer v. City Council, 200 Cal. 505, 515, 253 P. 932, 935-936 (1927); Hilltop Realty, Inc. v. City of South Euclid, 110 Ohio App. 535, 164 N. E. 2d 180 (1960). Compare Kelley v. John, 162 Neb. 319, 75 N. W. 2d 713 (1956), with In re Frank, 183 Neb. 722, 723, 164 N. W. 2d 215, 216 (1969).
II
The Ohio Supreme Court further concluded that the amendment to the city charter constituted a “delegation” of power violative of federal constitutional guarantees because the voters were given no standards to guide their decision. Under Eastlake’s procedure, the Ohio Supreme Court reasoned, no mechanism existed, nor indeed could exist, to assure that the voters would act rationally in passing upon a proposed zoning change. This meant that “appropriate legislative action [would] be made dependent upon the potentially arbitrary and unreasonable whims of the voting public.” 41 Ohio St. 2d, at 195, 324 N. E. 2d, at 746. The potential for arbitrariness in the process, the court concluded, violated due process.
Courts have frequently held in other contexts that a congressional delegation of power to a regulatory entity must be accompanied by discernible standards, so that the delegatee's action can be measured for its fidelity to the legislative will. See, e. g., Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414 (1944); Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Connally, 337 F. Supp. 737 (DC 1971). Cf. FEA v. Algonquin SNG, ante, p. 548. See generally 8 E. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations § 25.161, pp. 521-522 (3d ed. 1965); Note, 1972 Duke L. J. 122. Assuming, arguendo, their relevance to state governmental functions, these cases involved a delegation of power by the legislature to regulatory bodies, which are not directly responsible to the people; this doctrine is inapplicable where, as here, rather than dealing with a delegation of power, we deal with a power reserved by the people to themselves.
In basing its claim on federal due process requirements, respondent also invokes Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 (1926), but it does not rely on the direct teaching of that case. Under Euclid, a property owner can challenge a zoning restriction if the measure is “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” Id., at 395. If the substantive result of the referendum is arbitrary and capricious, bearing no relation to the police power, then the fact that the voters of Eastlake wish it so would not save the restriction. As this Court held in invalidating a charter amendment enacted by referendum:
“The sovereignty of the people is itself subject to those constitutional limitations which have been duly adopted and remain unrepealed.” Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S., at 392.
See also Lucas v. Colorado Gen. Assembly, 377 U. S. 713, 736-737 (1964); West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943).
But no challenge of the sort contemplated in Euclid v. Ambler Realty is before us. The Ohio Supreme Court did not hold, and respondent does not argue, that the present zoning classification under Eastlake’s comprehensive ordinance violates the principles established in Euclid v. Ambler Realty. If respondent considers the referendum result itself to be unreasonable, the zoning restriction is open to challenge in state court, where the scope of the state remedy available to respondent would be determined as a matter of state law, as well as under Fourteenth Amendment standards. That being so, nothing more is required by the Constitution.
Nothing in our cases is inconsistent with this conclusion. Two decisions of this Court were relied on by the Ohio Supreme Court in invalidating Eastlake’s procedure. The thread common to both decisions is the delegation of legislative power, originally given by the people to a legislative body, and in turn delegated by the legislature to a narrow segment of the community, not to the people at large. In Eubank v. Richmond, 226 U. S. 137 (1912), the Court invalidated a city ordinance which conferred the power to establish building setback lines upon the owners of two-thirds of the property abutting any street. Similarly, in Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U. S. 116 (1928), the Court struck down an ordinance which permitted the establishment of philanthropic homes for the aged in residential areas, but only upon the written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the property within 400 feet of the proposed facility.
Neither Eubank nor Roberge involved a referendum procedure such as we have in this case; the standardless delegation of power to a limited group of property owners condemned by the Court in Eubank and Roberge is not to be equated with decisionmaking by the people through the referendum process. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit put it this way:
“A referendum, however, is far more than an expression of ambiguously founded neighborhood preference. It is the city itself legislating through its voters — an exercise by the voters of their traditional right through direct legislation to override the views of their elected representatives as to what serves the public interest.” Southern Alameda Spanish Speaking Organization v. Union City, California, 424 F. 2d 291, 294 (1970).
Our decision in James v. Valtierra, upholding California’s mandatory referendum requirement, confirms this view. Mr. Justice Black, speaking for the Court in that case, said:
“This procedure ensures that all the people of a community will have a voice in a decision which may lead to large expenditures of local governmental funds for increased public services . . . 402 U. S., at 143 (emphasis added).
Mr. Justice Black went on to say that a referendum procedure, such as the one at issue here, is a classic demonstration of “devotion to democracy . . . .” Id., at 141. As a basic instrument of democratic government, the referendum process does not, in itself, violate the'Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when applied to a rezoning ordinance. Since the rezoning decision in this case was properly reserved to the people of Eastlake under the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Supreme Court erred in holding invalid, on federal constitutional grounds, the charter amendment permitting the voters to decide whether the zoned use of respondent’s property could be altered.
The judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
As adopted by the voters, Art. VIH, § 3, of the Eastlake City Charter provides in pertinent part:
“That any change to the existing land uses or any change whatsoever to any ordinance . . . cannot be approved unless and until it shall have been submitted to the Planning Commission, for approval or disapproval. That in the event the city council should approve any of the preceding changes, or enactments, whether approved or disapproved by the Planning Commission it shall not be approved or passed by the declaration of an emergency, and it shall not be effective, but it shall be mandatory that the same be approved by a 55% favorable vote of all votes cast of the qualified electors of the City of Eastlake at the next regular municipal election, if one shall occur not less than sixty (60) or more than one hundred and twenty (120) days after its passage, otherwise at a special election falling on the generally established day of the primary election. . . .”
Respondent also contended that the charter amendment could not apply to its rezoning application since the application was pending at the time the amendment was adopted. The Court of Common Pleas rejected the argument. Respondent neither appealed this point nor argued it in the Court of Appeals or the Ohio Supreme Court; the issue is therefore not before us.
The Court of Common Pleas, however, invalidated the charter provision requiring assessment of election costs against the affected property owner. In affirming, the Court of Appeals also upheld that portion of the trial court’s judgment. No appeal was taken to the Ohio Supreme Court on this issue. The question was, accordingly, not passed on by the State Supreme Court, and is therefore not before us.
Respondent did not challenge the 55%-aiBrmative requirement as such. Instead, respondent contended that any mandatory referendum provision, regardless of the requisite margin for approval, violated due process as applied to its rezoning application.
The people of Ohio, in establishing the general assembly, provided:
“The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a General Assembly . . . but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose to the General Assembly laws and amendments to the constitution, and to adopt or reject the same at the polls on a referendum vote . . . .” Ohio Const., Art. II, § 1.
In Massachusetts, for example, the inhabitants could convene a town meeting for the purpose of regulating nuisances. A. De Wolf, The Town Meeting: A Manual of Massachusetts Law 136 (1890). See generally Bryan, Town Meeting Government Still Supported in Vermont, 61 Nat. Civic R. 348 (1972).
The land use change requested by respondent would likely entail the provision of additional city services, such as schools and police and fire protection. Cf. James v. Valtierra, 402 U. S. 137, 143 n. 4 (1971). The change would also diminish the land area available for industrial purposes, thereby affecting Eastlake’s potential economic development.
By its nature, zoning “interferes” significantly with owners’ uses of property. It is hornbook law that “[m]ere diminution of market value or interference with the property owner’s personal plans and desires relative to his property is insufficient to invalidate a zoning ordinance or to entitle him to a variance or rezoning.” 8 E. Mc-Quillan, Municipal Corporations §25.44, p. Ill (3d ed., 1965). There is, of course, no contention in this case that the existing zoning classification renders respondent’s property valueless or otherwise diminishes its value below the value when respondent acquired it.
The power of initiative or referendum may be reserved or conferred “with respect to any matter, legislative or administrative, within the realm of local affairs . . . .” 5 E. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations §16.54, p. 208 (3d ed., 1969). However, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that only land use changes granted by the City Council when acting in a legislative capacity were subject to the referendum process. Under the court’s binding interpretation of state law, a property owner seeking relief from unnecessary hardship occasioned by zoning restrictions would not be subject to Eastlake’s referendum procedure. For example, if unforeseeable future changes give rise to hardship on the owner, the holding of the Ohio Supreme Court provides avenues of administrative relief not subject to the referendum process.
The Ohio Supreme Court’s analysis of the requirements for standards flowing from the Fourteenth Amendment also sweeps too broadly. Except as a legislative history informs an analysis of legislative action, there is no more advance assurance that a legislative body will act by conscientiously applying consistent standards than there is with respect to voters. For example, there is no certainty that the City Council in this case would act on the basis of “standards” explicit or otherwise in Eastlake’s comprehensive zoning ordinance. Nor is there any assurance that townspeople assembling in a town meeting, as the people of East-lake could do, Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385, 392 (1969), will act according to consistent standards. The critical constitutional inquiry, rather, is whether the zoning restriction produces arbitrary or capricious results.
The Supreme Court of Ohio rested its decision solely on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See 41 Ohio St. 2d 187, 196, 324 N. E. 2d 740, 746 (1975). The only questions presented to this Court in the petition for certiorari concern the validity of that due process holding. Pet. for Cert. 2. Accordingly, we confine ourselves to considering whether due process is denied by the challenged charter amendment.
The Ohio Supreme Court also considered this Court's decision in Thomas Cusack Co. v. Chicago, 242 U. S. 526 (1917). In contrast to Eubank and Roberge, the Cusack Court upheld a neighborhood consent provision which permitted property owners to waive a municipal restriction prohibiting the construction of billboards. This Court in Cusack distinguished Eubank in the following way:
“[The ordinance in Eubank] left the establishment of the building line untouched until the lot owners should act and then . . . gave to it the effect of law. The ordinance in the case at bar absolutely prohibits the erection of any billboards . . . but permits this prohibition to be modified with the consent of the persons who are to be most affected by such modification.” 242 U. S., at 531.
Since the property owners could simply waive an otherwise applicable legislative limitation, the Court in Cusack determined that the provision did not delegate legislative power at all. Ibid.
The fears expressed in dissent rest on the proposition that the procedure at issue here is “fundamentally unfair” to landowners ; this fails to take into account the mechanisms for relief potentially available to property owners whose desired land use changes are rejected by the voters. First, if hardship is occasioned by zoning restrictions, administrative relief is potentially available. Indeed, the very purpose of “variances” allowed by zoning officials is to avoid “practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship.” 8 E. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations §25.159, p. 511 (3d ed. 1965). As we noted, supra, at 677, remedies remain available under the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding and provide a means to challenge unreasonable or arbitrary action. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 (1926).
The situation presented in this case is not one of a zoning action denigrating the use or depreciating the value of land; instead, it involves an effort to change a reasonable zoning restriction. No existing rights are being impaired; new use rights are being sought from the City Council. Thus, this ease involves an owner’s seeking approval of a new use free from the restrictions attached to the land when it was acquired.
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.
Alan J. Karcher and Carmen A. Orechio, the former presiding officers of the New Jersey Legislature, seek to appeal a judgment declaring a New Jersey statute unconstitutional. Their appeal presents the question whether public officials who have participated in a lawsuit solely in their official capacities may appeal an adverse judgment after they have left office. We hold that they may not.
I
In December 1982 the New Jersey Legislature enacted, over the Governor’s veto, a statute requiring the State’s primary and secondary public school educators to permit their students to observe a minute of silence before the start of each schoolday. The statute reads as follows:
“Principals and teachers in each public elementary and secondary school of each school district in this State shall permit students to observe a 1 minute period of silence to be used solely at the discretion of the individual student, before the opening exercises of each school day for quiet and private contemplation or introspection. ” N. J. Stat. Ann. § 18A:36-4 (West Supp. 1987).
The New Jersey Attorney General immediately announced that he would not defend the statute if it were challenged. The statute became effective December 17,1982, and within a month appellees — a New Jersey public school teacher, several public school students, and parents of public school students— challenged its constitutionality in federal court. Appellees sued under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that the statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief. They named as defendants the New Jersey Department of Education, its Commissioner, and two township boards of education.
When it became apparent that neither the Attorney General nor the named defendants would defend the statute, Karcher and Orechio, as Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly and President of the New Jersey Senate, respectively, sought and obtained permission to intervene as defendants on behalf of the legislature. Appellees entered into a stipulation dismissing the suit against the named defendants, but the District Court refused to accept the stipulation out of concern for the effect it might have on the jurisdictional posture of the case. The legislature, through its presiding officers, carried the entire burden of defending the statute.
After a 5-day trial, the District Court declared the New Jersey statute unconstitutional. Applying the test set out in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), the court held that the statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because its purpose was religious rather than secular, because it both advanced and inhibited religion, and because it fostered excessive government entanglement with religion. May v. Cooperman, 572 F. Supp. 1561 (NJ 1983).
Karcher and Orechio appealed from the District Court’s judgment in their official capacities as Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly and President of the New Jersey Senate. The named defendants filed letters with the Court of Appeals stating that they would not participate in the appeal, except to the extent necessary to protect themselves from having to pay attorney’s fees.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s declaratory judgment by a divided vote. The majority held that the statute did not promote or inhibit religion and would not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion, but affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that the statute violated the Establishment Clause for lack of a valid secular purpose. The dissent concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the absence of a secular legislative purpose. The Court of Appeals entered its judgment of affirmance on December 24, 1985. May v. Cooperman, 780 F. 2d 240 (CA3 1985).
On January 14, 1986, Karcher and Orechio lost their posts as presiding legislative officers. Charles Hardwick replaced Karcher as Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly. John Russo succeeded Orechio as President of the New Jersey Senate.
A March 19, 1986, notice appealing the judgment of the Court of Appeals to this Court was filed on behalf of “Alan J. Karcher, as Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly; the New Jersey General Assembly; Carmen A. Orechio, as President of the New Jersey Senate and the New Jersey Senate.” App. to Juris. Statement 106a-107a. By letter dated May 6, 1986, appellants’ counsel informed us that Senate President Russo and General Assembly Speaker Hardwick were withdrawing the legislature’s appeal, but that Karcher desired to continue the appeal. App. to Motion to Dismiss or Affirm la-3a. Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the legislature’s withdrawal left the Court without a case or controversy. We postponed consideration of the jurisdictional question to the hearing of the case on the merits. 479 U. S. 1062 (1987). We now dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
II
The power of federal courts to hear and decide cases is defined by Article III of the Constitution and by the federal statutes enacted thereunder. Karcher and Orechio seek to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2). That statute empowers us to review cases upon “appeal by a party relying on a State statute held by a court of appeals to be invalid as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States.” One who is not an original party to a lawsuit may of course become a party by intervention, substitution, or third-party practice. 9 J. Moore, B. Ward, & J. Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 203.06 pp. 3-20 (1987). But we have consistently applied the general rule that one who is not a party or has not been treated as a party to a judgment has no right to appeal therefrom. United States ex rel. Louisiana v. Jack, 244 U. S. 397, 402 (1917); Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U. S. 578, 581 (1911); Ex parte Cockcroft, 104 U. S. 578, 579 (1882); Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14, 20-21 (1877).
Karcher and Orechio intervened in this lawsuit in their official capacities as presiding officers on behalf of the New Jersey Legislature. They do not appeal the judgment in those capacities. Indeed, they could not, for they no longer hold those offices. The authority to pursue the lawsuit on behalf of the legislature belongs to those who succeeded Karcher and Orechio in office. Davis v. Preston, 280 U. S. 406, 407 (1930). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(e)(1) provides that “[w]hen a public officer is a party to an appeal or other proceeding in the court of appeals in an official capacity and during its pendency . . . ceases to hold office, the action does not abate and the public officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party.” The current presiding officers have informed us that the New Jersey Legislature is not an appellant in this case.
Having lost their official status as presiding legislative officers, Karcher and Orechio now seek to appeal in their capacities as individual legislators and as representatives of the majority of the 200th New Jersey Legislature, the now-expired legislative body that enacted the minute of silence statute. They do not seek leave to intervene in those capacities. Rather, they assert, for the first time in their briefs to this Court, that they originally intervened and ligitated the lawsuit in those roles.
The fact that Karcher and Orechio participated in this litigation in their official capacities as presiding officers on behalf of the legislature does not mean that they became parties in all of their personal and professional capacities. In Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U. S. 534 (1986), we observed that “[a]cts performed by the same person in two different capacities ‘are generally treated as the transactions of two different legal personages.’ ” Id., at 543, n. 6, quoting F. James & G. Hazard, Civil Procedure § 11.6, p. 594 (3d ed. 1985). The concept of “legal personage” is a practical means of identifying the real interests at stake in a lawsuit. We have repeatedly recognized that the real party in interest in an official-capacity suit is the entity represented and not the individual officeholder. See Bender, supra, at 543-544; Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S. 159, 166 (1985); Brandon v. Holt, 469 U. S. 464, 471 (1985). We therefore agree with the Solicitor General’s view that Karcher and Orechio’s intervention as presiding legislative officers does not entitle them to appeal in their other individual and professional capacities. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10-11. Karcher and Orechio may not appeal the Court of Appeals’ judgment as individual legislators or as representatives of the 200th Legislature unless the record shows that they participated in those capacities below.
The course of proceedings in this case from the District Court to this Court make it clear that the only party-intervenor in this case was the incumbent New Jersey Legislature. At the District Court hearing on their oral motion to intervene, Karcher and Orechio represented to both the court and their opponents that they were intervening on behalf of the legislature and not as individual legislators. The District Court permitted Karcher and Orechio to intervene as party-defendants only in their representative capacities as presiding legislative officers. The intervention order provided:
“Alan J. Karcher in his representative capacity as Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly; the New Jersey General Assembly; Carmen A. Orechio in his representative capacity as President of the New Jersey Senate; and the New Jersey Senate; be permitted to intervene as direct party defendants.” App. 53-54.
The District Court’s opinion on the merits identifies the defendant-intervenors as “the New Jersey Assembly and New Jersey Senate.” May v. Cooperman, 572 F. Supp., at 1563. In its separate opinion on attorney’s fees, the District Court emphasizes that it gave the legislature leave to intervene to represent the interests of the State:
“The Legislature itself, through the Speaker of the General Assembly and the President of the Senate, moved to intervene in the case. The Legislature was permitted to intervene because it was responsible for enacting the statute and because no other party defendant was willing to defend the statute. The Legislature sought to perform a task which normally falls to the executive branch, but which, in this case, the executive branch refused to perform.” Record, Doc. No. 60, p. 20.
The record in the Court of Appeals similarly identifies the appellant-intervenor as the New Jersey Legislature. The notice of appeal was filed by “Alan J. Karcher, as Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly; the New Jersey General Assembly; Carmen A. Orechio as President of the New Jersey Senate and the New Jersey Senate, DefendantsIntervenors.” Record, Doc. No. 64. The Court of Appeals’ opinion identifies the appellants as “the New Jersey Senate and Assembly.” 780 F. 2d, at 241.
The notice of appeal to this Court identifies the appellants as “Alan J. Karcher, as Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly; the New Jersey General Assembly; Carmen A. Orechio, as President of the New Jersey Senate and the New Jersey Senate.” App. to Juris. Statement 106a-107a. Even the jurisdictional statement refers to the appellants as “the Legislature.” Juris. Statement 5-6. Though appellants assert in their brief that Karcher and Orechio as individual legislators were proper parties in the District Court and the Court of Appeals, our review of the record satisfies us that Karcher and Orechio have neither formally sought, nor in any sense been granted, permission to participate in this lawsuit as individual legislators.
We think it is also clear from the record that the partyintervenor at each point in the proceedings below was the incumbent legislature, on behalf of the State, and not the particular legislative body that enacted the minute of silence law. Nowhere in the record did Karcher and Orechio assert that they represented the 200th Legislature and no other.
In sum, Karcher and Orechio participated in this lawsuit in their official capacities as presiding officers of the New Jersey Legislature, but since they no longer hold those offices, they lack authority to pursue this appeal on behalf of the legislature. Karcher and Orechio as individual legislators and as representatives of the 200th New Jersey Legislature are not “parties” entitled to appeal the Court of Appeals’ judgment under 28 U. S. C. §1254(2). Accordingly, we must dismiss their appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Ill
Karcher and Orechio argue that if we dismiss their appeal we must vacate the judgments below. They advance two theories in support of this result.
First they contend that the judgments below must be vacated because no proper party-defendant ever intervened in the case. This is so, they say, because New Jersey law does not authorize the presiding legislative officers to represent the New Jersey Legislature in litigation. Not only is this claim directly contrary to appellants’ explicit representations to the District Court, it appears to be wrong as a matter of New Jersey law. The New Jersey Supreme Court has granted applications of the Speaker of the General Assembly and the President of the Senate to intervene as parties-respondent on behalf of the legislature in defense of a legislative enactment. In re Forsythe, 91 N. J. 141, 144, 450 A. 2d 499, 500 (1982). Since the New Jersey Legislature had authority under state law to represent the State’s interests in both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, we need not vacate the judgments below for lack of a proper defendant-appellant.
Appellants’ second theory for vacating the judgments below is based upon our practice of vacating lower court judgments when a case becomes moot on appeal. See Burke v. Barnes, 479 U. S. 361, 365 (1987); United States Department of Treasury v. Galioto, 477 U. S. 556, 560 (1986); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39 (1950). In United States v. Munsingwear, we explained that when a case becomes moot in its journey through the federal courts we will reverse or vacate the “unreviewable” judgment below and remand with directions to dismiss. We reasoned that this procedure “clears the path for future relitigation of the issues between the parties and eliminates a judgment, review of which was prevented through happenstance.” Id., at 40. Karcher and Orechio contend that the rationale underlying the Munsingwear procedure applies to this case, for it is the happenstance of their loss of official status that renders the judgment unreviewable.
We reject this argument because its underlying premise is wrong. This case did not become unreviewable when Karcher and Orechio left office. Rather, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(1), the authority of Karcher and Orechio to pursue the appeal on behalf of the legislature passed to their successors in office. The rules effectuating automatic substitution of public officers were specifically designed to prevent suits involving public officers from becoming moot due to personnel changes. See Advisory Committee Notes on 1961 Arndt, to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 25(d)(1), 28 U. S. C., pp. 568-569.
This controversy did not become moot due to circumstances unattributable to any of the parties. The controversy ended when the losing party — the New Jersey Legislature-declined to pursue its appeal. Accordingly, the Munsingwear procedure is inapplicable to this case. Because Karcher and Orechio are not parties to this case in the capacities under which they seek to appeal, their appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
“[INTERVENORS’ COUNSEL]: I am Lawrence Marinari for the General Assembly and Senate, the intervenors.
“THE COURT: Who are you actually appearing for now?
“[INTERVENORS’ COUNSEL]: I am appearing for both the presiding officers of the House and New Jersey Senate and New Jersey General Assembly.
“As the presiding officers of both houses, they are empowered by the rules of both houses to represent the House in ligitation.
“THE COURT: They are in a representative capacity?
“[INTERVENORS’ COUNSEL]: That is correct.
“[PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL]: I don’t thin[k] Messrs. Karcher and Orrechio [sic] are proper parties. I think it is the Legislature as a whole, separate entities.
“[INTERVENORS’ COUNSEL]: The institution is coming in as an institution. I can’t come in for each of the 120 individuals directly. I have not polled each one of them.
“THE COURT: So I will grant the motion for intervention for Mr. Karcher and Mr. Orrechio [sic] in their capacities as Speakers of the respective Houses.
“[PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL]: I do think the General Assembly and Senate are proper parties and can be represented by Orrechio [sic] and Karcher, but those entities —
“[INTERVENORS’ COUNSEL]: That is who I am representing. The order says Alan J. Karcher in representative capacity as Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly, the New Jersey General Assembly and the same for the Senate and its body.” App. to Motion to Dismiss or Affirm 12a-21a.
“THE COURT: You say there is a rule which provides the Speaker of each House—
“[INTERVENORS’ COUNSEL]: It is the presiding officer of each House and in charge of all administrative duties, and from that we have been in numerous suits and have cooperated with counsel anytime they want a deposition. I don’t envision this to be a problem, your Honor.” App. to Motion to Dismiss or Affirm 16a-17a.
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 Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the Assimilative Crimes Act of 1948, 18 U. S. C. § 13, is constitutional insofar as it makes applicable to a federal enclave a subsequently enacted criminal law of the State in which the enclave is situated. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that it is constitutional.
A four-count indictment, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, charged the appellee, Sharpnack, with committing sex crimes involving two boys in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 13, and Arts. 535b and 535c of Vernon's Texas Penal Code, 1952. The offenses were charged to have been committed in 1955 at the Randolph Air Force Base, a federal enclave in Texas. Articles 535b and 535c had been enacted in 1950 and, at the time of the commission of the alleged offenses, were in force throughout the State. Also, since 1948, the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act has provided that, within such an enclave, acts not punishable by any enactment of Congress are punishable by the then effective laws of the State in which the enclave is situated. Nevertheless, upon motion of Sharpnack, the District Court, in an unreported order, dismissed the indictment “for the reason that Congress may not legislatively assimilate and adopt criminal statutes of a state which are enacted by the state subsequent to the enactment of the Federal Assimilative Statute.” The United States appealed to this Court under 18 U. S. C. § 3731, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 352 U. S. 962.
The 1948 Assimilative Crimes Act was enacted as part of the Revised Criminal Code of the United States and reads as follows:
Ҥ 13. Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction.
“Whoever within or upon any of the places now existing or hereafter reserved or acquired as provided in section 7 of this title, is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State, Territory, Possession, or District in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment.” 18 s. c. - * •
In the absence of restriction in the cessions of the respective enclaves to the United States, the power of Congress to exercise legislative jurisdiction over them is clearly stated in Article I, § 8, cl. 17, and Article IV, § 3, cl. 2, of the Constitution. See Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U. S. 518. The first Federal Crimes Act, enacted in 1790, 1 Stat. 112, defined a number of federal crimes and referred to federal enclaves. The need for dealing more extensively with criminal offenses in the enclaves was evident, and one natural solution was to adopt for each enclave the offenses made punishable by the State in which it was situated. See United States v. Press Publishing Co., 219 U. S. 1, 9-13. Initially there was room for a difference of opinion as to the desirability of doing this by blanket legislation, rather than by a code enumerating and defining specific offenses applicable to the enclaves. Congress made its initial decision on this point in 1825 by adopting for otherwise undefined offenses the policy of general conformity to local law. On repeated occasions thereafter Congress has confirmed that policy by enacting an unbroken series of Assimilative Crimes Acts. During the same period, Congress has recognized a slowly increasing number of federal crimes in the field of major offenses by enacting for the enclaves specific criminal statutes which have defined those crimes and, to that extent, have excluded the state laws from that field.
In the Act of 1825, sponsored by Daniel Webster in the House of Representatives, Congress expressly adopted the fundamental policy of conformity to local law. That Act provided the basis from which has grown the Assimilative Crimes Act now before us. Congress thereby made it clear that, with the exception of the enlarged list of offenses specifically proscribed by it, the federal offenses in each enclave were to be identical with those proscribed by the State in which the enclave was situated. That Act made no specific reference to subsequent repeals or amendments by the State of any assimilated laws. It also made no specific reference to new offenses that might be added by the State after the enactment of the Assimilative Crimes Act.
In 1831, there was certified by a Circuit Court to this Court in United States v. Paul, 6 Pet. 141, the concrete question whether, under the Assimilative Crimes Act of 1825, a statute enacted in 1829 by the State of New York, defining a new offense to be known as burglary in the third degree, was applicable to the federal enclave at West Point. The question was submitted without argument and this Court’s answer is reported in full as follows:
“Mr. Chief Justice Marshall stated it to be the opinion of the Court, that the third section of the act of Congress, entitled ‘an act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes,’ passed March 3, 1825, is to be limited to the laws of the several states in force at the time of its enactment. This was ordered to be certified to the Circuit Court for the southern district of New York.” Id., at 142.
There is nothing in that answer or in the report of the case to show that the issue was decided as anything more than one of statutory construction falling within the doctrine calling for the narrow construction of a penal statute. So interpreted, the decision did not reach the issue that is before us. It did, however, carry a fair implication that the Act of 1825 was constitutional insofar as it made applicable to enclaves the criminal laws in force in the respective States at the time of the enactment of the Assimilative Crimes Act. This Court later so held in Franklin v. United States, 216 U. S. 559.
Due to the limitation of the Assimilative Crimes Act of 1825 to state laws in force at the time of its own enactment, the Act gradually lost much of its effectiveness in maintaining current conformity with state criminal laws. This result has been well called one of static conformity. To renew such conformity, Congress has enacted comparable Assimilative Crimes Acts in 1866, 14 Stat. 13; in 1874 as R. S. § 5391; in 1898, 30 Stat. 717; in 1909 as §289 of the Criminal Code, 35 Stat. 1145; in 1933, 48 Stat. 152; in 1935, 49 Stat. 394; in 1940, 54 Stat. 234; and finally in 1948 in the Revised Criminal Code as 18 U. S. C. § 13.
The above series of substantial re-enactments demonstrates a consistent congressional purpose to apply the principle of conformity to state criminal laws in punishing most minor offenses committed within federal enclaves. In the re-enactments of 1866, 1874, 1898 and 1909, the interpretation given the Act of 1825 by the Paul case was made explicit by expressly limiting the assimilation to the state laws “now in force,” or as the “laws of the State . . . now provide . . . .” In the Acts of 1933, 1935 and 1940, Congress continued to prescribe assimilation to the state laws “in force” on specified recent dates, and these three re-enactments also made the assimilation conditional upon the state laws “remaining in force at the time of the doing or omitting the doing of such act or thing . ...” This helped to keep the federal law current with the state law by reflecting future deletions from the state laws as soon as made.
In 1948, coincidentally with its revision of the Criminal Code of the United States, Congress finally adopted the present language.'V* This expressly limits the assimilation to acts or omissions committed within a federal enclave and “not made punishable by any enactment of Congress . . . .” It further specifies that “Whoever ... is guilty of any act or omission which . . . would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State ... in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like [federal] offense and subject to a like punishment.” (Emphasis supplied.) This assimilation applies whether the state laws are enacted before or after the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act and at once reflects every addition, repeal or amendment of a state law. Recognizing its underlying policy of 123 years’ standing, Congress has thus at last provided that within each federal enclave, to the extent that offenses are not pre-empted by congressional enactments, there shall be complete current conformity with the criminal laws of the; respective States in which the enclaves are situated.
There is no doubt that Congress may validly adopt á criminal code for each federal enclave. It certainly may do so by drafting new laws or by copying laws defining the criminal offenses in force throughout the State in which the enclave is situated. As a practical matter, it has to proceed largely on a wholesale basis. Its reason for adopting local laws is not so much because Congress has examined them individually as it is because the laws are already in force throughout the State in which the enclave is situated. The basic legislative decision made by Congress is its decision to conform the laws in the enclaves to the local laws as to all offenses not punishable by any enactment of Congress. Whether Congress sets forth the assimilated laws in full or assimilates them by reference, the result is as definite and as ascertainable as are the state laws themselves.
Having the power to assimilate the state laws, Congress obviously has like power to renew such assimilation annually or daily in order to keep the laws in the enclaves current with those in the States. That being so, we conclude that Congress is within its constitutional powers and legislative discretion when, after 123 years of experience with the policy of conformity, it enacts that policy in its most complete and accurate form. / Rather than being a delegation by Congress of its legislative authority to the States, it is a deliberate continuing adoption by Congress for federal enclaves of such unpre-empted offenses and punishments as shall have been already put in effect by the respective States for their own government. Congress retains power to exclude a particular state law from the assimilative effect of the Act. This procedure is a practical accommodation of the mechanics of the legislative functions of State and Nation in the field of police power where it is especially appropriate to make the federal regulation of local conduct conform to that already established by the State. Cf. Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U. S. 94, 100-101.
Examples of uses made by Congress of future state legislative action in connection with the exercise of federal legislative power are numerous. The Webb-Kenyon Act of March 1, 1913, 37 Stat. 699, 700, 27 U. S. C. § 122, prohibited the shipment of intoxicating liquors into a State to be used “in violation of any law of such State . . . .” West Virginia subsequently enacted a prohibition law. This Court nevertheless upheld the applicability of the Federal Act as it assimilated that subsequent state statute. Clark-Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland R. Co., 242 U. S. 311, 326. See also, Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149, 169 (Justice Holmes’ dissent), and United States v. Hill, 248 U. S. 420.
The Federal Black Bass Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 517, 66 Stat. 736, 16 U. S. C. § 852, prohibited the transportation of fish in interstate commerce contrary to the law of the State from which it is transported. And see 18 U. S. C. § 43.
The Johnson Act, 64 Stat. 1134, 15 U. S. C. § 1172, prohibiting the transportation of gambling devices in interstate commerce, provides that a State may exempt itself from the Act. See Nilva v. United States, 212 F. 2d 115.
In the less closely related field of civil law, the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (b), bases the liability of the United States on “the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
The Social Security Act, as amended, 71 Stat. 519, 42 U. S. C. A. (1957, Cum. Ann. Pocket Pt.) § 416 (h)(1), provides that an applicant shall be considered a husband or wife of an insured individual “if the courts of the State in which such insured individual is domiciled at the time such applicant files an application . . . would find that such applicant and such insured individual were validly married at the time such applicant files such application . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
The Bankruptcy Act, 52 Stat. 847, 11 U. S. C. § 24, provides that it shall not affect the allowance of exemptions prescribed “by the State laws in force at the time of the filing of the petition . . . See Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181, 189-190.
Under 63 Stat. 25, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1894 (i) (1) and (2), States were authorized to free certain local areas from federal rent control either by passing local rent control legislation of their own, or by determining that federal rent control was no longer necessary. See United States v. Shoreline Cooperative Apartments, Inc., 338 U. S. 897, reversing, per curiam, 84 F. Supp. 660.
This Court also has held that Congress may delegate to local legislative bodies broad jurisdiction over Territories and ceded areas provided Congress retains, as it does here, ample power to revise, alter and revoke the local legislation. District of Columbia v. Thompson Co., 346 U. S. 100, 106, 109-110; Christianson v. King County, 239 U. S. 356; Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall. 648, 655.
The application of the Assimilative Crimes Act to subsequently adopted state legislation, under the limitations here prescribed, is a reasonable exercise of congressional legislative power and discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case is remanded to it for further action consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
There is no contention that the acts here charged were punishable under any enactment of Congress other than by virtue of the As-similative Crimes Act, and there is no contention that Randolph Air Force Base is not a federal enclave subject to 18 U. S. C. § 13.
The order also included the following paragraph:
“It is further the opinion of this Court that Section 13, Title 18, United States Code, enacted in 1948, wherein it assimilates and adopts said criminal statutes enacted by the state subsequent to the enactment of said section, to-wit: Articles 535 (b) and 535 (c) of the Texas Penal Statutes, enacted in 1950, upon which all four counts of this indictment are predicated, is a delegation of Congress’ legislative authority to the states in violation of the Constitution of the United States.”
Section 7 contains the following provision:
"The term ‘special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States/ as used in this title, includes:
“(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.” 18 U. S. C.
“Article. I.
“Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power . . .
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings . . . .
“Article. IV.
“Section. 3. . . .
“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property-belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” U. S. Const.
For example, the following offenses committed within federal enclaves are now made criminal by such enactments of Congress: arson, 18 U. S. C. §81; assault, 18 U. S. C. §113; maiming, 18 U. S. C. § 114; larceny, 18 U. S. C. § 661; receiving stolen property, 18 U. S. C. § 662; false pretenses “upon any waters or vessel within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” 18 U. S. C. § 1025; murder, 18 U. S. C. § 1111; manslaughter, 18 U. S. C. § 1112; attempted murder or manslaughter, 18 U. S. C. § 1113; malicious mischief, 18 U. S. C. § 1363; rape, 18 U. S. C. § 2031; carnal knowledge, 18 U. S. C. § 2032; and robbery, 18 U. S. C. §2111.
“Sec. 3. ... if any offence shall be committed in any of the places aforesaid, the punishment of which offence is not specially provided for by any law of the United States, such offence shall, upon a conviction in any court of the United States having cognisance thereof, be liable to, and receive the same punishment as the laws of the state in which such fort, dock-yard, navy-yard, arsenal, armory, or magazine, or other place, ceded as aforesaid, is situated, provide for the like offence when committed within the body of any county of such state.” 4 Stat. 115.
See H. R. Rep. No. 263, 73d Cong., 1st Sess.; 77 Cong. Rec. 5530-5532, 5920; and H. R. Rep. No. 1022, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.
The Reviser’s Note to § 13 states the situation simply:
“The revised section omits the specification of any date as unnecessary in a revision, which speaks from the date of its enactment. Such omission will not only make effective within Federal reservations, the local State laws in force on the date of the enactment of.the revision, but will authorize the Federal courts to apply the same measuring stick to such offenses as is applied in the adjoining State under future changes of the State law and will make unnecessary periodic pro forma amendments of this section to keep abreast of changes of local laws. In other words, the revised section makes applicable to offenses committed on such reservations, the law of the place that would govern if the reservation had not been ceded to the United States.” 18 U. S. C.
We do not now pass upon the effect of the Assimilative Crimes Act where an assimilated state law conflicts with a specific federal criminal statute, cf. Williams v. United States, 327 U. S. 711, or with a federal policy. Cf. Johnson v. Yellow Cab Co., 321 U. S. 383; Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U. S. 94; Hunt v. United States, 278 U. S. 96; Air Terminal Services, Inc. v. Rentzel, 81 F. Supp. 611; Oklahoma City v. Sanders, 94 F. 2d 323.
In Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, supra, this Court voided a statute which attempted to make state workmen’s compensation laws applicable to injuries within the federal admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The basis of that holding, which we do not now re-examine, was that "the Constitution not only contemplated but actually established” a “harmony and uniformity” of law throughout the admiralty jurisdiction. Id., at 164. That statute was voided because it was designed to “destroy” what was considered to be a constitutionally required uniformity. Ibid. In contrast, the statute now before us is designed to effectuate a long-standing congressional policy of conformity with local law.
The applicability of criminal provisions under the Connally Hot Oil Act, 49 Stat. 30, 15 U. S. C. § 715, depends upon the adoption of state conservation laws. See Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United States, 198 F. 2d 753.
Under the Fugitive from Justice Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1073, it is criminal for a person to travel in interstate commerce to avoid prosecution for specified crimes as defined “under the laws of the place from which he flees . . . .” Cf. Hemans v. United States, 163 F. 2d 228.
Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 47-50, is not controlling. In that case, Chief Justice Marshall stated that Congress could not constitutionally delegate to state legislatures the power to adopt future “rules of practice” and “inodes of proceeding” which would bind federal courts. In 1872, that decision was met by Congress in the adoption of the Conformity Act, 17 Stat. 197, which prescribed:
“Sec. 5. That the practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding in other than equity and admiralty causes in the circuit and district courts of the United States shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding existing at the time in like causes in the courts of record of the State within which such circuit or district courts are held, any rule of court to the contrary notwithstanding . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) While this Act was later restricted by interpretation, the validity of its application to future state practice was generally accepted by the courts. See Hart and Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System (1953), 581-586; Warren, Federal Process and State Legislation, 16 Va. L. Rev. 421, 557-570 (1930); Clark and Moore, A New Federal Civil Procedure, 44 Yale L. J. 387, 401-411 (1935).
See generally, Note, The Federal Assimilative Crimes Act, 70 Harv. L. Rev. 685 (1957).
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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases present the following questions: (1) Whether § 109(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates legislative power to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2) Whether the Administrator may consider the costs of implementation in setting national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) under § 109(b)(1). (3) Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the EPA’s interpretation of Part D of Title I of the CAA, 42 U. S. C. §§ 7501-7515, with respect to implementing the revised ozone NAAQS. (4) If so, whether the EPA’s interpretation of that part was permissible.
I
. Section 109(a) of the CAA, as added, 84 Stat. 1679, and amended, 42 U. S. C. § 7409(a), requires the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate NAAQS for each air pollutant for which “air quality criteria” have been issued under § 108, 42 U. S. C. § 7408. Once a NAAQS has been promulgated, the Administrator must review the standard (and the criteria on which it is based) “at five-year intervals” and make “such revisions... as may be appropriate.” CAA § 109(d)(1), 42 U. S. C. § 7409(d)(1). These cases arose when, on July 18, 1997, the Administrator revised the NAAQS for particulate matter and ozone. See NAAQS for Particulate Matter, 62 Fed. Reg. 38652 (codified in 40 CFR §50.7 (1999)); NAAQS for Ozone, id., at 38856 (codified in 40 CFR §§50.9, 50.10 (1999)). American Trucking Associations, Inc., and its corespondents in No. 99-1257 — which include, in addition to other private companies, the States of Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia — challenged the new standards in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 7607(b)(1).
The District of Columbia Circuit accepted some of the challenges and rejected others. It agreed with the No. 99-1257 respondents (hereinafter respondents) that § 109(b)(1) delegated legislative power to the Administrator in contravention of the United States Constitution, Art. I, § 1, because it found that the EPA had interpreted the statute to provide no “intelligible principle” to guide the agency’s exercise of authority. American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027, 1034 (1999). The court thought, however, that the EPA could perhaps avoid the unconstitutional delegation by adopting a restrictive construction of § 109(b)(1), so instead of declaring the section unconstitutional the court remanded the NAAQS to the agency. Id., at 1038. (On this delegation point, Judge Tatel dissented, finding the statute constitutional as written. Id., at 1057.) On the second issue that the Court of Appeals addressed, it unanimously rejected respondents’ argument that the court should depart from the rule of Lead Industries Assn., Inc. v. EPA, 647 F. 2d 1130, 1148 (CADC 1980), that the EPA may not consider the cost of implementing a NAAQS in setting the initial standard. It also rejected respondents’ argument that the implementation provisions for ozone found in Part D, Sub-part 2, of Title I of the CAA, 42 U. S. C. §§ 7511-7511f, were so tied to the existing ozone standard that the EPA lacked the power to revise the standard. The court held that although Subpart 2 constrained the agency’s method of implementing the new standard, 175 F. 3d, at 1050, it did not prevent the EPA from revising the standard and designating areas of the country as “nonattainment areas,” see 42 U. S. C. § 7407(d)(1), by reference to it, 175 F. 3d, at 1047-1048. On the EPA’s petition for rehearing, the panel adhered to its position on these points, and unanimously rejected the EPA’s new argument that the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the implementation question because there had been no “final” implementation action. American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. EPA, 195 F. 3d 4 (CADC 1999). The Court of Appeals denied the EPA’s suggestion for rehearing en banc, with five judges dissenting. Id., at 13.
The Administrator and the EPA petitioned this Court for review of the first, third, and fourth questions described in the first paragraph of this opinion. Respondents conditionally cross-petitioned for review of the second question. We granted certiorari on both petitions, 529 U. S. 1129 (2000); 530 U. S. 1202 (2000), and scheduled the cases for argument in tandem. We have now consolidated the cases for purposes of decision.
II
In Lead Industries Assn., Inc. v. EPA, supra, at 1148, the District of Columbia Circuit held that “economic considerations [may] play no part in the promulgation of ambient air quality standards under Section 109” of the CAA. In the present cases, the court adhered to that holding, 175 F. 3d, at 1040-1041, as it had done on many other occasions. See, e. g., American Lung Assn. v. EPA, 134 F. 3d 388, 389 (1998); NRDC v. Administrator, EPA, 902 F. 2d 962, 973 (1990), vacated in part on other grounds, NRDC v. EPA, 921 F. 2d 326 (CADC 1991); American Petroleum Institute v. Costle, 665 F. 2d 1176, 1185 (1981). Respondents argue that these decisions are incorrect. We disagree; and since the first step in assessing whether a statute delegates legislative power is to determine what authority the statute confers, we address that issue of interpretation first and reach respondents’ constitutional arguments in Part III, infra.
Section 109(b)(1) instructs the EPA to set primary ambient air quality standards “the attainment and maintenance of which... are requisite to protect the public health” with “an adequate margin of safety.” 42 U. S. C. § 7409(b)(1). Were it not for the hundreds of pages of briefing respondents have submitted on the issue, one would have thought it fairly clear that this text does not permit the EPA to consider costs in setting the standards. The language, as one scholar has noted, “is absolute.” D. Currie, Air Pollution: Federal Law and Analysis 4-15 (1981). The EPA, “based on” the information about health effects contained in the technical “criteria” documents compiled under § 108(a)(2), 42 U. S. C. § 7408(a)(2), is to identify the maximum airborne concentration of a pollutant that the public health can tolerate, decrease the concentration to provide an “adequate” margin of safety, and set the standard at that level. Nowhere are the costs of achieving such a standard made part of that initial calculation.
Against this most natural of readings, respondents make a lengthy, spirited, but ultimately unsuccessful attack. They begin with the object of § 109(b)(l)’s focus, the “public health.” When the term first appeared in federal clean air legislation — in the Act of July 14, 1955 (1955 Act), 69 Stat. 322, which expressed “recognition of the dangers to the public health” from air pollution — its ordinary meaning was “[t]he health of the community.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2005 (2d ed. 1950). Respondents argue, however, that § 109(b)(1), as added by the Clean Air Amendments of 1970,84 Stat. 1676, meant to use the term’s secondary meaning: “[t]he ways and means of conserving the health of the members of a community, as by preventive medicine, organized care of the sick, etc.” Ibid. Words that can have more than one meaning are given content, however, by their surroundings, FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 182-183 (2000); Jones v. United States, 527 U. S. 373, 389 (1999), and in the context of § 109(b)(1) this second definition makes no sense. Congress could not have meant to instruct the Administrator to set NAAQS at a level “requisite to protect” “the art and science dealing with the protection and improvement of community health.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1836 (1981). We therefore revert to the primary definition of the term: the health of the public.
Even so, respondents argue, many more factors than air pollution affect public health. In particular, the economic cost of implementing a very stringent standard might produce health losses sufficient to offset the health gains achieved in cleaning the air — for example, by closing down whole industries and thereby impoverishing the workers and consumers dependent upon those industries. That is unquestionably true, and Congress was unquestionably aware of it. Thus, Congress had commissioned in the Air Quality Act of 1967 (1967 Act) “a detailed estimate of the cost of carrying out the provisions of this Act; a comprehensive study of the cost of program implementation by affected units of government; and a comprehensive study of the economic impact of air quality standards on the Nations industries, communities, and other contributing sources of pollution.” §2, 81 Stat. 505. The 1970 Congress, armed with the results of this study, see The Cost of Clean Air, S. Doc. No. 91-40 (1969) (publishing the results of the study), not only anticipated that compliance costs could injure the public health, but provided for that precise exigency. Section 110(f)(1) of the CAA permitted the Administrator to waive the compliance deadline for stationary sources if, inter alia, sufficient control measures were simply unavailable and “the continued operation of such sources is essential... to the public health or welfare.” 84 Stat. 1683 (emphasis added). Other provisions explicitly permitted or required economic costs to be taken into account in implementing the air quality standards. Section 111(b)(1)(B), for example, commanded the Administrator to set “standards of performance” for certain new sources of emissions that as specified in § 111(a)(1) were to “reflec[t] the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” Section 202(a)(2) prescribed that emissions standards for automobiles could take effect only “after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period.” 84 Stat. 1690. See also § 202(b)(5)(C) (similar limitation for interim standards); § 211(c)(2) (similar limitation for fuel additives); § 231(b) (similar limitation for implementation of aircraft emission standards). Subsequent amendments to the CAA have added many more provisions directing, in explicit language, that the Administrator consider costs in performing various duties. See, e. g., 42 U. S. C. § 7545(k)(1) (reformulate gasoline to “require the greatest reduction in emissions... taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reductions”); § 7547(a)(3) (emission reduction for nonroad vehicles to be set “giving appropriate consideration to the cost” of the standards). We have therefore refused to find implicit in ambiguous sections of the CAA an authorization to consider costs that has elsewhere, and so often, been expressly granted. See Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U. S. 246, 257, and n. 5 (1976). Cf. General Motors Corp. v. United States, 496 U. S. 530, 538, 541 (1990) (refusing to infer in certain provisions of the CAA deadlines and enforcement limitations that had been expressly imposed elsewhere).
Accordingly, to prevail in their present challenge, respondents must show a textual commitment of authority to the EPA to consider costs in setting NAAQS under § 109(b)(1). And because § 109(b)(1) and the NAAQS for which it provides are the engine that drives nearly all of Title I of the CAA, 42 U. S. C. §§7401-7515, that textual commitment must be a clear one. Congress, we have held, does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions — it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U. S. 218, 231 (1994); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., supra, at 159-160. Respondents’ textual arguments ultimately founder upon this principle.
Their first claim is that §109(b)(l)’s terms “adequate margin” and “requisite” leave room to pad health effects with cost concerns. Just as we found it “highly unlikely that Congress would leave the determination of whether an industry will be entirely, or even substantially, rate-regulated to agency discretion — and even more unlikely that it would achieve that through such a subtle device as permission to ‘modify’ rate-filing requirements,” MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., supra, at 231, so also we find it implausible that Congress would give to the EPA through these modest words the power to determine whether implementation costs should moderate national air quality standards. Accord, Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U. S. 576, 590, n. (2000) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (“The implausibility of Congress’s leaving a highly significant issue unaddressed (and thus ‘delegating’ its resolution to the administering agency) is assuredly one of the factors to be considered in determining whether there is ambiguity” (emphasis deleted)).
The same defect inheres in respondents’ next two arguments: that while the Administrator’s judgment about what is requisite to protect the public health must be “based on [the] criteria” documents developed under § 108(a)(2), see § 109(b)(1), it need not be based solely on those criteria; and that those criteria themselves, while they must include “effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of such pollutant in the ambient air,” are not necessarily limited to those effects. Even if we were to concede those premises, we still would not conclude' that one of the unenumerated factors that the agency can consider in developing and applying the criteria is cost of implementation. That factor is both so indirectly related to public health and so full of potential for canceling the conclusions drawn from direct health effects that it would surely have been expressly mentioned in §§ 108 and 109 had Congress meant it to be considered. Yet while those provisions describe in detail how the health effects of pollutants in the ambient air are to be calculated and given effect, see § 108(a)(2), they say not a word about costs.
Respondents point, finally, to a number of provisions in the CAA that do require attainment cost data to be generated. Section 108(b)(1), for example, instructs the Administrator to “issue to the States,” simultaneously with the criteria documents, “information on air pollution control techniques, which information shall include data relating to the cost of installation and operation.” 42 U. S. C. § 7408(b)(1). And § 109(d)(2)(C)(iv) requires the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to “advise the Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance” of NAAQS. 42 U. S. C. § 7409(d)(2)(C)(iv). Respondents argue that these provisions make no sense unless costs are to be considered in setting the NAAQS. That is not so. These provisions enable the Administrator to assist the States in carrying out their statutory role as primary implementers of the NAAQS. It is to the States that the CAA assigns initial and primary responsibility for deciding what emissions reductions will be required from which sources. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 7407(a), 7410 (giving States the duty of developing implementation plans). It would be impossible to perform that task intelligently without considering which abatement technologies are most efficient, and most economically feasible — which is why we have said that “the most important forum for consideration of claims of economic and technological infeasibility is before the state agency formulating the implementation plan,” Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U. S., at 266. Thus, federal clean air legislation has, from the very beginning, directed federal agencies to develop and transmit implementation data, including cost data, to the States. See 1955 Act, §2(b), 69 Stat. 322; Clean Air Act of 1963, amending §§3(a), (b) of the CAA, 77 Stat. 394; 1967 Act, §§ 103(a)-(d), 104, 107(c), 81 Stat. 486-488. That Congress chose to carry forward this research program to assist States in choosing the means through which they would implement the standards is perfectly sensible, and has no bearing upon whether cost considerations are to be taken into account in formulating the standards.
It should be clear from what we have said that the canon requiring texts to be so construed as to avoid serious constitutional problems has no application here. No matter how severe the constitutional doubt, courts may choose only between reasonably available interpretations of a text. See, e. g., Miller v. French, 530 U. S. 327, 341 (2000); Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U. S. 206, 212 (1998). The text of § 109(b), interpreted in its statutory and historical context and with appreciation for its importance to the CAA as a whole, unambiguously bars cost considerations from the NAAQS-setting process, and thus ends the matter for us as well as the EPA. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on this point.
III
Section 109(b)(1) of the CAA instructs the EPA to set “ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on [the] criteria [documents of § 108] and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health.” 42 U. S. C. § 7409(b)(1). The Court of Appeals held that this section as interpreted by the Administrator did not provide an “intelligible principle” to guide the EPA’s exercise of authority in setting NAAQS. “[The] EPA,” it said, “lack[ed] any determinate criteria for drawing lines. It has failed to state intelligibly how much is too much.” 175 F. 3d, at 1034. The court hence found that the EPA’s interpretation (but not the statute itself) violated the non-delegation doctrine. Id., at 1038. We disagree.
In a delegation challenge, the constitutional question is whether the statute has delegated legislative power to the agency. Article I, § 1, of the Constitution vests “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted... in a Congress of the United States.” This text permits no delegation of those powers, Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. 748, 771 (1996); see id., at 776-777 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and so we repeatedly have said that when Congress confers decisionmaking authority upon agencies Congress must “lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [act] is directed to conform.” J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 394, 409 (1928). We have never suggested that an agency can cure an unlawful delegation of legislative power by adopting in its discretion a limiting construction of the statute. Both Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U. S. 245, 252-253 (1947), and Lichter v. United States, 334 U. S. 742, 783 (1948), mention agency regulations in the course of their nondelegation discussions, but Lichter did so because a subsequent Congress had incorporated the regulations into a revised version of the statute, ibid., and Fahey because the customary practices in the area, implicitly incorporated into the statute, were reflected in the regulations, 832 U. S., at 250. The idea that an agency can cure an unconstitutionally stand-ardless delegation of power by declining to exercise some of that power seems to us internally contradictory. The very choice of which portion of the power to exercise — that is to say, the prescription of the standard that Congress had omitted — would itself be an exercise of the forbidden legislative authority. Whether the statute delegates legislative power is a question for the courts, and an agency’s voluntary self-denial has no bearing upon the answer.
We agree with the Solicitor General that the text of § 109(b)(1) of the CAA at a minimum requires that “[flor a discrete set of pollutants and based on published air quality criteria that reflect the latest scientific knowledge, [the] EPA must establish uniform national standards at a level that is requisite to protect public health from the adverse effects of the pollutant in the ambient air.” Tr. of Oral Arg. ih-No. 99-1257, p. 5. Requisite, in turn, “mean[s] sufficient, but not more than necessary.” Id., at 7. These limits on the EPA’s discretion are strikingly similar to the ones we approved in Touby v. United States, 500 U. S. 160 (1991), which permitted the Attorney General to designate a drug as a controlled substance for purposes of criminal drug enforcement if doing so was “ ‘necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.’” Id., at 163. They also resemble the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 provision requiring the agency to “ ‘set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer any impairment of health’ ” — which the Court upheld in Industrial Union Deyt., AFL-GIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S. 607, 646 (1980), and which even then-JuSTlCE Rehnquist, who alone in that case thought the statute violated the nondelegation doctrine, see id., at 671 (opinion concurring in judgment), would have upheld if, like the statute here, it did not permit economic costs to be considered. See American Textile Mfrs. Institute, Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U. S. 490, 545 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
The scope of discretion § 109(b)(1) allows is in fact well within the outer limits of our nondelegation precedents. In the. history of the Court we have found the requisite “intelligible principle” lacking in only two statutes, one of which provided literally no guidance for the exercise of discretion, and the other of which conferred authority to regulate the entire economy on the basis of no more precise a standard than stimulating the economy by assuring “fair competition.” See Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388 (1935); A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495 (1935). We have, on the other hand, upheld the validity of § 11(b)(2) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 821, which gave the Securities and Exchange Commission authority to modify the structure of holding company systems so as to ensure that they are not “unduly or unnecessarily complicate^]” and do not “unfairly or inequitably distribute voting power among security holders.” American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U. S. 90, 104 (1946). We have approved the wartime conferral of agency power to fix the prices of commodities at a level that “ ‘will be generally fair and equitable and will effectuate the [in some respects conflicting] purposes of th[e] Act.’” Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 420, 423-426 (1944). And we have found an “intelligible principle” in various statutes authorizing regulation in the “public interest,” See, e. g., National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190, 225-226 (1943) (Federal Communications Commission’s power to regulate airwaves); New York Central Securities Corp. v. United States, 287 U. S. 12, 24-25 (1932) (Interstate Commerce Commission’s power to approve railroad consolidations). In short, we have “almost never felt qualified to second-guess Congress regarding the permissible degree of policy judgment that can be left to those executing or applying the law.” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 416 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting); see id., at 373 (majority opinion).
It is true enough that the degree of agency discretion that is acceptable varies according to the scope of the power eon-gressionally conferred. See Loving v. United States, 517 U. S., at 772-773; United States v. Mazurie, 419 U. S. 544, 556-557 (1975). While Congress need not provide any direction to the EPA regarding the manner in which it is to define “country elevators,” which are to be exempt from new-stationary-source regulations governing grain elevators, see 42 U. S. C. §7411(i), it must provide substantial guidance on setting air standards that affect the entire national economy. But even in sweeping regulatory schemes we have never demanded, as the Court of Appeals did here, that statutes provide a “determinate criterion” for saying “how much [of the regulated harm] is too much.” 175 F. 3d, at 1034. In Touby, for example, we did not require the statute to decree how “imminent” was too imminent, or how “necessary” was necessary enough, or even — most relevant here — how “hazardous” was too hazardous. 500 U. S., at 165-167. Similarly, the statute at issue in Lichter authorized agencies to recoup “excess profits” paid under wartime Government contracts, yet we did not insist that Congress specify how much profit was too much. 334 U. S., at 783-786. It is therefore not conclusive for delegation purposes that, as respondents argue, ozone and particulate matter are “nonthreshold” pollutants that inflict a continuum of adverse health effects at any airborne concentration greater than zero, and hence require the EPA to make judgments of degree. “[A] certain degree of discretion, and thus of lawmaking, inheres in most executive or judicial action.” Mistretta v. United States, supra, at 417 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (emphasis deleted); see 488 U. S., at 378-379 (majority opinion). Section 109(b)(1) of the CAA, which to repeat we interpret as requiring the EPA to set air quality standards at the level that is “requisite” — that is, not lower or higher than is necessary — to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety, fits comfortably within the scope of discretion permitted by our precedent.
We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals remanding for reinterpretation that would avoid a supposed delegation of legislative power. It will remain for the Court of Appeals — on the remand that we direct for other reasons — to dispose of any other preserved challenge to the NAAQS under the judicial-review provisions contained in 42 U. S. C. § 7607(d)(9).
IV
The final two issues on which we granted certiorari concern the EPA’s authority to implement the revised ozone NAAQS in areas whose ozone levels currently exceed the maximum level permitted by that standard. The CAA designates such areas “nonattainment,” § 107(d)(1), 42 U. S. C. § 7407(d)(1); see also Pub. L. 105-178, §6103, 112 Stat. 465 (setting timeline for new ozone designations), and it exposes them to additional restrictions over and above the implementation requirements imposed generally by §110 of the CAA. These additional restrictions are found in the five substantive subparts of Part D of Title I, 42 U. S. C. §§7501-7515. Subpart 1, §§7501-7509a, contains general nonattainment regulations that pertain to every pollutant for which a NAAQS exists. Subparts 2 through 5, §§ 7511— 7514a, contain rules tailored to specific individual pollutants. Subpart 2, added by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, §103, 104 Stat. 2423, addresses ozone. 42 U. S. C. §§ 7511— 75111 The dispute before us here, in a nutshell, is whether Subpart 1 alone (as the agency determined), or rather Sub-part 2 or some combination of Subparts 1 and 2, controls the implementation of the revised ozone NAAQS in non-attainment areas.
A
The Administrator first urges, however, that we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals on this issue because it lacked jurisdiction to review the EPA’s implementation policy. Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 42 U. S. C. § 7607(b)(1), gives the court jurisdiction over “any... nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” but the EPA argues that its implementation policy was not agency “action,” was not “final” action, and is not ripe for review. We reject each of these three contentions.
At the same time the EPA proposed the revised ozone NAAQS in 1996, it also proposed an “interim implementation policy” for the NAAQS, see 61 Fed. Reg. 65752 (1996), that was to govern until the details of implementation could be put in final form through specific “rulemaking actions.” The preamble to this proposed policy declared that “the interim implementation policy... represent^] EPA’s preliminary views on these issues and, while it may include various statements that States must take certain actions, these statements are made pursuant to EPA’s preliminary interpretations, and thus do not bind the States and public as a matter of law.” Ibid. If the EPA had done no more, we perhaps could accept its current claim that its action was not final. However, after the agency had accepted comments on its proposed policy, and on the same day that the final ozone NAAQS was promulgated, the White House published in the Federal Register what it titled a “Memorandum for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency” that prescribed implementation procedures for the EPA to follow. 62 Fed. Reg. 38421 (1997). (For purposes of our analysis we shall assume that this memorandum was not itself action by the EPA.) The EPA supplemented this memorandum with an explanation of the implementation procedures, which it published in the explanatory preamble to its final ozone NAAQS under the heading, “Final decision on the primary standard.” Id., at 38873. “In light of comments received regarding the interpretation proposed in the Interim Implementation Policy,” the EPA announced, it had “reconsidered that interpretation” and settled on a new one. Ibid. The provisions of “subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the Act” will immediately “apply to the implementation of the new 8-hour [ozone] standards.” Ibid.; see also id., at 38885 (new standard to be implemented “simultaneously [with the old standard]... under the provisions of... subpart 1”). Moreover, the provisions of subpart 2 “will [also] continue to apply as a matter of law for so long as an area is not attaining the [old] 1-hour standard.” Id., at 38873. Once the area reaches attainment for the old standard, however, “the provisions of subpart 2 will have been achieved and those provisions will no longer apply.” Ibid.; see also id., at 38884-38885.
We have little trouble concluding that this constitutes final agency action subject to review under §307. The bite in the phrase “final action” (which bears the same meaning in § 307(b)(1) that it does under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 704, see Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U. S. 578, 586 (1980)), is not in the word “action,” which is meant to cover comprehensively every manner in which an agency may exercise its power. See FTC v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 449 U. S. 232, 238, n. 7 (1980). It is rather in the word “final,” which requires that the action under review “mark the consummation of the agency’s de-cisionmaking process.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 177-178 (1997). Only if the “EPA has rendered its last word on the matter” in question, Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., supra, at 586, is its action “final” and thus reviewable. That standard is satisfied here. The EPA’s “decision-making process,” which began with the 1996 proposal and continued with the reception of public comments, concluded when the agency, “in light of [these comments],” and in conjunction with a corresponding directive from the White House, adopted the interpretation of Part D at issue here. Since that interpretation issued, the EPA has refused in subsequent rulemakings to reconsider it, explaining to disappointed commenters that its earlier decision was conclusive. See 63 Fed. Reg. 31014, 31018-31019 (1998). Though the agency has not dressed its decision with the conventional procedural accoutrements of finality, its own behavior thus belies the claim that its interpretation is not final.
The decision is also ripe for our review. “Ripeness ‘requires] us to evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.’ ” Texas v. United States, 523 U. S. 296, 300-301 (1998) (quoting Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 149 (1967)). The question before us here is purely one of statutory interpretation that would not “benef
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 petitioner in this case was convicted of murder and sentenced to death after trial by a jury selected in violation of the standards enunciated in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968), and applied in Boulden v. Holman, 394 U. S. 478 (1969), and Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U. S. 262 (1970). The Witherspoon case held that “a sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction." 391 U. S., at 522.
The Supreme Court of Georgia found that one prospective juror had been excluded in violation of the Witherspoon standard. The court nevertheless affirmed the conviction and death sentence, reasoning that the erroneous exclusion of one death-scrupled juror did not deny the petitioner a jury representing a cross section of the community since other jurors sharing that attitude were not excused for cause: “The rationale of Witherspoon and its progeny is not violated where merely one of a qualified class or group is excluded where it is shown, as here, that others of such group were qualified to serve. This record is completely void of any evidence of a systematic and intentional exclusion of a qualified group of jurors so as to deny the appellant a jury of veniremen representing a cross section of the community.” 236 Ga. 804, 809-810, 225 S. E. 2d 241, 244-245.
That, however, is not the test established in Witherspoon, and it is not the test that this Court has applied in subsequent cases where a death penalty was imposed after the improper exclusion of one member of the venire. See Wigglesworth v. Ohio, 403 U. S. 947 (1971), rev’g 18 Ohio St. 2d 171, 248 N. E. 2d 607 (1969); Harris v. Texas, 403 U. S. 947 (1971), rev’g 457 S. W. 2d 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970); Adams v. Washington, 403 U. S. 947 (1971), rev’g 76 Wash. 2d 650, 458 P. 2d 558 (1969). Unless a venireman is “irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings,” 391 U. S., at 522 n. 21, he cannot be excluded; if a venireman is improperly excluded even though not so committed, any subsequently imposed death penalty cannot stand.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, the judgment is 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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves presumptions. The question presented is whether a presumption that has been used to evaluate a judicial or prosecutorial response to a criminal defendant’s exercise of a right to be retried after he has been convicted should also be applied to evaluate a prosecutor’s pretrial response to a defendant’s demand for a jury trial.
After the respondent requested a trial by jury on pending misdemeanor charges, he was indicted and convicted on a felony charge. Believing that the sequence of events gave rise to an impermissible appearance of prosecutorial retaliation against the defendant’s exercise of his right to be tried by jury, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the felony conviction. 637 F. 2d 250. Because this case presents an important question concerning the scope of our holdings in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, and Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S. 21, we granted the Government’s petition for certiorari. 454 U. S. 1079.
1-4
Respondent Goodwin was stopped for speeding by a United States Park Policeman on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. Goodwin emerged from his car to talk to the policeman. After a brief discussion, the officer noticed a clear plastic bag underneath the armrest next to the driver’s seat of Goodwin’s car. The officer asked Goodwin to return to his car and to raise the armrest. Respondent did so, but as he raised the armrest he placed the car into gear and accelerated rapidly. The car struck the officer, knocking him first onto the back of the car and then onto the highway. The policeman returned to his car, but Goodwin eluded him in a high-speed chase.
The following day, the officer filed a complaint in the District Court charging respondent with several misdemeanor and petty offenses, including assault. Goodwin was arrested and arraigned before a United States Magistrate. The Magistrate set a date for trial, but respondent fled the jurisdiction. Three years later Goodwin was found in custody in Virginia and was returned to Maryland.
Upon his return, respondent’s case was assigned to an attorney from the Department of Justice, who was detailed temporarily to try petty crime and misdemeanor cases before the Magistrate. The attorney did not have authority to try felony cases or to seek indictments from the grand jury. Respondent initiated plea negotiations with the prosecutor, but later advised the Government that he did not wish to plead guilty and desired a trial by jury in the District Court.
The case was transferred to the District Court and responsibility for the prosecution was assumed by an Assistant United States Attorney. Approximately six weeks later, after reviewing the case and discussing it with, several parties, the prosecutor obtained a four-count indictment charging respondent with one felony count of forcibly assaulting a federal officer and three related counts arising from the same incident. A jury convicted respondent on the felony count and on one misdemeanor count.
Respondent moved to set aside the verdict on the ground of prosecutorial vindictiveness, contending that the indictment on the felony charge gave rise to an impermissible appearance of retaliation. The District Court denied the motion, finding that “the prosecutor in this case has adequately dispelled any appearance of retaliatory intent.”
Although the Court of Appeals readily concluded that “the prosecutor did not act with actual vindictiveness in seeking a felony indictment,” 637 F. 2d, at 252, it nevertheless reversed. Relying on our decisions in North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, and Blackledge v. Perry, supra, the court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the Government from bringing more serious charges against a defendant after he has invoked his right to a jury trial, unless the prosecutor comes forward with objective evidence to show that the increased charges could not have been brought before the defendant exercised his rights. Because the court believed that the circumstances surrounding the felony indictment gave rise to a genuine risk of retaliation, it adopted a legal presumption designed to spare courts the “unseemly task” of probing the actual motives of the prosecutor. 637 F. 2d, at 255.
II
To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation “of the most basic sort.” Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U. S. 357, 363. In a series of cases beginning with North Carolina v. Pearce and culminating in Bordenkircher v. Hayes, the Court has recognized this basic — and itself uncontroversial — principle. For while an individual certainly may be penalized for violating the law, he just as certainly may not be punished for exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right.
The imposition of punishment is the very purpose of virtually all criminal proceedings. The presence of a punitive motivation, therefore, does not provide an adequate basis for distinguishing governmental action that is fully justified as a legitimate response to perceived criminal conduct from governmental action that is an impermissible response to noncriminal, protected activity. Motives are complex and difficult to prove. As a result, in certain cases in which action detrimental to the defendant has been taken after the exercise of a legal right, the Court has found it necessary to “presume” an improper vindictive motive. Given the severity of such a presumption, however — which may operate in the absence of any proof of an improper motive and thus may block a legitimate response to criminal conduct — the Court has done so only in cases in which a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists.
In North Carolina v. Pearce, the Court held that neither the Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a trial judge from imposing a harsher sentence on retrial after a criminal defendant successfully attacks an initial conviction on appeal. The Court stated, however, that “[i]t can hardly be doubted that it would be a flagrant violation [of the Due Process Clause] of the Fourteenth Amendment for a state trial court to follow an announced practice of imposing a heavier sentence upon every reconvicted defendant for the explicit purpose of punishing the defendant for his having succeeded in getting his original conviction set aside.” 395 U. S., at 723-724. The Court continued:
“Due process of law, then, requires that vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction must play no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial. And since the fear of such vindictiveness may unconstitutionally deter a defendant’s exercise of the right to appeal or collaterally attack his first conviction, due process also requires that a defendant be freed of apprehension of such a retaliatory motivation on the part of the sentencing judge.” Id., at 725.
In order to assure the absence of such a motivation, the Court concluded:
“[WJhenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, the reasons for his doing so must affirmatively appear. Those reasons must be based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding. And the. factual data upon which the increased sentence is based must be made part of the record, so that the constitutional legitimacy of the increased sentence may be fully reviewed on appeal.” Id., at 726.
In sum, the Court applied a presumption of vindictiveness, which may be overcome only by objective information in the record justifying the increased sentence.
In Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S. 21, the Court confronted the problem of increased punishment upon retrial after appeal in a setting different from that considered in Pearce. Perry was convicted of assault in an inferior court having exclusive jurisdiction for the trial of misdemeanors. The court imposed a 6-month sentence. Under North Carolina law, Perry had an absolute right to a trial de novo in the Superior Court, which possessed felony jurisdiction. After Perry filed his notice of appeal, the prosecutor obtained a felony indictment charging him with assault with a deadly weapon. Perry pleaded guilty to the felony and was sentenced to a term of five to seven years in prison.
In reviewing Perry’s felony conviction and increased sentence, this Court first stated the essence of the holdings in Pearce and the cases that had followed it:
“The lesson that emerges from Pearce, Colten, and Chaffin is that the Due Process Clause is not offended by all possibilities of increased punishment upon retrial after appeal, but only by those that pose a realistic likelihood of ‘vindictiveness.’” 417 U. S., at 27.
The Court held that the opportunities for vindictiveness in the situation before it were such “as to impel the conclusion that due process of law requires a rule analogous to that of the Pearce case.” Ibid. It explained:
“A prosecutor clearly has a considerable stake in discouraging convicted misdemeanants from appealing and thus obtaining a trial de novo in the Superior Court, since such an appeal will clearly require increased expenditures of prosecutorial resources before the defendant's conviction becomes final, and may even result in a formerly convicted defendant’s going free. And, if the prosecutor has the means readily at hand to discourage such appeals — by ‘upping the ante’ through a felony indictment whenever a convicted misdemeanant pursues his statutory appellate remedy — the State can insure that only the most hardy defendants will brave the hazards of a de novo trial.” Id., at 27-28.
The Court emphasized in Blackledge that it did not matter that no evidence was present that the prosecutor had acted in bad faith or with malice in seeking the felony indictment. As in Pearce, the Court held that the likelihood of vindictiveness justified a presumption that would free defendants of apprehension of such a retaliatory motivation on the part of the prosecutor.
Both Pearce and Blackledge involved the defendant’s exercise of a procedural right that caused a complete retrial after he had been once tried and convicted. The decisions in these cases reflect a recognition by the Court of the institutional bias inherent in the judicial system against the retrial of issues that have already been decided. The doctrines of stare decisis, res judicata, the law of the case, and double jeopardy all are based, at least in part, on that deep-seated bias. While none of these doctrines barred the retrials in Pearce and Blackledge, the same institutional pressure that supports them might also subconsciously motivate a vindictive pros-ecutorial or judicial response to a defendant’s exercise of his right to obtain a retrial of a decided question.
In Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U. S. 357, the Court for the first time considered an allegation of vindictiveness that arose in a pretrial setting. In that case the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not prohibit a prosecutor from carrying out a threat, made during plea negotiations, to bring additional charges against an accused who refused to plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged. The prosecutor in that case had explicitly told the defendant that if he did not plead guilty and “save the court the inconvenience and necessity of a trial” he would return to the grand jury to obtain an additional charge that would significantly increase the defendant’s potential punishment. The defendant refused to plead guilty and the prosecutor obtained the indictment. It was not disputed that the additional charge was justified by the evidence, that the prosecutor was in possession of this evidence at the time the original indictment was obtained, and that the prosecutor sought the additional charge because of the accused’s refusal to plead guilty to the original charge.
In finding no due process violation, the Court in Borden-kircher considered the decisions in Pearce and Blackledge, and stated:
“In those cases the Court was dealing with the State’s unilateral imposition of a penalty upon a defendant who had chosen to exercise a legal right to attack his original conviction — a situation ‘very different from the give-and-take negotiation common in plea bargaining between the prosecution and defense, which arguably possess relatively equal bargaining power.’ Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U. S. 790, 809 (opinion of Brennan, J.).” 434 U. S., at 362.
The Court stated that the due process violation in Pearce and Blackledge “lay not in the possibility that a defendant might be deterred from the exercise of a legal right. . . but rather in the danger that the State might be retaliating against the accused for lawfully attacking his conviction.” 434 U. S., at 363.
The Court held, however, that there was no such element of punishment in the “give-and-take” of plea negotiation, so long as the accused “is free to accept or reject the prosecution’s offer.” Ibid. The Court noted that, by tolerating and encouraging the negotiation of pleas, this Court had accepted as constitutionally legitimate the simple reality that the prosecutor’s interest at the bargaining table is to persuade the defendant to forgo his constitutional right to stand trial. The Court concluded:
“We hold only that the course of conduct engaged in by the prosecutor in this case, which no more than openly presented the defendant with the unpleasant alternatives of forgoing trial or facing charges on which he was plainly subject to prosecution, did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 365.
The outcome in Bordenkircher was mandated by this Court’s acceptance of plea negotiation as a legitimate process. In declining to apply a presumption of vindictiveness, the Court recognized that “additional” charges obtained by a prosecutor could not necessarily be characterized as an impermissible “penalty.” Since charges brought in an original indictment may be abandoned by the prosecutor in the course of plea negotiation — in often what is clearly a “benefit” to the defendant — changes in the charging decision that occur in the context of plea negotiation are an inaccurate measure of improper prosecutorial “vindictiveness.” An initial indictment — from which the prosecutor embarks on a course of plea negotiation — does not necessarily define the extent of the legitimate interest in prosecution. For just as a prosecutor may forgo legitimate charges already brought in an effort to save the time and expense of trial, a prosecutor may file additional charges if an initial expectation that a defendant would plead guilty to lesser charges proves unfounded.
h-4 h-4 HH
This case, like Bordenkircher, arises from a pretrial decision to modify the charges against the defendant. Unlike Bordenkircher, however, there is no evidence in this case that could give rise to a claim of actual vindictiveness; the prosecutor never suggested that the charge was brought to influence the respondent’s conduct. The conviction in this case may be reversed only if a presumption of vindictiveness — applicable in all cases — is warranted.
There is good reason to be cautious before adopting an inflexible presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness in a pretrial setting. In the course of preparing a case for trial, the prosecutor may uncover additional information that suggests a basis for further prosecution or he simply may come to realize that information possessed by the State has a broader significance. At this stage of the proceedings, the prosecutor’s assessment of the proper extent of prosecution may not have crystallized. In contrast, once a trial begins — and certainly by the time a conviction has been obtained — it is much more likely that the State has discovered and assessed all of the information against an accused and has made a determination, on the basis of that information, of the extent to which he should be prosecuted. Thus, a change in the charging decision made after an initial trial is completed is much more likely to be improperly motivated than is a pretrial decision.
In addition, a defendant before trial is expected to invoke procedural rights that inevitably impose some “burden” on the prosecutor. Defense counsel routinely file pretrial motions to suppress evidence; to challenge the sufficiency and form of an indictment; to plead an affirmative defense; to request psychiatric services; to obtain access to government files; to be tried by jury. It is unrealistic to assume that a prosecutor’s probable response to such motions is to seek to penalize and to deter. The invocation of procedural rights is an integral part of the adversary process in which our criminal justice system operates.
Thus, the timing of the prosecutor’s action in this case suggests that a presumption of vindictiveness is not warranted. A prosecutor should remain free before trial to exercise the broad discretion entrusted to him to determine the extent of the societal interest in prosecution. An initial decision should not freeze future conduct. As we made clear in Bor-denkircher, the initial charges filed by a prosecutor may not reflect the extent to which an individual is legitimately subject to prosecution.
The nature of the right asserted by the respondent confirms that a presumption of vindictiveness is not warranted in this case. After initially expressing an interest in plea negotiation, respondent decided not to plead guilty and requested a trial by jury in District Court. In doing so, he forced the Government to bear the burdens and uncertainty of a trial. This Court in Bordenkircher made clear that the mere fact that a defendant refuses to plead guilty and forces the government to prove its case is insufficient to warrant a presumption that subsequent changes in the charging decision are unjustified. Respondent argues that such a presumption is warranted in this case, however, because he not only requested a trial — he requested a trial by jury.
We cannot agree. The distinction between a bench trial and a jury trial does not compel a special presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness whenever additional charges are brought after a jury is demanded. To be sure, a jury trial is more burdensome than a bench trial. The defendant may challenge the selection of the venire; the jury itself must be impaneled; witnesses and arguments must be prepared more carefully to avoid the danger of a mistrial. These matters are much less significant, however, than the facts that before either a jury or a judge the State must present its full case against the accused and the defendant is entitled to offer a full defense. As compared to the complete trial de novo at issue in Blackledge, a jury trial — as opposed to a bench trial — does not require duplicative expenditures of prosecu-torial resources before a final judgment may be obtained. Moreover, unlike the trial judge in Pearce, no party is asked “to do over what it thought it had already done correctly.” A prosecutor has no “personal stake” in a bench trial and thus no reason to engage in “self-vindication” upon a defendant’s request for a jury trial. Perhaps most importantly, the institutional bias against the retrial of a decided question that supported the decisions in Pearce and Blackledge simply has no counterpart in this case.
There is an opportunity for vindictiveness, as there was in Colten and Chaffin. Those cases demonstrate, however, that a mere opportunity for vindictiveness is insufficient to justify the imposition of a prophylactic rule. As Blackledge makes clear, “the Due Process Clause is not offended by all possibilities of increased punishment . . . but only by those that pose a realistic likelihood of ‘vindictiveness.’” 417 U. S., at 27. The possibility that a prosecutor would respond to a defendant’s pretrial demand for a jury trial by bringing charges not in the public interest that could be explained only as a penalty imposed on the defendant is so unlikely that a presumption of vindictiveness certainly is not warranted.
IV
In declining to apply a presumption of vindictiveness, we of course do not foreclose the possibility that a defendant in an appropriate case might prove objectively that the prosecutor’s charging decision was motivated by a desire to punish him for doing something that the law plainly allowed him to do. In this case, however, the Court of Appeals stated: “On this record we readily conclude that the prosecutor did not act with actual vindictiveness in seeking a felony indictment.” 637 F. 2d, at 252. Respondent does not challenge that finding. Absent a presumption of vindictiveness, no due process violation has been established.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
At that time, there was no statutory provision allowing a trial by jury before a magistrate.
By affidavit, the Assistant United States Attorney later set forth his reasons for this action: (1) he considered respondent’s conduct on the date in question to be a serious violation of law, (2) respondent had a lengthy history of violent crime, (3) the prosecutor considered respondent’s conduct to be related to major narcotics transactions, (4) the prosecutor believed that respondent had committed perjury at his preliminary hearing, and (5) respondent had failed to appear for trial as originally scheduled. The Government attorney stated that his decision to seek a felony indictment was not motivated in any way by Goodwin’s request for a jury trial in District Court.
App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a; cf. n. 2, supra. The District Court considered the merits of respondent’s motion even though it was not timely filed in accordance with Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The District Court found sufficient “cause” for respondent’s procedural default pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(f). The Court of Appeals did not consider the propriety of the District Court’s ruling in this regard and neither do we.
“[F]or an agent of the State to pursue a course of action whose objective is to penalize a person’s reliance on his legal rights is “patently unconstitutional.’” Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U. S. 357, 363 (quoting Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U. S. 17, 32-33, n. 20).
Two subsequent cases developed the principles set forth in Pearce. In Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104, the Court refused to apply the prophylactic rule of Pearce to an allegation of vindictiveness that arose in a case involving Kentucky’s two-tier system for adjudicating less serious criminal charges. In that system, a defendant who is convicted and sentenced in an inferior court is entitled to a trial de novo in a court of general jurisdiction. The defendant in Colten exercised that right and received a more severe sentence from the court of general jurisdiction. This Court found that “[t]he possibility of vindictiveness, found to exist in Pearce, is not inherent in the Kentucky two-tier system.” 407 U. S., at 116. The Court emphasized that the second trial was conducted, and the final sentence was imposed, by a different court that was not asked “to do over what it thought it had already done correctly.” Id., at 117. The Court noted: “It may often be that the superior court will impose a punishment more severe than that received from an inferior court. But it no more follows that such a sentence is a vindictive penalty for seeking a superior court trial than that the inferior court imposed a lenient penalty.” Ibid. Ultimately, the Court described the sentence received from the inferior tribunal as “in effect. . . no more than an offer in settlement.” Id., at 119.
In Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U. S. 17, the Court held that the prophylactic rule of Pearce does not apply when the second sentence is imposed on retrial by a jury. The Court emphasized that the decision in Pearce “was premised on the apparent need to guard against vindictiveness in the resentencing process.” 412 U. S., at 25 (emphasis in original). The Court found that the possibility of vindictiveness was de minimis when resentencing was by jury in a properly controlled retrial. The Court noted that (1) the jury typically will not be aware of the prior sentence, (2) the jury, unlike a judge who has been reversed, will have no personal stake in the prior conviction and no motivation to engage in self-vindication, and (3) the jury will not likely be sensitive to the institutional interests that might occasion higher sentences by a judge desirous of discouraging what he regards as meritless appeals. Id., at 26-27.
The Court held that in pleading guilty Perry had not waived the right “not to be haled into court at all upon the felony charge.” 417 U. S., at 30.
“There is, of course, no evidence that the prosecutor in this case acted in bad faith or maliciously in seeking a felony indictment against Perry.” Id., at 28.
The presumption again could be overcome by objective evidence justifying the prosecutor’s action. The Court noted: “This would clearly be a different case if the State had shown that it was impossible to proceed on the more serious charge at the outset, as in Diaz v. United States, 223 U. S. 442.” Id., at 29, n. 7.
The prosecutor advised the defendant that he would obtain an indictment under the Kentucky Habitual Criminal Act, which would subject the accused to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment by reason of his two prior felony convictions. Absent the additional indictment, the defendant was subject to a punishment of 2 to 10 years in prison.
Cf. 434 U. S., at 364-365 (“To hold that the prosecutor’s desire to induce a guilty plea. . . may play no part in his charging decision, would contradict the very premises that underlie the concept of plea bargaining itself’). If a prosecutor could not threaten to bring additional charges during plea negotiation, and then obtain those charges when plea negotiation failed, an equally compelling argument could be made that a prosecutor’s initial charging decision could never be influenced by what he hoped to gain in the course of plea negotiation. Whether “additional” charges were brought originally and dismissed, or merely threatened during plea negotiations, the prosecutor could be accused of using those charges to induce a defendant to forgo his right to stand trial. If such use of “additional” charges were presumptively invalid, the institution of plea negotiation could not survive. Thus, to preserve the plea negotiation process, with its correspondent advantages for both the defendant and the State, the Court in Bordenkircher held that “additional” charges may be used to induce a defendant to plead guilty. Once that conclusion was accepted, it necessarily followed that it did not matter whether the “additional” charges were obtained in the original indictment or merely threatened in plea negotiations and obtained once those negotiations broke down. In the former situation, the prosecutor could be said simply to have “anticipated” that the defendant might refuse to plead guilty and, as a result, to have placed his “threat” in the original indictment. Cf. id., at 360-361 (“As a practical matter, in short, this case would be no different if the grand jury had indicted Hayes as a recidivist from the outset, and the prosecutor had offered to drop that charge as part of the plea bargain”).
The decision in Bordenkircher also was influenced by the fact that, had the Court recognized a distinction of constitutional dimension between the dismissal of charges brought in an original indictment and the addition of charges after plea negotiation, the aggressive prosecutor would merely be prompted “to bring the greater charge initially in every case, and only thereafter to bargain.” Id., at 368 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). The consequences of such a decision often would be prejudicial to defendants, for an accused “would bargain against a greater charge, face the likelihood of increased bail, and run the risk that the court would be less inclined to accept a bargained plea.” Ibid. Moreover, in those cases in which a defendant accepted the prosecution’s offer, his reputation would be spared the unnecessary damage that would result from the placement of the additional charge on the public record.
The Court in Bordenkircher stated that the validity of a pretrial charging decision must be measured against the broad discretion held by the prosecutor to select the charges against an accused. “Within the limits set by the legislature’s constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, ‘the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not itself a federal constitutional violation’ so long as ‘the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’” Id., at 364 (quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448, 456). A charging decision does not levy an improper “penalty” unless it results solely from the defendant’s exercise of a protected legal right, rather than the prosecutor’s normal assessment of the societal interest in prosecution. See Westen & Westin, A Constitutional Law of Remedies for Broken Plea Bargains, 66 Calif. L. Rev. 471, 486 (1978).
In rejecting a presumption of vindictiveness, the Court in Borden-kircher did not foreclose the possibility that a defendant might prove through objective evidence an improper prosecutorial motive. In the case before it, however, the Court did not find such proof in the fact that the prosecutor had stated explicitly that additional charges were brought to persuade the defendant to plead guilty. The fact that the prosecutor threatened the defendant did not prove that the action threatened was not permissible; the prosecutor’s conduct did not establish that the additional charges were brought solely to “penalize” the defendant and could not be justified as a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
See n. 12, supra.
We recognize that prosecutors may be trained to bring all legitimate charges against an individual at the outset. Certainly, a prosecutor should not file any charge until he has investigated fully all of the circumstances surrounding a case. To presume that every case is complete at the time an initial charge is filed, however, is to presume that every prosecutor is infallible — an assumption that would ignore the practical restraints imposed by often limited prosecutorial resources. Moreover, there are certain advantages in avoiding a rule that would compel prosecutors to attempt to place every conceivable charge against an individual on the public record from the outset. See n. 10, supra.
Respondent argues that the Court’s refusal to presume vindictiveness in Bordenkircher is not controlling in this case because he had refused to plead guilty and the plea negotiation process was over. Respondent’s argument is not strengthened, however, by the fact that the additional charge in this case was brought outside the context of plea negotiation. The fact that the increased charge in Bordenkircher was brought after a “warning” made during plea negotiation was the principal basis for the defendant’s claim that the charge was an unjustified response to his legal right to stand trial. But cf. n. 12, supra. Respondent’s argument in this case has no such predicate; unlike the defendant in Bordenkircher, the only evidence respondent is able to marshal in support of his allegation of vindictiveness is that the additional charge was brought at a point in time after his exercise of a protected legal right.
Cf. Cotten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S., at 117.
Cf. Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U. S., at 27.
Indeed, there is a strong tradition in this country in favor of jury trials, despite the additional burdens that they entail for all parties. In many cases — and for many reasons — both the judge and the prosecutor may prefer to have a case tried by jury. See, e. g., Vines v. Muncy, 553 F. 2d 342 (CA4 1977); United States v. Morlang, 531 F. 2d 183 (CA4 1975); United States v. Ceja, 451 F. 2d 399 (CA1 1971); see also Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 23(a). In Singer v. United States, 380 U. S. 24, this Court held that a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to waive a jury trial and to have his case tried before a judge alone. The Court stated: “Trial by jury has been established by the Constitution as the ‘normal and . . . preferable mode of disposing of issues of fact in criminal cases.’ Patton v. United States, 281 U. S. 276, 312.” Id., at 35.
As the Government states in its brief:
“Accordingly, while the prosecutor's charging decision is presumptively lawful, and the prosecutor is not required to sustain any burden of justification for an increase in charges, the defendant is free to tender evidence to the court to support a claim that enhanced charges are a direct and unjustifiable penalty for the exercise of a procedural right. Of course, only in a rare case would a defendant be able to overcome the presumptive validity of the prosecutor’s actions through such a demonstration.” Brief for United States 28, n. 9.
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Splawn was convicted in 1971 of the sale of two reels of obscene film, a misdemeanor violation of California Penal Code §311.2 (West 1970). After the conviction was affirmed on appeal by the California First District Court of Appeal and the State Supreme Court denied review, this Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for consideration in light of our decision in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), which had set forth the standards by which the constitutionality of § 311.2 was to be determined. After the State Supreme Court ruled that the statute satisfied the requirements articulated in Miller, see Bloom v. Municipal Court, 16 Cal. 3d 71, 545 P. 2d 229 (1976), the Court of Appeal again affirmed the conviction and the California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s motion for a hearing.
We again granted certiorari, 429 U. S. 997 (1976), to consider petitioner’s assorted contentions that his conviction must be reversed because portions of the instructions given to the jury during his trial render his conviction violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He claims that the instruction allowed the jury to convict him even though it might otherwise have found the material in question to have been protected under the Miller standards. He also contends that the same portions of the instructions render his conviction invalid by reason of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and the requirement of fair warning in the construction of a criminal statute enunciated in Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964). We consider these contentions in light of the fact that petitioner has abandoned any claim that the material for the selling of which he was convicted could not be found to be obscene consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and any claim that the California statute under which he was convicted does not satisfy the requirements articulated in Miller, supra.
As it was understood by the California Court of Appeal, petitioner’s challenge is leveled against the following portion of the instructions:
“In determining the question of whether the allegedly obscene matter is utterly without redeeming social importance, you may consider the circumstances of sale and distribution, and particularly whether such circumstances indicate that the matter was being commercially exploited by the defendants for the sake of its prurient appeal. Such evidence is probative with respect to the nature of the matter and can justify the conclusion that the matter is utterly without redeeming social importance. The weight, if any, such evidence is entitled [to] is a matter for you, the Jury, to determine.
“Circumstances of production and dissemination are relevant to determining whether social importance claimed for material was in the circumstances pretense or reality. If you conclude that the purveyor’s sole emphasis is in the sexually provocative aspect of the publication, that fact can justify the conclusion that the matter is utterly without redeeming social importance.” App. 38-39.
There is no doubt that as a matter of First Amendment obscenity law, evidence of pandering to prurient interests in the creation, promotion, or dissemination of material is relevant in determining whether the material is obscene. Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 130 (1974); Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463, 470 (1966). This is so partly because, as the Court has pointed out before, the fact that the accused made such an appeal has a bearing on the ultimate constitutional tests for obscenity:
“The deliberate representation of petitioners’ publications as erotically arousing, -for example, stimulated the reader to accept them as prurient; he looks for titillation, not for saving intellectual content. Similarly, such representation would tend to force public confrontation with the potentially offensive aspects of the work; the brazenness of such an appeal heightens the offensiveness of the publications to those who are offended by such material. And the circumstances of presentation and dissemination of material are equally relevant to determining whether social importance claimed for material in the courtroom was, in the circumstances, pretense or reality — whether it was the basis upon which it was traded in the marketplace or a spurious claim for litigation purposes.” Ibid.
Petitioner’s interpretation of the challenged portions of the instructions in his case is that they permitted the jury to consider motives of commercial exploitation on the part of persons in the chain of distribution of the material other than himself. We upheld a similar instruction in Hamling, supra, however, wherein the jury was told that it could consider “whether the materials had been pandered, by looking to their '[m]anner of distribution, circumstances of production, sale, . . . advertising . . . [, and] editorial intent . . . .’ This instruction was given with respect to both the Illustrated Report and the brochure which advertised it, both of which were at issue in the trial.” 418 U. S., at 130.
Both Hamling and Ginzburg were prosecutions under federal obscenity statutes in federal courts, where our authority to review jury instructions is a good deal broader than is our power to upset state-court convictions by reason of instructions given during the course of a trial. See Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141 (1973); Henderson v. Kibbe, ante, p. 145. We can exercise the latter authority only if the instruction renders the subsequent conviction violative of the United States Constitution. Questions of what categories of evidence may be admissible and probative are otherwise for the courts of the States to decide. We think Hamling, supra, and Ginzburg, supra, rather clearly show that the instruction in question abridges no rights of petitioner under the First Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
But petitioner contends that even though this be so, the particular portions of the instructions of which he complains were given pursuant to a statute enacted after the conduct for which he was prosecuted. In his view, therefore, his conviction both violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, see Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390 (1798), and failed to give him constitutionally fair warning of the prohibited conduct with which he was charged. Bouie v. Columbia, supra. We find these contentions to be without merit, and we reject them.
The section of the California Penal Code defining the substantive misdemeanor with which petitioner was convicted, § 311.2, was in full force and effect at all times relevant to petitioner’s conduct. California Penal Code § 311 (a) (West 1970), which authorized the above-quoted instructions, was enacted after part of the conduct for which he was convicted but prior to his trial. That section, however, does not create any new substantive offense, but merely declares what type of evidence may be received and considered in deciding whether the matter in question was “utterly without redeeming social importance.”
Petitioner’s ex post facto argument is based on his reading of an earlier decision of the Supreme Court of California, People v. Noroff, 67 Cal. 2d 791, 433 P. 2d 479 (1967). His view is that under that case evidence such as was admitted here would not have been admissible at his trial on the substantive offense but for the enactment of §311 (a)(2). He claims that such a change in procedural rules governing his trial amounts to the enactment of an ex post facto law in violation of Art. I, § 9, cl. 3. The California Court of Appeal’s opinion in this case rejected that contention, and since it is a contention which must in the last analysis turn on a proper reading of the California decisions, such a determination by the California Court of Appeal is entitled to great weight in evaluating petitioner’s constitutional contentions.
The Court of Appeal, commenting on Noroff, said with respect to the California Supreme Court’s decision in that case:
“The court did not, however, disapprove of any use of evidence of pandering for its probative value on the issue of whether the material was obscene. It merely rejected the concept of pandering of nonobscene material as a separate crime under the existing laws of California.” App. to Pet. for Cert. ix.
We accept this conclusion of the California Court of Appeal, and therefore find it unnecessary to determine whether if § 311 (a) (2) had permitted the introduction of evidence which would have been previously excluded under California law, petitioner would have had a tenable claim under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.
Bouie v. City of Columbia, supra, holds that the elements of a statutory offense may not be so changed by judicial interpretation as to deny to accused defendants fair warning of the crime prohibited. No such change in the interpretation of the elements of the substantive offense prohibited by California law took place here, and petitioner may therefore derive no benefit from Bouie.
We thus find no merit in petitioner’s claims based on First and Fourteenth Amendment protection of nonobscene matter, the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, or Bouie v. City of Columbia. We have considered petitioner’s other claims, which appear to be variations on the same theme, and likewise reject them. The judgment of the California Court of Appeal is
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: | 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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 203(a) of Title 47 of the United States Code requires communications common carriers to file tariffs with the Federal Communications Commission, and § 203(b) authorizes the Commission to “modify” any requirement of §203. These cases present the question whether the Commission’s decision to make tariff filing optional for all nondominant long-distance carriers is a valid exercise of its modification authority.
I
Like most cases involving the role of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) in our national telecommunication system, these have a long history. An understanding of the cases requires a brief review of the Commission’s efforts to regulate and then deregulate the telecommunications industry. When Congress created the Commission in 1934, AT&T, through its vertically integrated Bell system, held a virtual monopoly over the Nation’s telephone service. The Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, authorized the Commission to regulate the rates charged for communication services to ensure that they were reasonable and nondiscriminatory. The requirements of §203 that common carriers file their rates with the Commission and charge only the filed rate were the centerpiece of the Act’s regulatory scheme.
In the 1970’s, technological advances reduced the entry costs for competitors of AT&T in the market for long-distance telephone service. The Commission, recognizing the feasibility of greater competition, passed regulations to facilitate competitive entry. By 1979, competition in the provision of long-distance service was well established, and some urged that the continuation of extensive tariff filing requirements served only to impose unnecessary costs on new entrants and to facilitate collusive pricing. The Commission held hearings on the matter, see Competitive Carrier Notice of Inquiry and Proposed Rulemaking, 77 F. C. C. 2d 308 (1979), following which it issued a series of rules that have produced this litigation.
The First Report and Order, 85 F. C. C. 2d 1,20-24 (1980), distinguished between dominant carriers (those with market power) and nondominant carriers — in the long-distance market, this amounted to a distinction between AT&T and everyone else — and relaxed some of the filing procedures for non-dominant carriers, id., at 30-49. In the Second Report and Order, 91 F. C. C. 2d 59 (1982), the Commission entirely eliminated the filing requirement for resellers of terrestrial common carrier services. This policy of optional filing, or permissive detariffing, was extended to all other resellers, and to specialized common carriers, including petitioner MCI Telecommunications Corp., by the Fourth Report and Order, 95 F. C. C. 2d 554 (1983), and to virtually all remaining categories of nondominant carriers by the Fifth Report and Order, 98 F. C. C. 2d 1191 (1984). Then, in 1985, the Commission shifted to a mandatory detariffing policy, which prohibited nondominant carriers from filing tariffs. See Sixth Report and Order, 99 F. C. C. 2d 1020. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, however, struck down the Sixth Report’s mandatory detariffing policy in a challenge brought — somewhat ironically as it now appears — by MCI. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. F. C. C., 765 F. 2d 1186 (1985) (Ginsburg, J.). The Court of Appeals reasoned that § 203(a)’s command that “[e]very common carrier . . . shall. . . file” tariffs was mandatory. And although § 203(b) authorizes the Commission to “modify any requirement” in the section, the Court of Appeals concluded that that phrase “suggested] circumscribed alterations — not, as the FCC now would have it, wholesale abandonment or elimination of a requirement.” Id., at 1192.
In the wake of the invalidation of mandatory detariffing by the Court of Appeals, MCI continued its practice of not filing tariffs for certain services, pursuant to the permissive detariffing policy of the Fourth Report and Order. On August 7, 1989, AT&T filed a complaint, pursuant to the third-party complaint provision of the Communications Act, 47 U. S. C. § 208(a), which alleged that MCI’s collection of unified rates violated §§ 203(a) and (c). MCI responded that the Fourth Report was a substantive rule, and so MCI had no legal obligation to file rates. AT&T rejoined that the Fourth Report and Order was simply a statement of the Commission’s nonenforcement policy, which did not immunize MCI from private enforcement actions; and that if the Fourth Report and Order established a substantive rule, it was in excess of statutory authority. The Commission did not take final action on AT&T’s complaint until almost ZVz years after its filing. See AT&T Communications v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 7 FCC Rcd 807 (1992). It characterized the Fourth Report and Order as a substantive rule and dismissed AT&T’s complaint on the ground that MCI was in compliance with that rule. It refused to address, however, AT&T’s contention that the rule was ultra vires, announcing instead a proposed rulemaking to consider that question. See Tariff Filing Requirements for Interstate Common Carriers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Red 804 (1992).
AT&T petitioned for review, arguing, inter alia, that the Commission lacked authority to defer to a later rulemaking consideration of an issue which was dispositive of an adjudicatory complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the petition for review. See American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. F. C. C., 978 F. 2d 727 (1992) (Silberman, J.). The Court of Appeals characterized the Commission’s failure to address its authority to promulgate the permissive detariffing policy as “a sort of administrative law shell game,” id., at 731-732. Addressing that question itself, the Court of Appeals concluded that the permissive detariffing policy of the Fourth Report and Order was rendered indefensible by the 1985 MCI decision: “Whether detariffing is made mandatory, as in the Sixth Report, or simply permissive, as in the Fourth Report, carriers are, in either event, relieved of the obligation to file tariffs under section 203(a). That step exceeds the limited authority granted the Commission in section 203(b) to ‘modify’ requirements of the Act.” Id., at 736. The Court of Appeals then remanded the case so that the Commission could award appropriate relief. See id., at 736-737. We denied certiorari. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 509 U. S. 913 (1993).
Moving now with admirable dispatch, less than two weeks after the decision by the Court of Appeals concerning the adjudicatory proceeding, the Commission released a Report and Order from the rulemaking proceeding commenced in response to AT&T’s complaint. See In re Tariff Filing Requirements for Interstate Common Carriers, 7 FCC Rcd 8072 (1992), stayed pending further notice, 7 FCC Red 7989 (1992). That is the Report and Order at issue in this case. The Commission, relying upon the § 203(b) authority to “modify” that had by then been twice rejected by the District of Columbia Circuit, determined that its permissive detariffing policy was within its authority under the Communications Act. AT&T filed a motion with the District of Columbia Circuit seeking summary reversal of the Commission’s order. The motion was granted in an unpublished per curiam order stating: “The decision of this court in [American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. FCC, 978 F. 2d 727 (1992),] conclusively determined that the FCC’s authorization of permissive detariffing violates Section 203(a) of the Communications Act.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a. Both MCI and the United States (together with the Commission) petitioned for certiorari. We granted the petitions and consolidated them. 510 U. S. 989 (1993).
II
Section 203 of the Communications Act contains both the filed rate provisions of the Act and the Commission’s disputed modification authority. It provides in relevant part:
“(a) Filing; public display.
“Every common carrier, except connecting carriers, shall, within such reasonable time as the Commission shall designate, file with the Commission and print and keep open for public inspection schedules showing all charges ..., whether such charges are joint or separate, and showing the classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such charges....
“(b) Changes in schedule; discretion of Commission to modify requirements.
“(1) No change shall be made in the charges, classifications, regulations, or practices which have been so filed and published except after one hundred and twenty days notice to the Commission and to the public, which shall be published in such form and contain such information as the Commission may by regulations prescribe.
“(2) The Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, modify any requirement made by or under the authority of this section either in particular instances or by general order applicable to special circumstances or conditions except that the Commission may not require the notice period specified in paragraph (1) to be more than one hundred and twenty days.
“(c) Overcharges and rebates.
“No carrier, unless otherwise provided by or under authority of this chapter, shall engage or participate in such communication unless schedules have been filed and published in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and with the regulations made thereunder; and no carrier shall (1) charge, demand, collect, or receive a greater or less or different compensation for such communication ... than the charges specified in the schedule then in effect, or (2) refund or remit by any means or device any portion of the charges so specified, or (3) extend to any person any privileges or facilities in such communication, or employ or enforce any classifications, regulations, or practices affecting such charges, except as specified in such schedule.” 47 U. S. C. §203 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV).
The dispute between the parties turns on the meaning of the phrase “modify any requirement” in § 203(b)(2). Petitioners argue that it gives the Commission authority to make even basic and fundamental changes in the scheme created by that section. We disagree. The word “modify” — like a number of other English words employing the root “mod-” (deriving from the Latin word for “measure”), such as “moderate,” “modulate,” “modest,” and “modicum” — has a connotation of increment or limitation. Virtually every dictionary we are aware of says that “to modify” means to change moderately or in minor fashion. See, e. g., Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1236 (2d ed. 1987) (“to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend”); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1452 (1981) (“to make minor changes in the form or structure of: alter without transforming”); 9 Oxford English Dictionary 952 (2d ed. 1989) (“[t]o make partial changes in; to change (an object) in respect of some of its qualities; to alter or vary without radical transformation”); Black’s Law Dictionary 1004 (6th ed. 1990) (“[t]o alter; to change in incidental or subordinate features; enlarge; extend; amend; limit; reduce”).
In support of their position, petitioners cite dictionary definitions contained in, or derived from, a single source, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1452 (1981) (Webster’s Third), which includes among the meanings of “modify,” “to make a basic or important change in.” Petitioners contend that this establishes sufficient ambiguity to entitle the Commission to deference in its acceptance of the broader meaning, which in turn requires approval of its permissive detariffing policy. See Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984). In short, they contend that the courts must defer to the agency’s choice among available dictionary definitions, citing National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U. S. 407, 418 (1992).
But Boston & Maine does not stand for that proposition. That case involved the question whether the statutory term “required” could only mean “demanded as essential” or could also mean “demanded as appropriate.” In holding that the latter was a permissible interpretation, to which Chevron deference was owed, the opinion did not rely exclusively upon dictionary definitions, but also upon contextual indications, see 503 U. S., at 417-419 — which in the present cases, as we shall see, contradict petitioners’ position. Moreover, when the Boston & Maine opinion spoke of “alternative dictionary definitions,” ibid., it did not refer to what we have here: one dictionary whose suggested meaning contradicts virtually all others. It referred to alternative definitions within the dictionary cited (Webster’s Third, as it happens), which was not represented to be the only dictionary giving those alternatives. To the contrary, the Court said “these alternative interpretations are as old as the jurisprudence of this Court,” id., at 419, citing McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). See also Webster’s New International Dictionary 2117 (2d ed. 1934); 2 New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 2557 (1993) (giving both alternatives).
Most cases of verbal ambiguity in statutes involve, as Boston & Maine did, a selection between accepted alternative meanings shown as such by many dictionaries. One can envision (though a court case does not immediately come to mind) having to choose between accepted alternative meanings, one of which is so newly accepted that it has only been recorded by a single lexicographer. (Some dictionary must have been the very first to record the widespread use of “projection,” for example, to mean “forecast.”) But what petitioners demand that we accept as creating an ambiguity here is a rarity even rarer than that: a meaning set forth in a single dictionary (and, as we say, its progeny) which not only supplements the meaning contained in all other dictionaries, but contradicts one of the meanings contained in virtually all other dictionaries. Indeed, contradicts one of the alternative meanings contained in the out-of-step dictionary itself — for as we have observed, Webster’s Third itself defines “modify” to connote both (specifically) major change and (specifically) minor change. It is hard to see how that can be. When the word “modify” has come to mean both “to change in some respects” and “to change fundamentally” it will in fact mean neither of those things. It will simply mean “to change,” and some adverb will have to be called into service to indicate the great or small degree of the change.
If that is what the peculiar Webster’s Third definition means to suggest has happened — and what petitioners suggest by appealing to Webster’s Third — we simply disagree. “Modify,” in our view, connotes moderate change. It might be good English to say that the French Revolution “modified” the status of the French nobility — but only because there is a figure of speech called understatement and a literary device known as sarcasm. And it might be unsurprising to discover a 1972 White House press release saying that “the Administration is modifying its position with regard to prosecution of the war in Vietnam” — but only because press agents tend to impart what is nowadays called “spin.” Such intentional distortions, or simply careless or ignorant misuse, must have formed the basis for the usage that Webster’s Third, and Webster’s Third alone, reported. It is perhaps gilding the lily to add this: In 1934, when the Communications Act became law — the most relevant time for determining a statutory term’s meaning, see Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 42-45 (1979) — Webster’s Third was not yet even contemplated. To our knowledge all English dictionaries provided the narrow definition of “modify,” including those published by G. & C. Merriam Company. See Webster’s New International Dictionary 1577 (2d ed. 1934); Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 628 (4th ed. 1934). We have not the slightest doubt that is the meaning the statute intended.
Beyond the word itself, a further indication that the § 203(b)(2) authority to “modify” does not contemplate fundamental changes is the sole exception to that authority which the section provides. One of the requirements of §203 is that changes to filed tariffs can be made only after 120 days’ notice to the Commission and the public. § 203(b)(1). The only exception to the Commission’s § 203(b)(2) modification authority is as follows: “except that the Commission may not require the notice period specified in paragraph (1) to be more than one hundred and twenty days.” Is it conceivable that the statute is indifferent to the Commission’s power to eliminate the tariff-filing requirement entirely for all except one firm in the long-distance sector, and yet strains out the gnat of extending the waiting period for tariff revision beyond 120 days? We think not. The exception is not as ridiculous as a Lilliputian in London only because it is to be found in Lilliput: in the small-scale world of “modifications,” it is a big deal.
Since an agency’s interpretation of a statute is not entitled to deference when it goes beyond the meaning that the statute can bear, see, e. g., Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben, 488 U. S. 105, 113 (1988); Chevron, 467 U. S., at 842-843, the Commission’s permissive detariffing policy can be justified only if it makes a less than radical or fundamental change in the Act’s tariff-filing requirement. The Commission’s attempt to establish that no more than that is involved greatly understates the extent to which its policy deviates from the filing requirement, and greatly undervalues the importance of the filing requirement itself.
To consider the latter point first: For the body of a law, as for the body of a person, whether a change is minor or major depends to some extent upon the importance of the item changed to the whole. Loss of an entire toenail is insignificant; loss of an entire arm tragic. The tariff-filing requirement is, to pursue this analogy, the heart of the common-carrier section of the Communications Act. In the context of the Interstate Commerce Act, which served as its model, see, e. g., MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 917 F. 2d 30,38 (CADC 1990), this Court has repeatedly stressed that rate filing was Congress’s chosen means of preventing unreasonableness and discrimination in charges: “[T]here is not only a relation, but an indissoluble unity between the provision for the establishment and maintenance of rates until corrected in accordance with the statute and the prohibitions against preferences and discrimination.” Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 440 (1907); see also Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 222 U. S. 506, 508-509 (1912). “The duty to file rates with the Commission, [the analog to § 203(a)], and the obligation to charge only those rates, [the analog to § 203(c)], have always been considered essential to preventing price discrimination and stabilizing rates.” Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U. S. 116, 126 (1990); see also Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 284 U. S. 370, 384 (1932) (filing requirements “render rates definite and certain, and . . . prevent discrimination and other abuses”); Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 81 (1908) (elimination of filing requirement “opens the door to the possibility of the very abuses of unequal rates which it was the design of the statute to prohibit and punish”). As the Maislin Court concluded, compliance with these provisions “is ‘utterly central’ to the administration of the Act.” 497 U. S., at 132, quoting Regular Common Carrier Conference v. United States, 793 F. 2d 376, 379 (CADC 1986).
Much of the rest of the Communications Act subchapter applicable to Common Carriers, see 47 U. S. C. §§201-228, and the Act’s Procedural and Administrative Provisions, 47 U. S. C. §§401-416, are premised upon the tariff-filing requirement of §203. For example, §415 defines “overcharges” (which customers are entitled to recover) by reference to the filed rate. See § 415(g). The provisions allowing customers and competitors to challenge rates as unreasonable or as discriminatory, see 47 U. S. C. §§204, 206-208,406, would not be susceptible of effective enforcement if rates were not publicly filed. See Maislin, supra, at 132. Rate filings are, in fact, the essential characteristic of a rate-regulated industry. It is highly unlikely that Congress would leave the determination of whether an industry will be entirely, or even substantially, rate-regulated to agency discretion — and even more unlikely that it would achieve that through such a subtle device as permission to “modify” rate-filing requirements.
Bearing in mind, then, the enormous importance to the statutory scheme of the tariff-filing provision, we turn to whether what has occurred here can be considered a mere “modification.” The Commission stresses that its detariffing policy applies only to nondominant carriers, so that the rates charged to over half of all consumers in the long-distance market are on file with the Commission. It is not clear to us that the proportion of customers affected, rather than the proportion of carriers affected, is the proper measure of the extent of the exemption (of course all carriers in the long-distance market are exempted, except AT&T). But even assuming it is, we think an elimination of the crucial provision of the statute for 40% of a major sector of the industry is much too extensive to be considered a “modification.” What we have here, in reality, is a fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from a scheme of rate regulation in long-distance common-carrier communications to a scheme of rate regulation only where effective competition does not exist. That may be a good idea, but it was not the idea Congress enacted into law in 1934.
Apart from its failure to qualify as a “modification,” there is an independent reason why the Commission’s detariffing policy cannot come within the § 203(b)(2) authority to modify. That provision requires that when the Commission proceeds “by general order” (as opposed to when it acts “in particular instances”) to make a modification, the order can only apply “to special circumstances or conditions.” Although that is a somewhat elastic phrase, it is not infinitely so. It is hard to imagine that a condition shared by 40% of all long-distance customers, and by all long-distance carriers except one, qualifies as “special” within the intent of this limitation.
Both sides of this dispute contend that Congress has manifested in later legislation agreement with their respective interpretations of the Communications Act. Petitioners point to the 1990 amendment of the Act to require operator service providers (OSP’s) to file informational tariffs, which can be phased out after four years, see Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act of 1990 (TOCSIA), 104 Stat. 990, 47 U. S. C. § 226(h) (1988 ed., Supp. IV). Petitioners reason that this must envision a background of permissive filing, since otherwise the permitted phaseout of informational tariffs would be a phase-in of even more rigorous requirements. AT&T, on the other hand, claims that Congress has manifested agreement with its position in the recent amendment of 47 U. S. C. § 332(c)(1)(A) that gives the Commission authority to limit the tariff-filing requirement for commercial mobile carriers — authority that would be unnecessary if the Commission’s view of §203 is correct. At most, these conflicting arguments indicate that Congress was aware of the decade-long tug of war between the Commission and the District of Columbia Circuit over the authority to relax filing requirements, and at different times proceeded on different assumptions as to who would win. We have here not a consistent history of legislation to which one or the other, interpretation of the Act is essential; but rather two pieces of legislation to which first one, and then the other, interpretation of the Act is more congenial. That is not enough to change anything.
Finally, petitioners earnestly urge that their interpretation of § 203(b) furthers the Communications Act’s broad purpose of promoting efficient telephone service. They claim that although the filing requirement prevented price discrimination and unfair practices while AT&T maintained a monopoly over long-distance service, it frustrates those same goals now that there is greater competition in that market. Specifically, they contend that filing costs raise artificial barriers to entry and that the publication of rates facilitates parallel pricing and stifles price competition. We have considerable sympathy with these arguments (though we doubt it makes sense, if one is concerned about the use of filed tariffs to communicate pricing information, to require filing by the dominant carrier, the firm most likely to be a price leader). The Court itself has policed trade associations and rate bureaus under the antitrust laws precisely because the sharing of pricing information can facilitate price fixing, see, e. g., Sugar Institute, Inc. v. United States, 297 U. S. 553 (1936); American Column & Lumber Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 377 (1921), and the Court has protected regulated firms from some types of antitrust suits brought on the basis of their filed rates, see, e. g., Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 476 U. S. 409 (1986). As we noted earlier this Term, there is considerable “debate in other forums about the wisdom of the filed rate doctrine,” Security Services, Inc. v. Kmart Corp., 511 U. S. 431, 440 (1994), and, more broadly, about the value of continued regulation of the telecommunications industry. But our estimations, and the Commission’s estimations, of desirable policy cannot alter the meaning of the federal Communications Act of 1934. For better or worse, the Act establishes a rate-regulation, filed-tariff system for common-carrier communications, and the Commission’s desire “to ‘increase competition' cannot provide [it] authority to alter the well-established statutory filed rate requirements,” Maislin, 497 U. S., at 135. As we observed in the context of a dispute over the filed-rate doctrine more than 80 years ago, “such considerations address themselves to Congress, not to the courts,” Armour Packing, 209 U. S., at 82.
We do not mean to suggest that the tariff-filing requirement is so inviolate that the Commission’s existing modification authority does not reach it at all. Certainly the Commission can modify the form, contents, and location of required filings, and can defer filing or perhaps even waive it altogether in limited circumstances. But what we have here goes well beyond that. It is effectively the introduction of a whole new regime of regulation (or of free-market competition), which may well be a better regime but is not the one that Congress established.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The Third Report and Order, 48 Fed. Reg. 46791 (1983), extended the Competitive Carrier Rulemakings to carriers providing service to domestic points outside the continental United States, such as Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands.
Petitioners also cite Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 763 (1991), which includes among its definitions of “modify,” “to make basic or fundamental changes in often to give a new orientation to or to serve a new end.” They might also have cited the eighth version of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 739 (1973), which contains that same definition; and Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary 544 (1963), which contains the same definition as Webster’s Third New International Dictionary quoted in text. The Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionaries, published by G. & C. Merriam Company of Springfield, Massachusetts, are essentially abridgments of that company’s Webster’s New International Dictionaries, and recite that they are based upon those lengthier works. The last New Collegiate to be based upon Webster’s Second New International, rather than Webster’s Third, does not include “basic or fundamental change” among the accepted meanings of “modify.” See Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 541 (6th ed. 1949).
That is not an unlikely hypothesis. Upon its long-awaited appearance in 1961, Webster’s Third was widely criticized for its portrayal of common error as proper usage. See, e. g., Follett, Sabotage in Springfield, 209 Atlantic 73 (Jan. 1962); Barzun, What is a Dictionary? 32 The American Scholar 176, 181 (spring 1963); Macdonald, The String Unwound, 38 The New Yorker 130,156-157 (Mar. 1962). An example is its approval (without qualification) of the use of “infer” to mean “imply”: “infer” “5: to give reason to draw an inference concerning: HINT (did not take part in the debate except to ask a question inferring that the constitution must be changed — Manchester Guardian Weekly).” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1158 (1961).
The dissent misrepresents what we say in this sentence, see post, at 242, and addresses two paragraphs to an argument we have not made, post, at 242-244. We simply say, as did the Maislin Court, that eliminating the tariff-filing requirement would frustrate complaint proceedings; not that eliminating those requirements, or indeed even eliminating the complaint proceedings, would frustrate the ultimate purposes of the Act. Perhaps, as the dissent asserts, it would not; perhaps even eliminating the FCC would not do so. But we (and the FCC) are bound, not only by the ultimate purposes Congress has selected, but by the means it has deemed appropriate, and prescribed, for the pursuit of those purposes.
The dissent suggests that we ignore § 203(c) of the Act, which prohibits carriers from providing service in the absence of a filed rate “unless provided by or under the authority of this Act.” The dissent asserts that that phrase must refer to the modification authority of § 203(b)(2). See post, at 239-240. Perhaps it does so — though that would not at all contradict our interpretation of § 203(b)(2), which we have acknowledged, see infra, at 234, might in some limited circumstances permit the Commission to waive the filing requirement. But § 203(c) could just as (in fact, more) easily be read as referring to §203(a)’s express exemption of connecting carriers, §§ 201(b) and 211’s authorization of services between carriers pursuant to contractual rates, §332(c)(l)(A)’s exemptions for mobile carriers, and other express statutory exemptions from filing requirements.
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 GINSBURGdelivered the opinion of the Court.
To remove a case from a state court to a federal court, a defendant must file in the federal forum a notice of removal "containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). When removal is based on diversity of citizenship, an amount-in-controversy requirement must be met. Ordinarily, "the matter in controversy [must] excee[d] the sum or value of $75,000." § 1332(a). In class actions for which the requirement of diversity of citizenship is relaxed, § 1332(d)(2)(A)-(C), "the matter in controversy [must] excee[d] the sum or value of $5,000,000," § 1332(d)(2). If the plaintiff's complaint, filed in state court, demands monetary relief of a stated sum, that sum, if asserted in good faith, is "deemed to be the amount in controversy." § 1446(c)(2). When the plaintiff's complaint does not state the amount in controversy, the defendant's notice of removal may do so. § 1446(c)(2)(A).
To assert the amount in controversy adequately in the removal notice, does it suffice to allege the requisite amount plausibly, or must the defendant incorporate into the notice of removal evidence supporting the allegation? That is the single question argued here and below by the parties and the issue on which we granted review. The answer, we hold, is supplied by the removal statute itself. A statement "short and plain" need not contain evidentiary submissions.
I
Brandon W. Owens, plaintiff below and respondent here, filed a putative class action in Kansas state court alleging that defendants Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC, and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, LLC (collectively, Dart), underpaid royalties owed to putative class members under certain oil and gas leases. The complaint sought "a fair and reasonable amount" to compensate putative class members for "damages" they sustained due to the alleged underpayments. App. to Pet. for Cert. 34a, 35a.
Invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Dart removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. CAFA gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain class actions, defined in § 1332(d)(1), if the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. § 1332(d)(2), (5)(B); see Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles,568 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1345, 1348, 185 L.Ed.2d 439 (2013). Dart's notice of removal alleged that all three requirements were satisfied. With respect to the amount in controversy, Dart stated that the purported underpayments to putative class members totaled more than $8.2 million.
Owens moved to remand the case to state court. The notice of removal was "deficient as a matter of law," Owens asserted, because it included "no evidence" proving that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. App. to Pet. for Cert. 46a, 53a. In response, Dart submitted a declaration by one of its executive officers. The declaration included a detailed damages calculation indicating that the amount in controversy, sansinterest, exceeded $11 million. Without challenging Dart's calculation, Owens urged that Dart's amount-in-controversy submission came too late. "[The] legally deficient [notice of removal]," Owens maintained, could not be cured by "post-removal evidence about the amount in controversy." Id.,at 100a.
Reading Tenth Circuit precedent to require proof of the amount in controversy in the notice of removal itself, the District Court granted Owens' remand motion. Dart's declaration, the District Court held, could not serve to keep the case in federal court. The Tenth Circuit, as the District Court read Circuit precedent, "has consistently held that reference to factual allegations or evidence outside of the petition and notice of removal is not permitted to determine the amount in controversy." App. to Pet. for Cert. 26a, and n. 37 (citing Laughlin v. Kmart Corp.,50 F.3d 871, 873 (1995); Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.,251 F.3d 1284, 1291, n. 4 (2001); Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. JSSJ Corp.,149 Fed.Appx. 775 (2005)).
Ordinarily, remand orders "[are] not reviewable on appeal or otherwise." § 1447(d). There is an exception, however, for cases invoking CAFA. § 1453(c)(1). In such cases, "a court of appeals may accept an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying a motion to remand." Ibid.Citing this exception, Dart petitioned the Tenth Circuit for permission to appeal. "Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions, as well as the applicable law," the Tenth Circuit panel, dividing two-to-one, denied review. App. to Pet. for Cert. 13a-14a.
An evenly divided court denied Dart's petition for en banc review. Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Hartz observed that the Tenth Circuit "[had] let stand a district-court decision that will in effect impose in this circuit requirements for notices of removal that are even more onerous than the code pleading requirements that... federal courts abandoned long ago." 730 F.3d 1234 (2013). The Tenth Circuit was duty-bound to grant Dart's petition for rehearing en banc, Judge Hartz urged, because the opportunity "to correct the law in our circuit" likely would not arise again. Id.,at 1235. Henceforth, Judge Hartz explained, "any diligent attorney... would submit to the evidentiary burden rather than take a chance on remand to state court." Ibid.
Dart filed a petition for certiorari in this Court requesting resolution of the following question: "Whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is alleging the required'short and plain statement of the grounds for removal' enough?" Pet. for Cert. i. Owens' brief in opposition raised no impediment to this Court's review. (Nor, later, did Owens' merits brief suggest any barrier to our consideration of Dart's petition.) We granted certiorari to resolve a division among the Circuits on the question presented. 572 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1788, 188 L.Ed.2d 757 (2014). Compare Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.,519 F.3d 192, 200 (C.A.4 2008)(a removing party's notice of removal need not "meet a higher pleading standard than the one imposed on a plaintiff in drafting an initial complaint"), and Spivey v. Vertrue, Inc.,528 F.3d 982, 986 (C.A.7 2008)(similar), with Laughlin,50 F.3d, at 873("the requisite amount in controversy... must be affirmatively established on the face of either the petition or the removal notice").
II
As noted above, a defendant seeking to remove a case to a federal court must file in the federal forum a notice of removal "containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal." § 1446(a). By design, § 1446(a)tracks the general pleading requirement stated in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 14C C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, & J. Steinman, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3733, pp. 639-641 (4th ed. 2009)("Section 1446(a)requires only that the grounds for removal be stated in 'a short and plain statement'-terms borrowed from the pleading requirement set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)."). The legislative history of § 1446(a)is corroborative. Congress, by borrowing the familiar "short and plain statement" standard from Rule 8(a), intended to "simplify the 'pleading' requirements for removal" and to clarify that courts should "apply the same liberal rules [to removal allegations] that are applied to other matters of pleading." H.R.Rep. No. 100-889, p. 71(1988). See also ibid. (disapproving decisions requiring "detailed pleading").
When a plaintiff invokes federal-court jurisdiction, the plaintiff's amount-in-controversy allegation is accepted if made in good faith. See, e.g.,Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle,429 U.S. 274, 276, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977)(" '[T]he sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.' ") (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.,303 U.S. 283, 288, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938); alteration in original). Similarly, when a defendant seeks federal-court adjudication, the defendant's amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court. Indeed, the Tenth Circuit, although not disturbing prior decisions demanding proof together with the removal notice, recognized that it was anomalous to treat commencing plaintiffs and removing defendants differently with regard to the amount in controversy. See McPhail v. Deere & Co.,529 F.3d 947, 953 (2008)(requiring proof by defendant but not by plaintiff "bears no evident logical relationship either to the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, or to the principle that those who seek to invoke federal jurisdiction must establish its prerequisites").
If the plaintiff contests the defendant's allegation, § 1446(c)(2)(B)instructs: "[R]emoval... is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy asserted" by the defendant "if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds"
the jurisdictional threshold.This provision, added to § 1446as part of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 (JVCA), clarifies the procedure in order when a defendant's assertion of the amount in controversy is challenged. In such a case, both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied. As the House Judiciary Committee Report on the JVCA observed:
"[D]efendants do not need to prove to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Rather, defendants may simply allege or assert that the jurisdictional threshold has been met. Discovery may be taken with regard to that question. In case of a dispute, the district court must make findings of jurisdictional fact to which the preponderance standard applies." H.R.Rep. No. 112-10, p. 16(2011).
Of course, a dispute about a defendant's jurisdictional allegations cannot arise until afterthe defendant files a notice of removal containing those allegations. Brief for Dart 14.
In remanding the case to state court, the District Court relied, in part, on a purported "presumption" against removal. App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a. See, e.g.,Laughlin,50 F.3d, at 873("[T]here is a presumption against removal jurisdiction."). We need not here decide whether such a presumption is proper in mine-run diversity cases. It suffices to point out that no antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA, which Congress enacted to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions in federal court. See Standard Fire Ins. Co.,568 U.S., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1350("CAFA's primary objective" is to "ensur[e] 'Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance.' " (quoting § 2(b)(2), 119 Stat. 5)); S.Rep. No. 109-14, p. 43(2005) (CAFA's "provisions should be read broadly, with a strong preference that interstate class actions should be heard in a federal court if properly removed by any defendant.").
In sum, as specified in § 1446(a), a defendant's notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Evidence establishing the amount is required by § 1446(c)(2)(B)only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant's allegation.
III
As in Standard Fire Ins. Co.,568 U.S., at ---- - ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1347-48, we granted review in this case after the Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal from a remand order. Neither party in that case or in this one questioned our review authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)("Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed... [b]y writ of certiorari upon the petition of any party... before or after rendition of judgment.").An amicusbrief filed in support of Owens by Public Citizen, Inc., however, raised a jurisdictional impediment.
Section 1453(c)(1), Public Citizen noted, provides that "a court of appeals may accept an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying a motion to remand a class action to the State court from which it was removed [.]" (Emphasis added.) Because court of appeals review of a remand order is discretionary, see supra,at 552, and the Tenth Circuit exercised its discretion to deny review, Public Citizen urged, "[b]oth parties ask this Court to decide an issue that is not properly before it." Brief for Public Citizen 6. "Absent grounds for reversing the court of appeals' decision to deny permission to appeal," Public Citizen asserted, "the merits of the district court's decision are not before any appellate court, including this one." Ibid.
Satisfied that there are indeed "grounds for reversing the [Tenth Circuit's] decision to deny permission to appeal," we find no jurisdictional barrier to our settlement of the question presented. The case was "in" the Court of Appeals because of Dart's leave-to-appeal application, and we have jurisdiction to review what the Court of Appeals did with that application. See 28 U.S.C. § 1254; Hohn v. United States,524 U.S. 236, 248, 118 S.Ct. 1969, 141 L.Ed.2d 242 (1998). Owens, we reiterate, did not contest the scope of our review.
Discretion to review a remand order is not rudderless. See Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.,572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1744, 1748, 188 L.Ed.2d 829 (2014)("matters of discretion are reviewable for abuse of discretion" (internal quotation marks omitted)). A court "would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law." Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.,496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990). This case fits that bill.
There are many signals that the Tenth Circuit relied on the legally erroneous premise that the District Court's decision was correct. In an earlier case, the Tenth Circuit, following the First Circuit's lead, stated considerations that it regards as relevant to the intelligent exercise of discretion under § 1453(c)(1). BP America, Inc. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson,613 F.3d 1029, 1034-1035 (2010)(adopting factors set out in College of Dental Surgeons of Puerto Rico v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co.,585 F.3d 33, 38-39 (C.A.1 2009)).When the CAFA-related question presented in an appeal from a remand order is "important, unsettled, and recurrent," the First Circuit instructed, a court of appeals should inquire: "Absent an interlocutory appeal, [will the question] in all probability escape meaningful appellate review." Id., at 39. Or, as phrased by the Tenth Circuit, if a district court's remand order remains undisturbed, will the case "leave the ambit of the federal courts for good, precluding any other opportunity for [the defendant] to vindicate its claimed legal entitlement [under CAFA]... to have a federal tribunal adjudicate the merits." BP America,613 F.3d, at 1035. See also Coffey v. Freeport McMoran Copper & Gold,581 F.3d 1240, 1247 (C.A.10 2009)(noting that "the purpose of § 1453(c)(1)is to develop a body of appellate law interpreting CAFA" (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, the Tenth Circuit's own guide weighed heavily in favor of accepting Dart's appeal. That the Court of Appeals, instead, rejected Dart's appeal strongly suggests that the panel thought the District Court got it right in requiring proof of the amount in controversy in the removal notice.
In practical effect, the Court of Appeals' denial of review established the law not simply for this case, but for future CAFA removals sought by defendants in the Tenth Circuit. The likelihood is slim that a later case will arise in which the Tenth Circuit will face a plea to retract the rule that both Owens and the District Court ascribed to decisions of the Court of Appeals: Defendants seeking to remove under CAFA must be sent back to state court unless they submit with the notice of removal evidence proving the alleged amount in controversy. See supra,at 552. On this point, Judge Hartz's observation, dissenting from the Tenth Circuit's denial of rehearing en banc, see supra,at 552 - 553, bears recounting in full:
"After today's decision any diligent attorney (and one can assume that an attorney representing a defendant in a case involving at least $5 million-the threshold for removal under CAFA-would have substantial incentive to be diligent) would submit to the evidentiary burden rather than take a chance on remand to state court." 730 F.3d, at 1235.
With no responsible attorney likely to renew the fray, Judge Hartz anticipated, "the issue will not arise again." Ibid.Consequently, the law applied by the District Court-demanding that the notice of removal contain evidence documenting the amount in controversy-will be frozen in place for all venues within the Tenth Circuit.
Recall that the Court of Appeals denied Dart's petition for review "[u]pon careful consideration of the parties' submissions, as well as the applicable law." App. to Pet. for Cert. 13a. What did the parties submit to the Tenth Circuit? Their presentations urged conflicting views on whether a removing defendant must tender prima facie proof of the amount in controversy as part of the removal notice. And what was "the applicable law" other than the rule recited by the Tenth Circuit in Laughlinand follow-on decisions, i.e.,to remove successfully, a defendant must present with the notice of removal evidence proving the amount in controversy.
From all signals one can discern then, the Tenth Circuit's denial of Dart's request for review of the remand order was infected by legal error. The District Court erred in ruling that Dart's amount-in-controversy allegation failed for want of proof, but that error was driven by the District Court's conscientious endeavor to follow Circuit precedent. The parties trained their arguments in the Tenth Circuit, as they did here, on the question whether Dart could successfully remove without detailing in the removal notice evidence of the amount in controversy. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 47 (acknowledgment by Owens' counsel that "the issues... provided to... the Tenth Circuit were very similar to what you see in this Court, with the exception of [the question raised by Public Citizen] whether this Court has jurisdiction"). Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Hartz explained at length why the Tenth Circuit "owe[d] a duty to the bench and bar" to correct the District Court's misperception and to state as the Circuit's law: "[A] defendant seeking removal under CAFA need only allege the jurisdictional amount in its notice of removal and must prove that amount only if the plaintiff challenges the allegation." 730 F.3d, at 1234, 1238. In this regard, we note, the Tenth Circuit has cautioned against casual rulings on applications like Dart's. "The decision whether to grant leave to appeal" under § 1453(c), the Tenth Circuit stressed, calls for the exercise of the reviewing court's correctly "informed discretion." BP America,613 F.3d, at 1035(emphasis added); see supra,at 555 - 556.
Recall, moreover, that Owens never suggested in his written submissions to this Court that anything other than the question presented accounts for the Court of Appeals' disposition. If Owens believed that the Tenth Circuit's denial of leave to appeal rested on some other ground, he might have said so in his brief in opposition or, at least, in his merits brief. See this Court's Rule 15.2; Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters,561 U.S. 287, 306, 130 S.Ct. 2847, 177 L.Ed.2d 567 (2010). He said nothing of that order, for he, like Dart, anticipated that the question presented was ripe for this Court's resolution.
In the above-described circumstances, we find it an abuse of discretion for the Tenth Circuit to deny Dart's request for review. Doing so froze the governing rule in the Circuit for this case and future CAFA removal notices, with no opportunity for defendants in Dart's position responsibly to resist making the evidentiary submission. That situation would be bizarre for a decisionmaker who did not think that the amount in controversy in diversity cases is a matter a removal notice must demonstrate by evidence, not merely credibly allege.And if the Circuit precedent on which the District Court relied misstated the law, as we hold it did, then the District Court's order remanding this case to the state court is fatally infected by legal error.
Careful inspection thus reveals that the two issues Public Citizen invites us to separate-whether the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion in denying review, and whether the District Court's remand order was erroneous-do not pose genuinely discrete questions. Instead, resolution of both issues depends on the answer to the very same question: What must the removal notice contain? If the notice need not contain evidence, the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion in effectively making the opposing view the law of the Circuit. By the same token, the District Court erred in remanding the case for want of an evidentiary submission in the removal notice. We no doubt have authority to review for abuse of discretion the Tenth Circuit's denial of Dart's appeal from the District Court's remand order, see supra,at 555, and in doing so, to correct the erroneous view of the law the Tenth Circuit's decision fastened on district courts within the Circuit's domain.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice SCALIA, with whom Justice KENNEDYand Justice KAGANjoin, and with whom Justice THOMASjoins as to all but the final sentence, dissenting.
When Dart removed this class action to federal court, it was required to file a "notice of removal" containing "a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). In accordance with what it thought to be Tenth Circuit jurisprudence, the District Court interpreted this to require evidence (as opposed to mere allegations) supporting federal jurisdiction. After finding that Dart's notice of removal did not include evidence of the jurisdictionally required amount in controversy, the District Court remanded the case to state court. App. to Pet. for Cert. 25a-28a. Dart sought permission to appeal this order under § 1453(c)(1), which provides that "a court of appeals mayaccept an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying a motion to remand a class action to the State court from which it was removed" (emphasis added). Without stating its reasons, the Tenth Circuit issued an order denying Dart's request. App. to Pet. for Cert. 13a.
Eager to correct what we suspected was the District Court's (and the Tenth Circuit's) erroneous interpretation of § 1446(a), we granted certiorari to decide whether notices of removal must contain evidence supporting federal jurisdiction. After briefing we discovered a little snag: This case does not present that question. Because we are reviewing the Tenth Circuit'sjudgment, the only question before us is whether the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion in denying Dart permission to appeal the District Court's remand order. Once we found out that the issue presented differed from the issue we granted certiorari to review, the responsible course would have been to confess error and to dismiss the case as improvidently granted.
The Court, however, insists on deciding whether the District Court erred in remanding this case to state court. How can it do that, one might ask, when the only issue in this case concerns the propriety of the Tenth Circuit's rejection of Dart's appeal? The Court hits upon a solution: It concludes that the Tenth Circuit decided not to hear the appeal because it agreed with the District Court's analysis. Attributing the District Court's reasoning to the Tenth Circuit allows the Court to pretend to review the appellate court's exercise of discretion while actually reviewing the trial court's legal analysis.
There are problems with this approach that are, in a rational world, insuperable. To begin with, the Tenth Circuit's short order does not tell us why it decided not to hear Dart's appeal. It might have done so for an impermissible reason-for example, agreement with the District Court's legal reasoning. But it might instead have done so for countless other, permissible, reasons-for example, a concern that this would be a poor vehicle for deciding the issue presented by Dart's appeal, or a concern regarding the court's ability to quickly resolve the issue, see § 1453(c)(2)-(3)(providing that appeals accepted under § 1453(c)(1)must be decided within 60 days, absent consent of the parties, with a 10-day extension for "good cause shown and in the interests of justice").
Not long ago we held, unanimously, that "[a]n appellate court should not presume that a district court intended an incorrect legal result when the order is equally susceptible of a correct reading, particularly when the applicable standard of review is deferential."Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn,552 U.S. 379, 386, 128 S.Ct. 1140, 170 L.Ed.2d 1 (2008). There, we corrected the Tenth Circuit for doing precisely what the Court itself does today in reviewing (deferentially) the Tenth Circuit's denial of permission to appeal: presuming that the lower court adopted a legally erroneous argument advanced by one party. Id., at 384-385, 128 S.Ct. 1140. We explained to the Tenth Circuit that "it would be inappropriate for the reviewing court to assume, absent indication in the District Court'sopinion,that the lower court adopted a party's incorrect argument." Id., at 385, n. 2, 128 S.Ct. 1140(emphasis added). Today, however, this Court blatantly violates that rule.
The only "indication in the opinion" that the Court relies on is the following language from the order denying permission to appeal: "Upon careful consideration of [1] the parties' submissions, as well as [2] the applicable law, the Petition [for permission to appeal the remand order] is denied." App. to Pet. for Cert. 13a-14a. This, the Court tells us, means the Tenth Circuit must have denied Dart's petition because it agreed with the District Court's legal conclusion. Of course it means no such thing.
As for point [1], consideringa submission is not the same thing as agreeing with that submission. Worse still, correctness of the District Court's opinion was not the only ground that Owens' brief in the Tenth Circuit urged to support denial of the petition for review. It noted, for example, that the case addressed the general removal statute, § 1446(a), and so did not involve a question unique to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Response to Petition for Permission to Appeal in No. 13-603, p. 3. (The Tenth Circuit considers "the presence of an important CAFA-related question" a reason to accept an appeal. BP America, Inc. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson,613 F.3d 1029, 1034 (2010)(internal quotation marks omitted).)
As for point [2], there is no reason whatever to believe that the only "applicable law" the Tenth Circuit considered and relied on was the law relating to the correctness of the District Court's decision-i.e., the law interpreting § 1446(a). After all, the "applicable law" surely includes the law applicable to the disposition of petitions to appeal, § 1453(c)(1), and that body of law includes countless reasons to deny permission to appeal that are unrelated to the merits of the underlying district court judgment. "Applicable law" would allow the Tenth Circuit, for example, to deny permission to appeal for reasons not mentioned in the parties' briefing. It would allow it to deny permission because it would be unable to resolve the issue within 60 days, as required by CAFA (absent an extension). § 1453(c)(2)and (c)(3); see also 730 F.3d 1234, 1238(Hartz, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) ("It will always be tempting for very busy judges to deny review of a knotty matter that requires a decision in short order"). And "applicable law" would permit numerous other grounds for denial, including those applied by this Court in denying petitions for certiorari. There is, to tell the truth, absolutely nothing in the Tenth Circuit's order to suggest that it relied on the unlawful ground that the Court eagerly attributes to it, rather than one of many possible lawful grounds. Thus, as we said in Mendelsohn,"it would be inappropriate for the reviewing court [us] to assume... that the lower court adopted a party's incorrect argument."552 U.S., at 385, n. 2, 128 S.Ct. 1140.
Besides relying on the utterly uninformative language of the order, the Court makes one other attempt to demonstrate that the Tenth Circuit's order was based upon its agreement with the holding of the District Court. It asserts that denying Dart permission to appeal "froz[e] in place" the District Court's rule. Ante,at 556. In light of that denial, the Court says, any "responsible attorney" will include evidence supporting jurisdiction in his notice of removal, thereby eliminating the risk of having that notice held improper for the reason given by the District Court in this case. As a result, the Tenth Circuit will likely never again be presented with the question whether evidence of jurisdiction must be included with a notice of removal. Ibid. The Court then notes that, among the many factors the Tenth Circuit considers in deciding whether to accept an appeal under § 1453(c)(1), is whether the case presents an issue which, if not resolved in that appeal, will "leave the ambit of the federal courts for good." BP America, supra,at 1035. One would have thought that this factor, if it controlled the Tenth Circuit's denial, means that the Tenth Circuit did not agree with the Court's perception that this issue will not likely reappear. The Court, however, says (quite illogically) that it means the Tenth Circuit must haveagreedwith the District Court's incorrect legal analysis. It is hard to imagine a more obvious non sequitur.
And the argument not only tortures logic, it also distorts reality, resting as it does on the premise that henceforth no "responsible attorney" will fail to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in a notice of removal. Even discounting the existence of irresponsible attorneys, but see, e.g.,Maples v. Thomas,565 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 912, 181 L.Ed.2d 807 (2012), responsible attorneys, and even responsible judges, sometimes make mistakes, see, e.g., 572 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1788, 188 L.Ed.2d 757 (2014)(order granting certiorari in this case). Indeed, Dart's own (seemingly responsible) lawyers failed to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction, despite what they argue is Circuit precedent supporting the District Court's holding. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 12 (counsel for Dart, explaining that the District Court's ruling was supported by Tenth Circuit precedent).
Even in the legal utopia imagined by the Court-a world in which all lawyers are responsible and no lawyers make mistakes-it is easy to imagine ways in which the issue could come back to the circuit court. If, for example, a party appealed a district court decision addressing the sufficiency of the jurisdictional evidence, the Tenth Circuit could accept the appeal and hold (en banc, if necessary) that no evidence is required at all. In short, it is impossible to credit the suggestion (irrelevant in any case) that the chances of this issue arising again were "slim." Ante,at 556.
The Court attempts to bolster its conclusion with an unprincipled and unequal application of the waiver doctrine. Owens, it says, by failing to brief the argument that the Tenth Circuit denied Dart's petition for reasons other than its agreement with the District Court's decision, waived that argument. Ante, at 557 (citing this Court's Rule 15.2). Dart, however, never made an argument that would have called for such a response. It never argued that the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion in denying permission to appeal. Aside from one stray assertion on the final page of its reply brief, its briefing focused entirely on whether the District Courterred in remanding the case to state court. See, e.g., Brief for Petitioners 9 ("This Court should reverse the district court's order remanding the case to state court"). Rather than hold Dart responsible for failing to argue that the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion, see Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.,573 U.S. ----, ----, n. 2, 134 S.Ct. 2250, 2255 n. 2, 189 L.Ed.2d 234 (2014)("We will not revive a forfeited argument simply because the petitioner gestures toward it in its reply brief"), the Court makes the argument on Dart's behalf and then takes Owens to task for failing to refute it. This Court ought not embrace such an oddhanded application of waiver principles.
The Court answers that Dart "had no cause to address" whether the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion
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 Constitution prohibits the criminal conviction of any person except upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358. The question in this case is what standard is to be applied in a federal habeas corpus proceeding when the claim is made that a person has been convicted in a state court upon insufficient evidence.
I
The petitioner was convicted after a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Chesterfield Count y, Va., of the first-degree murder of a woman named Mary Houston Cole. Under Virginia law, murder is defined as “the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought.” Stapleton v. Commonwealth, 123 Va. 825, 96 S. E. 801. Premeditation, or specific intent to kill, distinguishes murder in the first from murder in the second degree; proof of this element is essential to conviction of the former offense, and the burden of proving it clearly rests with the prosecution. Shiflett v. Commonwealth, 143 Va. 609, 130 S. E. 777; Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 432, 201 S. E. 2d 749.
That the petitioner had shot and killed Mrs. Cole was not in dispute at the trial. The State's evidence established that she had been a member of the staff at the local county jail, that she had befriended him while he was imprisoned there on a disorderly conduct charge, and that when he was released she had arranged for him to live in the home of her son and daughter-in-law. Testimony by her relatives indicated that on the day of the killing the petitioner had been drinking and had spent a great deal of time shooting at targets with his revolver. Late in the afternoon, according to their testimony, he had unsuccessfully attempted to talk the victim into driving him to North Carolina. She did drive the petitioner to a local diner. There the two were observed by several police officers, who testified that both the petitioner and the victim had been drinking. The two were observed by a deputy sheriff as they were preparing to leave the diner in her car. The petitioner was then in possession of his revolver, and the sheriff also observed a kitchen knife in the automobile. The sheriff testified that he had offered to keep the revolver until the petitioner sobered up, but that the latter had indicated that this would be unnecessary since he and the victim were about to engage in sexual activity.
Her body was found in a secluded church parking lot a day and a half later, naked from the waist down, her slacks beneath her body. Uncontradicted medical and expert evidence established that she had been shot twice at close range with the petitioner’s gun. She appeared not to have been sexually molested. Six cartridge cases identified as having been fired from the petitioner’s gun were found near the body.
After shooting Mrs. Cole, the petitioner drove her car to North Carolina, where, after a short trip to Florida, he was arrested several days later. In a postarrest statement, introduced in evidence by the prosecution, the petitioner admitted that he had shot the victim. He contended, however, that the shooting had been accidental. When asked to describe his condition at the time of the shooting, he indicated that he had not been drunk, but had been “pretty high.” His story was that the victim had attacked him with a knife when he resisted her sexual advances. He said that he had defended himself by firing a number of warning shots into the ground, and had then reloaded his revolver. The victim, he said, then attempted to take the gun from him, and the gun “went off" in the ensuing struggle. He said that he fled without seeking help for the victim because he was afraid. At the trial, his position was that he had acted in self-defense. Alternatively, he claimed that in any event the State’s own evidence showed that he had been too intoxicated to form the specific intent necessary under Virginia law to sustain a conviction of murder in the first degree.
The trial judge, declaring himself convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner had committed first-degree murder, found him guilty of that offense. The petitioner’s motion to set aside the judgment as contrary to the evidence was denied, and he was sentenced to serve a term of 30 years in the Virginia state penitentiary. A petition for writ of error to the Virginia Supreme Court on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction was denied.
The petitioner then commenced this habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, raising the same basic claim. Applying the “no evidence” criterion of Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U. S. 199, the District Court found the record devoid of evidence of premeditation and granted the writ. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment. The court noted that a dissent from the denial of certiorari in a case in this Court had exposed the question whether the constitutional rule of In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, might compel a new criterion by which the validity of a state criminal conviction must be tested in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Freeman v. Zahradnick, 429 U. S. 1111 (dissent from denial of certiorari). But the appellate court held that in the absence of further guidance from this Court it would apply the same “no evidence” criterion of Thompson v. Louisville that the District Court had adopted. The court was of the view that some evidence that the petitioner had intended to kill the victim could be found in the facts that the petitioner had reloaded his gun after firing warning shots, that he had had time to do so, and that the victim was then shot not once but twice. The court also concluded that the state trial judge could have found that the petitioner was not so intoxicated as to be incapable of premeditation.
We granted certiorari to consider the petitioner’s claim that under In re Winship, supra, a federal habeas corpus court must consider not whether there was any evidence to support a state-court conviction, but whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of the facts to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 439 U. S. 1001.
II
Our inquiry in this case is narrow. The petitioner has not seriously questioned any aspect of Virginia law governing the allocation of the burden of production or persuasion in a murder trial. See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684; Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197. As the record demonstrates, the judge sitting as factfinder in the petitioner’s trial was aware that the State bore the burden of establishing the element of premeditation, and stated that he was applying the reasonable-doubt standard in his appraisal of the State’s evidence. The petitioner, moreover, does not contest the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that under the “no evidence” rule of Thompson v. Louisville, supra, his conviction of first-degree murder is sustainable. And he has not attacked the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction of second-degree murder. His sole constitutional claim, based squarely upon Winship, is that the District Court and the Court of Appeals were in error in not recognizing that the question to be decided in this case is whether any rational factfinder could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing for which the petitioner was convicted was premeditated. The question thus raised goes to the basic nature of the constitutional right recognized in the Winship opinion.
III
A
This is the first of our cases to expressly consider the question whether the due process standard recognized in Winship constitutionally protects an accused against conviction except upon evidence that is sufficient fairly to support a conclusion that every element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon examination of the fundamental differences between the constitutional underpinnings of Thompson v. Louisville, supra, and of In re Winship, supra, the answer to that question, we think, is clear.
It is axiomatic that a conviction upon a charge not made or upon a charge not tried constitutes a denial of due process. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U. S. 196, 201; Presnell v. Georgia, 439 U. S. 14. These standards no more than reflect a broader premise that has never been doubted in our constitutional system: that a person cannot incur the loss of liberty for an offense without notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend. E. g., Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, 416-420. Cf. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 377-379. A meaningful opportunity to defend, if not the right to a trial itself, presumes as well that a total want of evidence to support a charge will conclude the case in favor of the accused. Accordingly, we held in the Thompson case that a conviction based upon a record wholly devoid of any relevant evidence of a crucial element of the offense charged is constitutionally infirm. See also Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U. S. 478; Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39; Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U. S. 111; Douglas v. Buder, 412 U. S. 430. The “no evidence” doctrine of Thompson v. Louisville thus secures to an accused the most elemental of due process rights: freedom from a wholly arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
The Court in Thompson explicitly stated that the due process right at issue did not concern a question of evidentiary “sufficiency.” 362 U. S., at 199. The right established in In re Winship, however, clearly stands on a different footing. Winship involved an adjudication of juvenile delinquency made by a judge under a state statute providing that the prosecution must prove the conduct charged as delinquent— which in Winship would have been a criminal offense if engaged in by an adult — by a preponderance of the evidence. Applying that standard, the judge was satisfied that the juvenile was “guilty,” but he noted that the result might well have been different under a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In short, the record in Winship was not totally devoid of evidence of guilt.
The constitutional problem addressed in Winship was thus distinct from the stark problem of arbitrariness presented in Thompson v. Louisville. In Winship, the Court held for the first time that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a defendant in a criminal case against conviction "except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” 397 U. S., at 364. In so holding, the Court emphasized that proof beyond a reasonable doubt has traditionally been regarded as the decisive difference between crimi-" nal culpability and civil liability. Id., at 358-362. See Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 174; Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790; 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2495, pp. 307-308 (3d ed. 1940). Cf. Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276, 285. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, said the Court, "plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure,” because it operates to give “concrete substance’? to the presumption of innocence, to ensure against unjust convictions, and to reduce the risk of factual error in a criminal proceeding. 397 U. S., at 363. At the same time, by impressing upon the factfinder the need to¡ reach a subjective state of near certitude of the guilt of the i accused, the standard symbolizes the significance that our ‘ society attaches to the criminal sanction and thus to liberty itself. Id., at 372 (Harlan, J., concurring).
The constitutional standard recognized in the Winship case was expressly phrased as one that protects an accused against a conviction except on “proof beyond a reasonable doubt....” In subsequent cases.discussing the reasonable-doubt standard, we have never departed from this definition of the rule or from the Winship understanding of the central purposes it serves. See, e. g., Ivan V. v. City of New York, 407 U. S. 203, 204; Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 486-487; Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684; Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197; Cool v. United States, 409 U. S. 100, 104. In short, Winship presupposes as an essential of the due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment that no person shall he._made to suffer the onus of a criminal conviction except upon sufficient proof — defined as evidence necessary to convince a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of every element of the offense. -•
B
Although several of our cases have intimated that the fact-finder’s application of the reasonable-doubt standard to the evidence may present a federal question when a state conviction is challenged, Lego v. Twomey, supra, at 487; Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 360, the Federal Courts of Appeals have generally assumed that so long as the reasonable-doubt instruction has been given at trial, the no-evidence doctrine of Thompson v. Louisville remains the appropriate guide for a federal habeas corpus court to apply in assessing a state prisoner’s challenge to his conviction as founded upon insufficient evidence. See, e. g., Cunha v. Brewer, 511 F. 2d 894 (CA8). We cannot agree.
The Winship doctrine requires more than simply a trial ritual. A doctrine establishing so fundamental a substantive-; | constitutional standard must also require that the factfinder will rationally apply that standard to the facts in evidence. - A “reasonable doubt/’ at a minimum, is one based upon “reason.” Yet a properly instructed jury may occasionally convict even when it can be said that no rational trier of fact. could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the same may,. be said of a trial judge sitting as a jury. In a federal trial,' such an occurrence has traditionally been deemed to require reversal of the conviction. Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 80; Bronston v. United States, 409 U. S. 352. See also, e. g., Curley v. United States, 81 U. S. App. D. C. 389, 392-393, 160 F. 2d 229, 232-233. Under Winship, which established proof beyond a reasonable doubt as an essential of Fourteenth Amendment due process, it follows that when such a conviction occurs in a state trial, it cannot constitutionally stand.
A federal court has a duty to assess the historic facts when it is called upon to apply a constitutional standard to a conviction obtained in a state court. For example, on direct review of a state-court conviction, where the claim is made that an involuntary confession was used against the defendant, this Court reviews the facts to determine whether the confession was wrongly admitted in evidence. Blackburn v. Alar bama, 361 U. S. 199, 205-210. Cf. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 174-175, and n. 10. The same duty obtains in federal habeas corpus proceedings. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 318; Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 506-507 (opinion of Frankfurter, J.).
After Winship the critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction must be not simply to determine whether the jury was properly instructed, but to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But this inquiry does not require a court to “ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S., at 282 (emphasis added). Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S., at 362. This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Once a defendant j has been found guilty of the crime charged, the factfinder’s role as weigher of the evidence is preserved through a legal, conclusion that upon judicial review all of the evidence is to¡ be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The criterion thus impinges upon “jury” discretion only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.
That the Thompson “no evidence” rule is simply inadequate to protect against misapplications of the constitutional standard of reasonable doubt is readily apparent. “[A] mere modicum of evidence may satisfy a ‘no evidence’ standard... Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 202 (garren, C. J., dissenting). Any evidence that is relevant — that has any tendency to make the existence of an element of a crime slightly more probable than it would be without the evidence, cf. Fed. Rule Evid. 401 — could be deemed a “mere modicum.” But it could not seriously be argued that such a “modicum” of evidence could by itself rationally support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The Thompson doctrine simply fails to supply a workable or even a predictable standard for determining whether the due process command of Winship has been honored.
C
Under 28 U. S. C. § 2254, a federal court must entertain a claim by a state prisoner that he or she is being held in “custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Under the Winship decision, it is clear that a state prisoner who alleges that the evidence in support of his state conviction cannot be fairly characterized as sufficient to have led a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has stated a federal constitutional claim. Thus, assuming that state remedies have been exhausted, see 28 U. S. C. §2254 (b), and that no independent and adequate state ground stands as a bar, see Estelle v. Williams, 425 U. S. 501; Francis v. Henderson, 425 U. S. 536; Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72; Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 438, it follows that such a claim is cognizable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. The respondents have argued, nonetheless, that a challenge to the constitutional sufficiency of the evidence should not be entertained by a federal district court under 28 U. S. C. § 2254.
In addition to the argument that a Winship standard invites replication of state criminal trials in the guise of § 2254 proceedings — an argument that simply fails to recognize that courts can and regularly do gauge the sufficiency of the evidence without intruding into any legitimate domain of the trier of fact — the respondents have urged that any departure from the Thompson test in federal habeas corpus proceedings will expand the number of meritless claims brought to the federal courts, will duplicate the work of the state appellate courts, will disserve the societal interest in the finality of state criminal proceedings, and will increase friction between the federal and state judiciaries. In sum, counsel for the State urges that this type of constitutional claim should be deemed to fall within the limit on federal habeas corpus jurisdiction identified in Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, with respect to Fourth Amendment claims. We disagree.
First, the burden that is likely to follow from acceptance of the Winship standard has, we think, been exaggerated. Federal-court challenges to the evidentiary support for state convictions have since Thompson been dealt with under § 2254. E. g., Freeman v. Stone, 444 F. 2d 113 (CA9); Grieco v. Meachum, 533 F. 2d 713 (CA1); Williams v. Peyton, 414 F. 2d 776 (CA4). A more stringent standard will expand the contours of this type of claim, but will not create an entirely new class of cases cognizable on federal habeas corpus. Furthermore, most meritorious challenges to constitutional sufficiency of the evidence undoubtedly will be recognized in the state courts, and, if the state courts have fully considered the issue of sufficiency, the task of a federal habeas court should not be difficult. Cf. Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S., at 463. And this type of claim can almost always be judged on the written record without need for an evidentiary hearing in the federal court.
Second, the problems of finality and federal-state comity arise whenever a state prisoner invokes the jurisdiction of a federal court to redress an alleged constitutional violation. A challenge to a state conviction brought on the ground that the evidence cannot fairly be deemed sufficient to have established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt states a federal constitutional claim. Although state appellate review undoubtedly will serve in the vast majority of cases to vindicate the due process protection that follows from Winship, the same could also be said of the vast majority of other federal constitutional rights that may be implicated in a state criminal trial. It is the occasional abuse that the federal writ of habeas corpus stands ready to correct. Brown v. Allen, supra, at 498-501 (opinion of Frankfurter, J.).
The respondents have argued nonetheless that whenever a person convicted in a state court has been given a “full and fair hearing” in the state system — meaning in this instance state appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence — ■ further federal inquiry — apart from the possibility of discretionary review by this Court — should be foreclosed. This argument would prove far too much. A judgment by a state appellate court rejecting a challenge to evidentiary sufficiency is of course entitled to deference by the federal courts, as is any judgment affirming a criminal conviction. But Congress in § 2254 has selected the federal district courts as precisely the forums that are responsible for determining whether state convictions have been secured in accord with federal constitutional law. The federal habeas corpus statute presumes the norm of a fair trial in the state court and adequate state postconviction remedies to redress possible error. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 2254 (b), (d). What it does not presume is that these state proceedings will always be without error in the constitutional sense. The duty of a federal habeas corpus court to appraise a claim that constitutional error did occur — reflecting as it does the belief that the “finality” of a deprivation of liberty through the invocation of the criminal sanction is simply not to be achieved at the expense of a constitutional right — is not one that can be so lightly abjured.
The constitutional issue presented in this case is far different from the kind of issue that was the subject of the Court’s decision in Stone v. Powell, supra. The question whether a defendant has been convicted upon inadequate evidence is central to the basic question of guilt or innocence. The constitutional necessity of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not confined to those defendants who are morally blameless. E. g., Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S., at 697-698 (requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not “limit [ed] to those facts which, if not proved, would wholly exonerate” the accused). Under our system of criminal justice even a thief is entitled to complain that he has been unconstitutionally convicted and imprisoned as a burglar.
We hold that in a challenge to a state criminal conviction brought under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 — if the settled procedural prerequisites for such a claim have otherwise been satisfied-— the applicant is entitled to habeas corpus relief if it is found that upon the record evidence adduced at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
IV
Turning finally to the specific facts of this case, we reject the petitioner’s claim that under the constitutional standard dictated by Winship his conviction of first-degree murder cannot stand. A review of the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution convinces us that a rational factfinder could readily have found the petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of first-degree murder under Virginia law.
There was no question at the trial that the petitioner had fatally shot Mary Cole. The crucial factual dispute went to the sufficiency of. the evidence to support a finding that he had specifically intended to kill her. This question, as the Court of Appeals recognized, must be gauged in the light of applicable Virginia law defining the element of premeditation. Under that law it is well settled that premeditation need not exist for any particular length of time, and that an intent to kill may be formed at the moment of the commission of the unlawful act. Commonwealth v. Brown, 90 Va. 671, 19 S. E. 447. From the circumstantial evidence in the record, it is clear that the trial judge could reasonably have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner did possess the necessary intent at or before the time of the killing.
The prosecution’s uncontradicted evidence established that the petitioner shot the victim not once but twice. The petitioner himself admitted that the fatal shooting had occurred only after he had first fired several shots into the ground and then reloaded his gun. The evidence was clear that the two shots that killed the victim were fired at close, and thus predictably fatal, range by a person who was experienced in the use of the murder weapon. Immediately after the shooting, the petitioner drove without mishap from Virginia to North Carolina, a fact quite at odds with his story of extreme intoxication. Shortly before the fatal episode, he had publicly expressed an intention to have sexual relations with the victim. Her body was found partially unclothed. From these uncon-tradicted circumstances, a rational factfinder readily could have inferred beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner, notwithstanding evidence that he had been drinking on the day of the killing, did have the capacity to form and had in fact formed an intent to kill the victim.
The petitioner’s calculated behavior both before and after the killing demonstrated that he was fully capable of committing premeditated murder. His claim of self-defense would have required the trial judge to draw a series of improbable inferences from the basic facts, prime among them the inference that he was wholly uninterested in sexual activity with the victim but that she was so interested as to have willingly removed part of her clothing and then attacked him with a knife when he resisted her advances, even though he was armed with a loaded revolver that he had just demonstrated he knew how to use. It is evident from the record that the trial judge found this story, including the petitioner’s belated contention that he had been so intoxicated as to be incapable of premeditation, incredible.
Only under a theory that the prosecution was under an affirmative duty to rule out every hypothesis except that of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could this petitioner’s challenge be sustained. That theory the Court has rejected in the past. Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121, 140. We decline to adopt it today. Under the standard established in this opinion as necessary to preserve the due process protection recognized in Winship, a federal habeas corpus court faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume — even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record- — that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution. Applying these criteria, we hold that a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found that the petitioner committed murder in the first degree under Virginia law.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The degrees of murder in Virginia are specified in Va. Code § 18.2-32 (1975) as follows:
“Murder, other than capital murder, by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or by any willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or in the commission of, or attempt to commit, arson, rape, robbery, burglary or abduction... is murder of the first degree, punishable as a Class 2 felony.
“All murder other than capital murder and murder in the first degree is murder of the second degree and is punishable as a Class 3 felony.”
Class 2 felonies carry a term of 20 years to life. §18.2-10 (b) (1975). The sentence for Class 3 felonies can range from 5 to 20 years, § 18.2-10 (c). Murder itself takes its definition in Virginia from the common law. Stapleton v. Commonwealth, 123 Va. 825, 96 S. E. 801.
Under Virginia law, voluntary intoxication — although not an affirmative defense to second-degree murder — is material to the element of premeditation and may be found to have negated it. Hatcher v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 811, 241 S. E. 2d 756.
When trial without a jury is had on a not guilty plea in Virginia, the court is to “have and exercise all the powers, privileges and duties given to juries....” Va. Code § 19.2-257 (1975).
There is no appeal as of right from a criminal conviction in Virginia. Saunders v. Reynolds, 214 Va. 697, 204 S. E. 2d 421. Each petition for writ of error under Va. Code § 19.2-317 (1975) is reviewed on the merits, however, and the effect of a denial is to affirm the judgment of conviction on the merits. Saunders v. Reynolds, supra.
The petition for writ of error alleged that “the trial Court erred in finding the Petitioner guilty of first-degree murder in light of the evidence introduced on behalf of the Commonwealth, and on unwarranted' inferences drawn from this evidence.” The petitioner contended that an affirmance would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its order denying Jackson’s petition, the Virginia Supreme Court stated it was “of [the] opinion that there is no reversible error in the judgment complained of....” Virginia law requires sufficiency claims to be raised on direct appeal; such a claim may not be raised in a state habeas corpus proceeding. Pettus v. Peyton, 207 Va. 906, 153 S. E. 2d 278.
The District Court correctly found that the petitioner had exhausted his state remedies on this issue. See n. 4, supra.
The opinions of the District Court and the Court of Appeals are not reported. The Court of Appeals’ judgment order is reported at 580 F. 2d 1048.
The Court of Appeals in the present case, of course, recognized that Winship may have changed the constitutional standard in federal habeas corpus. And the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently recognized the possible impact of Winship on federal habeas corpus in a case in which it held that “a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant... guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Spruytte v. Koehler, affirmance order, 590 F. 2d 335. An even more recent case in that court provoked a lively debate among three of its members regarding the effect of Winship upon federal habeas corpus. The writ was granted in that case, even though the trial record concededly contained “some evidence” of the applicant’s guilt. See Speigner v. Jago, 603 F. 2d 1208.
The trier of fact in this case was a judge and not a jury. But this is of no constitutional significance. The record makes clear that the judge deemed himself “properly instructed.”
A “reasonable doubt” has often been described as one “based on reason which arises from the evidence or lack of evidence.” Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 360 (citing cases). For a discussion of variations in the definition used in jury instructions, see Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121, 140 (rejecting contention that circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis but that of guilt).
This, of course, does not mean that convictions are frequently reversed upon this ground. The practice in the federal courts of entertaining properly preserved challenges to evidentiary sufficiency, see Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29, serves only to highlight the traditional understanding in our system that the application of the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard to the evidence is not irretrievably committed to jury discretion. To be sure, the factfinder in a criminal case has traditionally been permitted to enter an unassailable but unreasonable verdict of “not guilty.” This is the logical corollary of the rule that there can be no appeal from a judgment of acquittal, even if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. The power of the factfinder to err upon the side of mercy, however, has never been thought to include a power to enter an unreasonable verdict of guilty. Carpenters & Joiners v. United States, 330 U. S. 395, 408. Cf. Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 1, 13-14. Any such premise is wholly belied by the settled practice of testing evidentiary sufficiency through a motion for judgment of acquittal and a postverdict appeal from the denial of such a motion. See generally 4 L. Orfield, Criminal Procedure Under the Eederal Rules §§29:1-29:29 (1967 and Supp. 1978).
Until 1972, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit took the position advanced today by the opinion concurring in the judgment that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard is merely descriptive of the state of mind required of the factfinder in a criminal case and not of the actual quantum and quality of proof necessary to support a criminal conviction. Thus, that court held that in a jury trial the judge need not distinguish between criminal and civil cases for the purpose of ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. Feinberg, 140 F. 2d 592, 594. In United States v. Taylor, 464 F. 2d 240 (CA2), Feinberg was overruled, partly on the strength of Winship. The Taylor court adopted the directed-verdict criterion articulated in Curley v. United States, 81 U. S. App. D. C. 389, 392-393, 160 F. 2d 229, 232-233 (If “reasonable” jurors “must necessarily have... a reasonable doubt” as to guilt, the judge “must require acquittal, because no other result is permissible within the fixed bounds of jury consideration”). This is now the prevailing criterion for judging motions for acquittal in federal criminal trials. See generally 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 467 (1969 and Supp. 1978).
Contrary to the suggestion in the opinion concurring in the judgment,.the criterion announced today as the constitutional minimum required to enforce the due process right established in Winship is not novel. See, e. g., United States v. Amato, 495 F. 2d 545, 549 (CA5) ("whether, taking the view [of the evidence] most favorable to the Government, a reasonably-minded jury could accept
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent University of Illinois Foundation (hereafter Foundation) is the owner by assignment of U. S. Patent No. 3,210,767, issued to Dwight E. Isbell on October 5, 1965. The patent is for “Frequency Independent Unidirectional Antennas,” and Isbell first filed his application May 3, 1960. The antennas covered are designed for transmission and reception of electromagnetic radio frequency signals used in many types of communications, including the broadcasting of radio and television signals.
The patent has been much litigated since it was granted, primarily because it claims a high quality television antenna for color reception. One of the first infringement suits brought by the Foundation was filed in the Southern District of Iowa against the Winegard Co., an antenna manufacturer. Trial was to the court, and after pursuing the inquiry mandated by Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U. S. 1, 17-18 (1966), Chief Judge Stephenson held the patent invalid since “it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art and wishing to design a frequency independent unidirectional antenna to combine these three old elements, all suggested by the prior art references previously discussed.” University of Illinois Foundation v. Winegard Co., 271 F. Supp. 412, 419 (SD Iowa 1967) (footnote omitted). Accordingly, he entered judgment for the alleged in-fringer and against the patentee. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed Judge Stephenson. 402 F. 2d 125 (1968). We denied the patentee’s petition for certiorari. 394 U. S. 917 (1969).
In March 1966, well before Judge Stephenson had ruled in the Winegard case, the Foundation also filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois charging a Chicago customer of petitioner, Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. (hereafter B-T), with infringing two patents it owned by assignment: the Isbell patent and U. S. Patent No. Re. 25,740, reissued March 9, 1965, to P. E. Mayes et al. The Mayes patent was entitled “Log Periodic Backward Wave Antenna Array,” and was, as indicated, a reissue of No. 3,108,280, applied for on September 30, 1960. B-T chose to subject itself to the jurisdiction of the court to defend its customer, and it filed an answer and counterclaim against the Foundation and its licensee, respondent JFD Electronics Corp., charging: (1) that both the Isbell and Mayes patents were invalid; (2) that if those patents were valid, the B-T antennas did not infringe either of them; (3) that the Foundation and JFD were guilty of unfair competition; (4) that the Foundation and JFD had violated the “anti-trust laws of the United States, including the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as amended”; and (5) that certain JFD antenna models infringed B-T’s patent No. 3,259,904, “Antenna Having Combined Support and Lead-In,” issued July 5, 1966.
Trial was again to the court, and on June 27, 1968, Judge Hoffman held that the Foundation’s patents were valid and infringed, dismissed the unfair competition and antitrust charges, and found claim 5 of the B-T patent obvious and invalid. Before discussing the Isbell patent in detail, Judge Hoffman noted that it had been held invalid as obvious by Judge Stephenson in the Winegard litigation. He stated:
“This court is, of course, free to decide the case at bar on the basis of the evidence before it. Triplett v. Lowell, 297 U. S. 638, 642 (1936). Although a patent has been adjudged invalid in another patent infringement action against other defendants, patent owners cannot be deprived 'of the right to show, if they can, that, as against defendants who have not previously been in court, the patent is valid and infringed.’ Aghnides v. Holden, 22[6] F. 2d 949, 951 (7th Cir. 1955). On the basis of the evidence before it, this court disagrees with the conclusion reached in the Winegard case and finds both the Isbell patent and the Mayes et al. patent valid and enforceable patents.” App. 73.
B-T appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed: (1) the findings that the Isbell patent was both valid and infringed by B-T’s products; (2) the dismissal of B-T’s unfair competition and antitrust counterclaims; and (3) the finding that claim 5 of the B-T patent was obvious. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment insofar as Judge Hoffman had found the Mayes patent valid and enforceable, enjoined infringement thereof, and provided damages for such infringement. 422 F. 2d 769 (1970).
B-T sought certiorari, assigning the conflict between the Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Eighth Circuits as to the validity of the Isbell patent as a primary reason for granting the writ. We granted certiorari, 400 U. S. 864 (1970), and subsequently requested the parties to discuss the following additional issues not raised in the petition for review:
“1. Should the holding of Triplett v. Lowell, 297 U. S. 638, that a determination of patent invalidity is not res judicata as against the patentee in subsequent litigation against a different defendant, be adhered to?
“2. If not, does the determination of invalidity in the Winegard litigation bind the respondents in this case?”
I
In Triplett v. Lowell, 297 U. S. 638 (1936), this Court held:
“Neither reason nor authority supports the contention that an adjudication adverse to any or all the claims of a patent precludes another suit upon the same claims against a different defendant. While the earlier decision may by comity be given great weight in a later litigation and thus persuade the court to render a like decree, it is not res adjudicate and may not be pleaded as a defense.” 297 U. S., at 642.
The holding in Triplett has been at least gently criticized by some judges. In its opinion in the instant case, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recognized the Triplett rule but nevertheless remarked that it “would seem sound judicial policy that the adjudication of [the question of the Isbell patent's validity] against the Foundation in one action where it was a party would provide a defense in any other action by the Foundation for infringement of the same patent.” 422 F. 2d, at 772.
In its brief here, the Foundation urges that the rule of Triplett be maintained. Petitioner B-T’s brief took the same position, stating that “[t] hough petitioners stand to gain by any such result, we cannot urge the destruction of a long-accepted safeguard for patentees merely for the expediency of victory.” Brief for Petitioner 12. The Government, however, appearing as amicus curiae, urges that Triplett was based on uncritical acceptance of the doctrine of mutuality of estoppel, since limited significantly, and that the time has come to modify Triplett so that “claims of estoppel in patent cases [are] considered on a case by case basis, giving due weight to any factors which would point to an unfair or anomalous result from their allowance.” Brief for the United States 7. The Government’s position was spelled out in a brief filed more than a month after petitioner B-T filed its brief.
At oral argument the following colloquy occurred between the Court and counsel for B-T:
“Q. You’re not asking for Triplett to be overruled?
“A. No, I’m not. I maintain that my brother here did have a right if there was a genuine new issue or some other interpretation of the [patent] claim or some interpretation of law in another circuit that’s different than this Circuit, he had a right to try, under Triplett below, in another circuit.
“In this particular case, where we’re stuck with substantially the same documentary evidence, where we were not able to produce [in the Seventh Circuit] even that modicum of expert testimony that existed in the Eighth Circuit, we think there may be as suggested by the Solicitor General, some reason for modification of that document [sic] in a case such as this.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 7-8.
In light of this change of attitude from the time petitioner’s brief was filed, we consider that the question of modifying Triplett is properly before us.
II
Triplett v. Lowell exemplified the judge-made doctrine of mutuality of estoppel, ordaining that unless both parties (or their privies) in a second action are bound by a judgment in a previous case, neither party (nor his privy) in the second action may use the prior judgment as determinative of an issue in the second action. Triplett was decided in 1936. The opinion stated that “the rules of the common law applicable to successive litigations concerning the same subject matter” did not preclude “re-litigation of the validity of a patent claim previously held invalid in a suit against a different defendant.” 297 U. S., at 644. In Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Co., 225 U. S. 111, 127 (1912), the Court had stated that it was “a principle of general elementary law that the estoppel of a judgment must be mutual.” The same rule was reflected in the Restatement of Judgments. Restatement of Judgments § 93 (1942).
But even at the time Triplett was decided, and certainly by the time the Restatement was published, the mutuality rule had been under fire. Courts had discarded the requirement of mutuality and held that only the party against whom the plea of estoppel was asserted had to have been in privity with a party in the prior action. As Judge Friendly has noted, Bentham had attacked the doctrine “as destitute of any semblance of reason, and as 'a maxim which one would suppose to have found its way from the gaming-table to the bench’... Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F. 2d 944, 954 (CA2 1964), cert. denied, 377 U. S. 934 (1964) (quoting 3 J. Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence 579 (1827), reprinted in 7 Works of Jeremy Bentham 171 (J. Bowring ed. 1843)). There was also ferment in scholarly quarters.
Building upon the authority cited above, the California Supreme Court, in Bernhard v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Assn., 19 Cal. 2d 807, 122 P. 2d 892 (1942), unanimously rejected the doctrine of mutuality, stating that there was “no compelling reason... for requiring that the party asserting the plea of res judicata must have been a party, or in privity with a party, to the earlier litigation.” Id., at 812, 122 P. 2d, at 894. Justice Traynor’s opinion, handed down the same year the Restatement was published, listed criteria since employed by many courts in many contexts:
“In determining the validity of a plea of res judi-cata three questions are pertinent: Was the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical with the one presented in the action in question? Was there a final judgment on the merits? Was the party against whom the plea is asserted a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication?” 19 Cal. 2d, at 813, 122 P. 2d, at 895.
Although the force of the mutuality rule had been diminished by exceptions and Bernhard itself might easily have been brought within one of the established exceptions, “Justice Traynor chose instead to extirpate the mutuality requirement and put it to the torch.” Currie, Civil Procedure: The Tempest Brews, 53 Calif. L. Rev. 25, 26 (1965).
Bernhard had significant impact. Many state and federal courts rejected the mutuality requirement, especially where the prior judgment was invoked defensively in a second action against a plaintiff bringing suit on an issue he litigated and lost as plaintiff in a prior action. The trend has been apparent in federal-question cases. The federal courts found Bernhard persuasive. As Judge Hastie stated more than 20 years ago:
“This second effort to prove negligence is comprehended by the generally accepted precept that a party who has had one fair and full opportunity to prove a claim and has failed in that effort, should not be permitted to go to trial on the merits of that claim a second time. Both orderliness and reasonable time saving in judicial administration require that this be so unless some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant dictates a different result in the circumstances of a particular case.
“The countervailing consideration urged here is lack of mutuality of estoppel. In the present suit [the plaintiff] would not have been permitted to take advantage of an earlier affirmative finding of negligence, had such finding been made in [his first suit against a different defendant]. For that reason he argues that he should not be bound by a contrary finding in that case. But a finding of negligence in the [plaintiff’s first suit] would not have been binding against the [defendant in a second suit] because [that defendant] had no opportunity to contest the issue there. The finding of no negligence on the other hand was made after full opportunity to [plaintiff] on his own election to prove the very matter which he now urges a second time. Thus, no unfairness results here from estoppel which is not mutual. In reality the argument of [plaintiff] is merely that the application of res judicata in this case makes the law asymmetrical. But the achievement of substantial justice rather than symmetry is the measure of the fairness of the rules of res judicata.” Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F. 2d 419, 421 (CA3 1950), cert. denied, 340 U. S. 865 (1950).
Many federal courts, exercising both federal question and diversity jurisdiction, are in accord unless in a diversity case bound to apply a conflicting state rule requiring mutuality.
Of course, transformation of estoppel law was neither instantaneous nor universal. As late as 1961, eminent authority stated that “[m]ost state courts recognize and apply the doctrine of mutuality, subject to certain exceptions.... And the same is true of federal courts, when free to apply their own doctrine.” Moore & Currier, Mutuality and Conclusiveness of Judgments, 35 Tul. L. Rev. 301, 304 (1961) (footnotes omitted); see also, IB J. Moore, Federal Practice If 0.412 [1], pp. 1803-1804 (1965). However, in 1970 Professor Moore noted that “the trend in the federal courts is away from the rigid requirements of mutuality advocated herein.” Id., Supp. 1970, at 53. The same trend is evident in the state courts.
Undeniably, the court-produced doctrine of mutuality of estoppel is undergoing fundamental change in the common-law tradition. In its pristine formulation, an increasing number of courts have rejected the principle as unsound. Nor is it irrelevant that the abrogation of mutuality has been accompanied by other developments — such as expansion of the definition of “claim” in bar and merger contexts and expansion of the preclusive effects afforded criminal judgments in civil litigation — which enhance the capabilities of the courts to deal with some issues swiftly but fairly.
Obviously, these mutations in estoppel doctrine are not before us for wholesale approval or rejection. But at the very least they counsel us to re-examine whether mutuality of estoppel is a viable rule where a patentee seeks to relitigate the validity of a patent once a federal court has declared it to be invalid.
III
The cases and authorities discussed above connect erosion of the mutuality requirement to the goal of limiting relitigation of issues where that can be achieved without compromising fairness in particular cases. The courts have often discarded the rule while commenting on crowded dockets and long delays preceding trial. Authorities differ on whether the public interest in efficient judicial administration is a sufficient ground in and of itself for abandoning mutuality, but it is clear that more than crowded dockets is involved. The broader question is whether it is any longer tenable to afford a litigant more than one full and fair opportunity for judicial resolution of the same issue. The question in these terms includes as part of the calculus the effect on judicial administration, but it also encompasses the concern exemplified by Bentham’s reference to the gaming table in his attack on the principle of mutuality of estop-pel. In any lawsuit where a defendant, because of the mutuality principle, is forced to present a complete defense on the merits to a claim which the plaintiff has fully litigated and lost in a prior action, there is an arguable misallocation of resources. To the extent the defendant in the second suit may not win by asserting, without contradiction, that the plaintiff had fully and fairly, but unsuccessfully, litigated the same claim in the prior suit, the defendant’s time and money are diverted from alternative uses — productive or otherwise — to reliti-gation of a decided issue. And, still assuming that the issue was resolved correctly in the first suit, there is reason to be concerned about the plaintiff’s allocation of resources. Permitting repeated litigation of the same issue as long as the supply of unrelated defendants holds out reflects either the aura of the gaming table or “a lack of discipline and of disinterestedness on the part of the lower courts, hardly a worthy or wise basis for fashioning rules of procedure.” Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Co., 342 U. S. 180, 185 (1952). Although neither judges, the parties, nor the adversary system performs perfectly in all cases, the requirement of determining whether the party against whom an estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate is a most significant safeguard.
Some litigants — those who never appeared in a prior action- — -may not be collaterally estopped without litigating the issue. They have never had a chance to present their evidence and arguments on the claim. Due process prohibits estopping them despite one or more existing adjudications of the identical issue which stand squarely against their position. See Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U. S. 32, 40 (1940); Bernhard, 19 Cal. 2d, at 811, 122 P. 2d, at 894. Also, the authorities have been more willing to permit a defendant in a second suit to invoke an estoppel against a plaintiff who lost on the same claim in an earlier suit than they have been to allow a plaintiff in the second suit to use offensively a judgment obtained by a different plaintiff in a prior suit against the same defendant. But the case before us involves neither due process nor “offensive use” questions. Rather, it depends on the considerations weighing for and against permitting a patent holder to sue on his patent after it has once been held invalid following opportunity for full and fair trial.
There are several components of the problem. First, we analyze the proposed abrogation or modification of the Triplett rule in terms of those considerations relevant to the patent system. Second, we deal broadly with the economic costs of continued adherence to Triplett. Finally, we explore the nature of the burden, if any, that permitting patentees to relitigate patents once held invalid imposes on the federal courts.
A
Starting with the premise that the statutes creating the patent system, expressly sanctioned by the Constitution, represent an affirmative policy choice by Congress to reward inventors, respondents extrapolate a special public interest in sustaining “good” patents and characterize patent litigation as so technical and difficult as to present unusual potential for unsound adjudications. Although Triplett made no such argument in support of its holding, that rule, offering the unrestricted right to relitigate patent validity, is thus deemed an essential safeguard against improvident judgments of invalidity.
We fully accept congressional judgment to reward inventors through the patent system. We are also aware that some courts have frankly stated that patent litigation can present issues so complex that legal minds, without appropriate grounding in science and technology, may have difficulty in reaching decision. On the other hand, this Court has observed that issues of nonobviousness under 35 U. S. C. § 103 present difficulties “comparable to those encountered daily by the courts in such frames of reference as negligence and scienter, and should be amenable to a case-by-case development.” Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U. S., at 18. But assuming a patent case so difficult as to provoke a frank admission of judicial uncertainty, one might ask what reason there is to expect that a second district judge or court of appeals would be able to decide the issue more accurately. Moreover, as Graham, also indicates, Congress has from the outset chosen to impose broad criteria of patentability while lodging in the federal courts final authority to decide that question. 383 U. S., at 10. In any event it cannot be sensibly contended that all issues concerning patent validity are so complex and unyielding. Nonob-viousness itself is not always difficult to perceive and decide and other questions on which patentability depends are more often than not no more difficult than those encountered in the usual nonpatent case.
Even conceding the extreme intricacy of some patent cases, we should keep firmly in mind that we are considering the situation where the patentee was plaintiff in the prior suit and chose to litigate at that time and place. Presumably he was prepared to litigate and to litigate to the finish against the defendant there involved. Patent litigation characteristically proceeds with some deliberation and, with the avenues for discovery available under the present rules of procedure, there is no reason to suppose that plaintiff patentees would face either surprise or unusual difficulties in getting all relevant and probative evidence before the court in the first litigation.
Moreover, we do not suggest, without legislative guidance, that a plea of estoppel by an infringement or royalty suit defendant must automatically be accepted once the defendant in support of his plea identifies the issue in suit as the identical question finally decided against the patentee or one of his privies in previous litigation. Rather, the patentee-plaintiff must be permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that he did not have "a fair opportunity procedurally, substantively and evi-dentially to pursue his claim the first time.” Eisel v. Columbia Packing Co., 181 F. Supp. 298, 301 (Mass. 1960). This element in the estoppel decision will comprehend, we believe, the important concerns about the complexity of patent litigation and the posited hazard that the prior proceedings were seriously defective.
Determining whether a patentee has had a full and fair chance to litigate the validity of his patent in an earlier case is of necessity not a simple matter. In addition to the considerations of choice of forum and incentive to litigate mentioned above, certain other factors immediately emerge. For example, if the issue is non-obviousness, appropriate inquiries would be whether the first ■ validity determination purported to employ the standards announced in Graham v. John Deere Co., supra; whether the opinions filed by the District Court and the reviewing court, if any, indicate that the prior case was one of those relatively rare instances where the courts wholly failed to grasp the technical subject matter and issues in suit; and whether without fault of his own the patentee was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation. But as so often is the case, no one set of facts, no one collection of words or phrases, will provide an automatic formula for proper rulings on estoppel pleas. In the end, decision will necessarily rest on the trial courts’ sense of justice and equity.
We are not persuaded, therefore, that the Triplett rule, as it was formulated, is essential to effectuate the purposes of the patent system or is an indispensable or even an effective safeguard against faulty trials and judgments. Whatever legitimate concern there may be about the intricacies of some patent suits, it is insufficient in and of itself to justify patentees relitigating validity issues as long as new defendants are available. This is especially true if the court in the second litigation must decide in a principled way whether or not it is just and equitable to allow the plea of estoppel in the case before it.
B
An examination of the economic consequences of continued adherence to Triplett has two branches. Both, however, begin with the acknowledged fact that patent litigation is a very costly process. Judge Frank observed in 1942 that “the expense of defending a patent suit is often staggering to the small businessman.” Picard v. United Aircraft Corp., 128 F. 2d 632, 641 (CA2 1942) (concurring opinion). In Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U. S. 653, 669 (1969), we noted that one of the benefits accruing to a businessman accepting a license from a patentee who was threatening him with a suit was avoiding “the necessity of defending an expensive infringement action during the period when he may be.least able to afford one.” Similarly, in replying to claims by alleged infringers that they have been guilty of laches in suing on their patents, patentees have claimed that the expense of litigating forced them to postpone bringing legal action. See, e. g., Baker Mfg. Co. v. Whitewater Mfg. Co., 430 F. 2d 1008, 1014-1015 (CA7 1970). In recent congressional hearings on revision of the patent laws, a lawyer-businessman discussing a proposal of the American Society of Inventors for government-sponsored insurance to provide funds for litigation to individual inventors holding nonassigned patents stated: “We are advised that the average cost for litigating a patent is about $50,000.”
This statement, and arguments such as the one made in Baker Mfg., supra, must be assessed in light of the fact that they are advanced by patentees contemplating action as plaintiffs, and patentees are heavily favored as a class of litigants by the patent statute. Section 282 of the Patent Code provides, in pertinent part:
“A patent shall be presumed valid. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent shall rest on a party asserting it.”
If a patentee’s expense is high though he enjoys the benefits of the presumption of validity, the defendant in an infringement suit will have even higher costs as he both introduces proof to overcome the presumption and attempts to rebut whatever proof the patentee offers to bolster the claims. In testimony before the Senate subcommittee considering patent law revision in 1967, a member of the President’s Commission on the Patent System discussed the financial burden looming before one charged as a defendant in a complex infringement action in terms of amounts that sometimes run to “hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Statistics tend to bear this out. Patent suits constitute between 1% and 2% of the total number of civil cases filed each year in the District Courts. Despite this relatively small figure, and notwithstanding the overwhelming tendency to try these suits without juries, patent cases that go to trial seem to take an inordinate amount of trial time. While in 1961 a Senate staff report stated that the “typical patent trial, without a jury, was completed in 3 days or less,” recent figures indicate that this description of the time required is today inaccurate. And time — particularly trial time — is unquestionably expensive.
As stated at the outset of this section, the expense of patent litigation has two principal consequences if the Triplett rule is maintained. First, assuming that a perfectly sound judgment of invalidity has been rendered in an earlier suit involving the patentee, a second infringement action raising the same issue and involving much of the same proof has a high cost to the individual parties. The patentee is expending funds on litigation to protect a patent which is by hypothesis invalid. These moneys could be put to better use, such as further research and development. The alleged infringer — operating as he must against the presumption of validity — is forced to divert substantial funds to litigation that is wasteful.
The second major economic consideration is far more significant. Under Triplett, only the comity restraints flowing from an adverse prior judgment operate to limit the patentee's right to sue different defendants on the same patent. In each successive suit the patentee enjoys the statutory presumption of validity, and so may easily put the alleged infringer to his expensive proof. As a consequence, prospective defendants will often decide that paying royalties under a license or other settlement is preferable to the costly burden of challenging the patent.
The problem has surfaced and drawn comment before. See, e. g., Nickerson v. Kutschera, 419 F. 2d 983, 988 n. 4 (CA3 1969) (dissenting opinion); Picard v. United Aircraft Corp., 128 F. 2d, at 641-642 (concurring opinion). In 1961, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights published a staff study of infringement and declaratory judgment actions terminated in the district courts and courts of appeals during 1949-1958; the report showed 62 actions commenced after an earlier determination that the patent in suit was not valid. It also noted that the “vast majority” of such suits were terminated without a second adjudication of validity. 1961 Staff Report 19. It is apparent that termination without a second adjudication of validity was the result of a licensing agreement or some other settlement between the parties to the second suit. It is also important to recognize that this study covered only cases filed and terminated; there were undoubtedly more suits that were threatened but not filed, because the threat alone was sufficient to forestall a challenge to the patent.
This is borne out by the observations of the President’s Commission on the Patent System and recent testimony on proposals for changes in the patent laws. Motivated by the economic consequences of repetitious patent litigation, the Commission proposed:
“A final federal judicial determination declaring a patent claim invalid shall be in rem, and the cancellation of such claim shall be indicated on all patent copies subsequently distributed by the Patent Office.” Recommendation XXIII, Commission Report 38.
The Commission stressed the competitive disadvantage imposed on an alleged infringer who is unable or unwilling to defend a suit on the patent, stating also that a “patentee, having been afforded the opportunity to exhaust his remedy of appeal from a holding of invalidity, has had his ‘day in court and should not be allowed to harass others on the basis of an invalid claim. There are few, if any, logical grounds for permitting him to clutter crowded court dockets and to subject others to costly litigation.” Id., at 39. The report provoked the introduction of several bills to effect broad changes in the patent system. Some bills contained provisions imposing an inflexible rule of in rem invalidity operating against a patentee regardless of the character of the litigation in which his patent was first declared invalid. See S. 1042, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., §294 (1967), and H. R. 5924, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., §294 (1967); cf. S. 3892; 90th Cong., 2d Sess., § 294 (1968). Hearings were held in both Houses on these and other patent revision bills.
In the Senate hearings, a member of the President’s Commission remarked:
“The businessman can be subjected to considerable harassment as an alleged infringer. Even in cases where he feels strongly that the patent would ultimately be held invalid, when he considers the hundreds of thousands of dollars in complex cases that could be involved in defending a suit, he may conclude that the best course of action is to settle for less to get rid of the problem. These nuisance settlements, although distasteful, are often, under the present system, justified on pure economics.
“In many instances the very survival of the small businessman may be at stake. His cost of fully litigating a claim against him can seriously impair his ability to stay in business.” 1967 Senate Hearings 103.
The tendency of Triplett to multiply the opportunities for holders of invalid patents to exact licensing agreements or other settlements from alleged infringers must be considered in the context of other decisions of this Court. Although recognizing the patent system’s desirable stimulus to invention, we have also viewed the patent as a monopoly which, although sanctioned by law, has the economic consequences attending other monopolies. A patent yielding returns for a device that fails to meet the congressionally imposed criteria of patentability is anomalous. This Court has observed:
“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.” Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U. S. 806, 816 (1945).
One obvious manifestation of this principle has been the series of decisions in which the Court has condemned attempts to broaden the physical or temporal scope of the patent monopoly. As stated in Mercoid v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U. S. 661, 666 (1944):
“The necessities or convenience of the patentee do not justify any use of the monopoly of the patent to create another monopoly. The fact that the patentee has the power to refuse a license does not enable him to enlarge the monopoly of the patent by the expedient of attaching conditions to its use. United States v. Masonite Corp., [316 U. S. 265,] 277 [(1942)]. The method by which the monopoly is sought to be extended is immaterial. United States v. Univis Lens Co., [316 U. S. 241,] 251-252 [(1942)]. The patent is a privilege. But it is a privilege which is conditioned by a public purpose. It results from invention and is limited to the invention which it defines.”
A second group of authorities encourage authoritative testing of patent validity. In 1952, the Court indicated that a manufacturer of a device need not await the filing of an infringement action in order to test the validity of a competitor’s patent, but may institute his own suit under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Co., 342 U. S., at 185-186. Other decisions of this type involved removal of restrictions on those who would challenge the validity of patents.
Two Terms ago in Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U. S. 653 (1969), we relied on both lines of authority to abrogate the doctrine that in a contract action for unpaid patent royalties the licensee of a patent is estopped from proving “that his licensor was demanding royalties for the use of an idea which was in reality a part of the public domain.” 395 U. S., at 656. The principle that “federal law requires that all ideas in general circulation be dedicated to the common good unless they are protected by a valid patent,” 395 U. S., at 668, found support in Sears and Compco and the first line of cases discussed above. The holding that licensee estoppel was no longer tenable was rooted in the second line of cases eliminating obstacles to suit by those disposed to challenge the validity of a patent. 395 U. S., at 663-668. Moreover, as indicated earlier, we relied on practical considerations that patent licensees “may often be the only individuals with enough economic incentive to challenge the patentability of an inventor’s discovery.”
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 action was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover damages for the wrongful death of Jasper W. Hall, a resident of South Carolina, who was killed in California in the crash of an airplane operated by defendant-respondent Transocean Air Lines. Plaintiffs, petitioners here, are the decedent’s South Carolina-appointed administrator, decedent’s widow, and decedent’s minor child, who sues through the widow, her mother, appointed her guardian ad litem by the District Court. Federal jurisdiction was predicated solely on diversity of citizenship — the administrator being a New York resident, the widow and child South Carolina residents, the airline a California corporation with its principal place of business in California— and the substantive basis of the claim was California’s Wrongful Death Statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377, made applicable by the New York choice-of-law rules, see Baldwin v. Powell, 294 N. Y. 130, 61 N. E. 2d 412, which govern this diversity action. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64; Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U. S. 487. The defendant, by its answer, set up the Statute of Limitations, and subsequently moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was time-barred. Enforcing the one-year limitations period deemed controlling under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340, brought into operation by New York’s “borrowing statute,” N. Y. Civ. Prac. Act § 13, the District Court held that the Statute had run as to the widow, and hence that the child and the administrator were also barred under the California doctrine, announced by California District Courts of Appeal in Sears v. Majors, 104 Cal. App. 60, 285 Pac. 321, and Haro v. Southern P. R. Co., 17 Cal. App. 2d 594, 62 P. 2d 441, that where one beneficiary of a wrongful death claim is time-barred, all beneficiaries are time-barred, the cause of action being “joint.” 173 F. Supp. 114. There was no decision on this precise point by the Supreme Court of California; that court had left Sears and Haro undisturbed. See also Gates v. Wendling Nathan Co., 27 Cal. App. 2d 307, 81 P. 2d 173; Glavich v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 44 Cal. App. 2d 517 112 P. 2d 774 (dictum). The District Court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 276 F. 2d 280. We granted certiorari. 363 U. S. 836.
The writ brought here several points decided adversely to petitioners below. We need discuss only one issue, for its determination disposes of the case. The Sears and Haro cases, regarded by the District Court and the Court of Appeals as controlling the effect upon a claim for wrongful death of the running of the Statute of Limitations upon one but not upon another of the decedent’s heirs (the latter being under a limitations-tolling disability), were decided in 1930 and 1936, respectively, and Gates in 1938, by California District Courts of Appeal. In December 1959, the Supreme Court of California, en banc, decided Leeper v. Beltrami, 53 Cal. 2d 195, 347 P. 2d 12, which, in a considered dictum construing Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 352, stated: “If the cause of action were a joint one, the statute would be tolled as to both. Tf an action not severable is not barred as to one of the parties on account of his infancy at the time the cause of action arose, it is not barred as to either of the other parties.’ ” Id., at 208-209, 347 P. 2d, at 22.
This case was handed down after the District Court’s ruling granting summary judgment for respondent in the present litigation, and only shortly before argument in the Court of Appeals. It was not brought to the attention of, and was not considered by, that court. Inasmuch as the view expressed therein by the highest court of California may be decisive of an issue critical to petitioners’ claims, and inasmuch as the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is charged with mandatory appellate review in the present case, that court should decide what relative weights, as authoritative sources for ascertaining California law, the New York Court of Appeals would accord to the Sears-Haro line (direct holdings of District Courts of Appeal between 1930 and 1938) and to Leeper (a considered, relevant dictum of general scope by the California Supreme Court in 1959). We set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to that court for reconsideration of the case in light of the new factor introduced by Leeper v. Beltrami, supra.
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: | 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.
At issue in this litigation is the constitutional validity, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, of the apportionment of seats in the New York Legislature.
I.
Appellants initially brought this action on May 1, 1961, in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs below included individual citizens and voters residing in five of the six most populous New York counties (Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York and Queens), suing in their own behalf and on behalf of all New York citizens similarly situated. Appellees, sued in their representative capacities, are various state and local officials charged with.duties in connection with reapportionment and the conducting of state elections. The complaint claimed rights under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983, 1988, and asserted jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3).
Plaintiffs below sought a declaration that those provisions of the State Constitution which establish the formulas for apportioning seats in the two houses of the New York Legislature, and the statutes implementing them, are unconstitutional since violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The complaint further asked the District Court to enjoin defendants from performing any acts or duties in compliance with the allegedly unconstitutional legislative apportionment provisions. Plaintiffs asserted that they had no adequate remedy other than the judicial relief sought, and requested the court to retain jurisdiction until the New York Legislature, “freed from the fetters imposed by the Constitutional provisions invalidated by this Court, provides for such apportionment of the State legislature as will insure to the urban voters of New York State the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution of the United States.”
In attacking the existing apportionment of seats in the New York Legislature, plaintiffs below stated, more particularly, that:
“The provisions of the New York State Constitution, Article III, §§ 2-5, violate the XIV Amendment of the Constitution of the United States because the apportionment formula contained therein results, and must necessarily result, when applied to the population figures of the State in a grossly unfair weighting of both houses in the State legislature in favor of the lesser populated rural areas of the state to the great disadvantage of the densely populated urban centers of the state....
“As a result of the constitutional provisions challenged herein, the Plaintiffs’ votes are not as effective in either house of the legislature as the votes of other citizens residing in rural areas of the state. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated suffer a debasement of their votes by virtue of the arbitrary, obsolete and unconstitutional apportionment of the legislature and they and all others similarly situated are denied the equal protection of the laws required by the Constitution of the United States.”
The complaint asserted that the legislative apportionment provisions of the 1894 New York Constitution, as amended, are not only presently unconstitutional, but also were invalid and violative of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of their adoption, and that “[t]he population growth in the State of New York and the shifts of population to urban areas have aggravated the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the XIV Amendment.”
As requested by plaintiffs, a three-judge District Court was convened. The New York City defendants admitted the allegations of the complaint and requested the Court to grant plaintiffs the relief they were seeking. The remaining defendants moved to dismiss. On January 11,.1962, the District Court announced its initial decision. It held that it had jurisdiction but dismissed the complaint, without reaching the merits, on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, since the issues raised were nonjusticiable. 202 F. Supp. 741. In discussing the allegations made by plaintiffs, the Court stated:
“The complaint specifically cites as the cause of this allegedly unconstitutional distribution of state legislative representation the New York Constitutional provisions requiring that:
“(a) '... the total of fifty Senators established by the Constitution of 1894 shall be increased by those Senators to which any of the larger counties become entitled in addition to their allotment as of 1894, but without effect for decreases in other large counties...’
“(b) no county may have 'four or more Senators unless it has a full ratio for each Senator...’ and
“(c) ‘... every county except Hamilton shall always be entitled [in the Assembly] to one member coupled with the limitation of the entire membership to 150 members....’ ”
Noting that the 1894 Constitution, containing the present apportionment provisions, was approved by a majority of the State’s electorate before becoming effective, and that, subsequently the voters had twice disapproved proposals for a constitutional convention to amend the constitutional provisions relating to legislative apportionment, the District Court concluded that, in any event, there was a “want of equity in the relief sought, or, to view it slightly differently, want of justiciability, [which] clearly demands dismissal.”
Plaintiffs appealed to this Court from the District Court’s dismissal of their complaint. On June 11, 1962, we vacated the judgment below and remanded for further consideration in the light of Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, which had been decided subsequent to the District Court’s dismissal of the suit below. 370 U. S. 190. In vacating and remanding, we stated:
“Our well-established practice of a remand for consideration in the light of a subsequent decision therefore applies.... [W]e 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.”
On August 16, 1962, the District Court, after conducting a hearing, dismissed the complaint on the merits, concluding that plaintiffs had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there was any invidious discrimination, that the apportionment provisions of the New York Constitution were rational and not arbitrary, that they were of historical origin and contained no improper geographical discrimination, that they could be amended by an electoral majority of the citizens of New York, and that therefore the apportionment of seats in the New York Senate and Assembly was not unconstitutional. 208 F. Supp. 368. Finding no failure by the New York Legislature to comply with the state constitutional provisions requiring and establishing the formulas for periodic reapportionment of Senate and Assembly seats, the court below relied on the presumption of constitutionality attaching to a state constitutional provision and the necessity for a clear violation “before a federal court of equity will lend its power to the disruption of the state election processes....” After postulating a number of “tests” for invidious discrimination, including the “[Rationality of state policy and whether or not the system is arbitrary,” “[w]hether or not the present complexion of the legislature has a historical basis,” whether the electorate has an available political remedy, and “[g]eography, including accessibility of legislative representatives to their electors,” the Court concluded that none of the relevant New York constitutional provisions were arbitrary or irrational in giving weight to, in addition to population, “the ingredient of area, accessibility and character of interest.” Stating that in New York “the county is a classic unit of governmental organization and administration,” the District Court found that the allocation of one Assembly seat to each county was grounded on a historical basis. The Court noted that the 1957 vote on whether to call a constitutional convention was “heralded as an issue of apportionment” by the then Governor, but that nevertheless a majority of the State’s voters chose not to have a constitutional convention convened. The Court also noted that “if strict population standards were adopted certain undesirable results might follow such as an increase in the size of the legislature to such an extent that effective debate may be hampered or an increase in the size of districts to such an extent that contacts between the individual legislator and his constituents may become impracticable.” As a result of the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint, the November 1962 election of New York legislators was conducted pursuant to the existing apportionment scheme. A timely appeal to this Court was filed, and we noted probable jurisdiction on June 10, 1963. 374 IT. S. 802.
II.
Apportionment of seats in the two houses of the New York Legislature is prescribed by certain formulas contained in the 1894 State Constitution, as amended. Reapportionment is effected periodically by statutory provisions, enacted in compliance with the constitutionally established formulas. The county is the basic unit of area for apportionment purposes, except that two sparsely populated counties, Fulton and Hamilton, are treated as one. New York uses citizen population instead of total population, excluding aliens from consideration, for purposes of legislative apportionment. The number of assemblymen is fixed at 150, while the size of the Senate is prescribed as not less than 50 and may vary with each apportionment. All members of both houses of the New York Legislature are elected for two-year terms only, in even-numbered years.
With respect to the Senate, after providing that that body should initially have 50 seats and creating 50 senatorial districts, the New York Constitution, in Art. Ill, § 4, as amended, provides for decennial readjustment of the size of the Senate and reapportionment of senatorial seats, beginning in 1932 and every decade thereafter, in the following manner:
“Such districts shall be so readjusted or altered that each senate district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, and be in as compact form as practicable, and shall remain unaltered until the first year of the next decade as above defined, and shall at all times consist of contiguous territory, and no county shall be divided in the formation of a senate district except to make two or more senate districts wholly in such county....
“No county shall have four or more senators unless it shall have a full ratio for each senator. No county shall have more than one-third of all the senators; and no two counties or the territory thereof as now organized, which are adjoining counties, or which are separated only by public waters, shall have more than one-half of all the senators.
“The ratio for apportioning senators shall always be obtained by dividing the number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, by fifty, and the senate shall always be composed of fifty members, except that if any county having three or more senators at the time of any apportionment shall be entitled on such ratio to an additional senator or senators, such additional senator or senators shall be given to such county in addition to the fifty senators, and the whole number of senators shall be increased to that extent."
As interpreted by practice and judicial decision, reapportionment and readjustment of senatorial representation is accomplished in several stages. First, the total population of the State, excluding aliens, as determined by the last federal census, is divided by 50 (the minimum number of Senate seats) in order to obtain a so-called “ratio” figure. The counties on account of which the size of the Senate might have to be increased are then ascertained — counties having three or more ratios, i. e., more than 6% of the State’s total citizen population each. Under the existing apportionment, only five counties are in the 6%-or-more class, four of New York City’s five counties and upstate Erie County (Buffalo and environs). Nassau County (suburban New York City) will be added to this class in the pending reapportionment based on the 1960 census. After those counties that come within the “populous” category, so defined, have been ascertained, they are then allocated one senatorial seat for each full ratio. Fractions of a ratio are disregarded, and each populous county is thereafter divided into the appropriate number of Senate districts. In ascertaining the size of the Senate, the total number of additional seats resulting from the growth of the populous counties since 1894 is added to the 50 original seats. And, while the total number of seats which any of the populous counties has gained since 1894 is added to the 50 original seats, the number of seats which any of them has lost since 1894 is not deducted from the total number of seats to be added. Currently the New York Senate, as reapportioned in 1953, has 58 seats. From that total, the number allocated to the populous counties is subtracted — 27 under the 1953 apportionment — and the remaining seats — 31 under the 1953 scheme — are then apportioned among the less populous counties. When reapportioned on the basis of 1960 census figures, the Senate will have 57 seats, with 26 allotted to the populous counties, as a result of applying the constitutionally prescribed ratio and the requirement of a full ratio in order for a populous county to be given more than three Senate seats.
The second stage of applying the senatorial apportionment formula involves the allocation of seats to the less populous counties, i. e., those having less than 6% of the State’s total citizen population (less than three full ratios). After the number of Senate seats allocated to the populous counties (and thus the size of the Senate) has been determined, a second population ratio figure is obtained by dividing the number of seats available for distribution to the less populous counties, 31 under both the 1950 and 1960 censuses, into the total citizen population of the less populous counties. Less populous counties which are entitled to two or three seats, as determined by comparing a county’s population with the second ratio figure thus ascertained, are then divided into senatorial districts. A less populous county is entitled to three seats if it has less than three full first ratios, but has more than three, or has two and a large fraction, second ratios. Since the first ratio is significantly larger than the second, a county can have less than three first ratios but more than three second ratios. Finally, counties with substantially less than one second ratio are combined into multicounty districts.
The result of applying this complicated apportionment formula is to give the populous counties markedly less senatorial representation, when compared with respective population figures, than the less populous counties. Under the 1953 apportionment, based on the 1950 census, a senator from one of the less populous counties represented, on the average, 195,859 citizens, while a senator from a populous county represented an average of 301,178. The constitutionally prescribed first ratio figure was 284,069, while the second ratio was, of course, only 195,859. Under the pending apportionment based on the 1960 census, the first ratio figure is 324,816, and the average population of the senatorial districts in the populous counties will be 366,128. On the other hand, the second ratio, and the average population of the senatorial districts in the less populous counties, is only 216,822. Thus, a citizen in a less populous county had, under the 1953 apportionment, over 1.5 times the representation, on the average, of a citizen in a populous county, and, under the apportionment based on the 1960 census, this ratio will be about 1.7-to-l.
The 1894 New York Constitution also provided for an Assembly composed of 150 members, in Art. Ill, § 2. Under the formula prescribed by Art. Ill, § 5, of the New York Constitution, each of the State’s 62 counties, except Hamilton County which is combined with Fulton County for purposes of Assembly representation, is initially given one Assembly seat. The remaining 89 seats are then allocated among the various counties in accordance with a “ratio” figure obtained by dividing the total number of seats, 150, into the State’s total citizen population. Applying the constitutional formula, a county whose population is at least 1% times this ratio (1% of the total citizen population) is given one additional assemblyman. The remaining Assembly seats are then apportioned among those counties whose citizen populations total two or more whole ratios, with any remaining seats being allocated among the counties on the basis of “highest remainders.” Finally, those counties receiving more than one seat are divided into the appropriate number of Assembly districts. In allocating 61 of the 150 Assembly seats on a basis wholly unrelated to population, and in establishing three separate categories of counties for the apportionment of Assembly representation, the constitutional provisions relating to the apportionment of Assembly seats plainly result in a favoring of the less populous counties. Under the new reapportionment based on 1960 census figures, the smallest 44 counties will each be given one seat for an average of 62,765 citizen inhabitants per seat, three counties will receive two seats each, with a total of six assemblymen representing an average of 93,478 citizen inhabitants, and the 14 most populous counties will be given the remaining 100 seats, resulting in an average representation figure of 129,183 citizen inhabitants each.
Although the New York Legislature has not yet reapportioned on the basis of 1960 census figures, the outlines of the forthcoming apportionment can be predicted with assurance. Since the rules prescribed in the New York Constitution for apportioning the Senate are so explicit and detailed, the New York Legislature has little discretion, in decennially enacting implementing statutory reapportionment provisions, except in determining which of the less populous counties are to be joined together in multicounty districts and in districting within counties having more than one senator. Similarly, the legislature has little discretion in reapportioning Assembly seats. A number of other rather detailed rules, some mandatory and some only directive, are included in the constitutional provisions prescribing the system for apportioning seats in the two houses of the New York Legislature, and are set out in Art. Ill, §§ 2-5, of the New York Constitution.
When the New York Legislature was reapportioned in 1953, on the basis of 1950 census figures, assemblymen representing 37.1% of the State’s citizens constituted a majority in that body, and senators representing 40.9% of the citizens comprised a majority in the Senate. Under the still effective 1953 apportionment, applying 1960 census figures, assemblymen representing 34.7% of the citizens constitute a majority in the Assembly, and senators representing 41.8% of the citizens constitute a majority in that body. If reapportionment were carried out under the existing constitutional formulas, applying 1960 census figures, 37.5% of the State’s citizens would reside in districts electing a majority in the Assembly, and 38.1% would live in areas electing a majority of the members of the Senate. When the State was reapportioned in 1953 on the basis of the 1950 census, the most populous Assembly district had 11.9 times as many citizens as the least populous one, and a similar ratio in the Senate was about 2.4-to-l. Under the current apportionment, applying 1960 census figures, the citizen population-variance ratio between the most populous and least populous Assembly districts is about 21-to-l, and a similar ratio in the Senate is about 3.9-to-l. If the Assembly were reapportioned under the existing constitutional formulas, the most populous Assembly district would have about 12.7 times as many citizens as the least populous one, and a similar ratio in the Senate would be about 2.6-to-l.
According to 1960 census figures, the six counties where the six individual appellants reside had a citizen population of 9,129,780, or 56.2% of the State’s total citizen population of 16,240,786. They are currently represented by 72 assemblymen and 28 senators — 48% of the Assembly and 48.3% of the Senate. When the legislature reapportions on the basis of the 1960 census figures, these six counties will have 26 Senate seats and 69 Assembly seats, or 45.6% and 46%, respectively, of the seats in the two houses. The 10 most heavily populated counties in New York, with about 73.5% of the total citizen population, are given, under the current apportionment, 38 Senate seats, 65.5% of the membership of that body, and 93 Assembly seats, 62% of the seats in that house. When the legislature reapportions on the basis of the 1960 census figures, these same 10 counties will be given 37 Senate seats and 92 Assembly seats, 64.9% and 61.3%, respectively, of the membership of the two houses. The five counties comprising New York City have 45.7% of the State’s total citizen population, and are given, under the current apportionment, 43.1% of the Senate seats and 43.3% of the seats in the Assembly. When the legislature reapportions on the basis of the 1960 census figures, these same counties will be given 36.8% and 37.3%, respectively, of the membership of the two houses.
Under the existing senatorial apportionment, applying 1960 census figures, Suffolk County’s one senator represents a citizen population of 650,112, and Nassau County’s three senators represent an average of 425,267 citizens each. The least populous senatorial district, on the other hand, comprising Saratoga, Warren, and Essex Counties, has a total population of only 166,715. Under the forthcoming reapportionment based on the 1960 census, Nassau County will again be allocated only three Senate seats, with an average population of 425,267, while the least populous senatorial district, which will probably comprise Putnam and Rockland Counties, will have a citizen population of only 162,840. Onondaga County, with a total citizen population of 414,770, less than the average population of e-ach Nassau County district, will nevertheless be given two Senate seats. Because of the effect of the full-ratio requirement applicable only to the populous counties, Nassau County, despite the fact that its citizen population increased from 655,690 to 1,275,801, will not obtain a single additional senatorial seat as a result of the reapportionment based on 1960 census figures. And Monroe County, with a citizen population of 571,029, since not having more than 6% of the State’s total citizen population, will have the same number of senators under the new apportionment, three, as Nassau County, although it has less than half that county’s population. New York City’s 20 senators will represent an average citizen population of 360,193, while the 15 multi-county senatorial districts to be created upstate will have an average of only 207,528 citizens per district. Because of the operation of the full-ratio rule with respect to counties having more than 6% of the State’s total citizen population each, the unrepresented remainders (above a full first ratio but short of another full first ratio which is required for an additional Senate seat) in three of the urban counties will be as follows: Nassau, 301,353; New York, 284,805; and Kings, 244,798. Thus, over 800,000 citizens will not be counted in the apportionment of Senate seats, even though the unrepresented remainders in two of these three counties equal or exceed the statewide average population of 284,926 citizens per district. Furthermore, the effect of the rule requiring an increase in the number of Senate seats because of the entitlement of populous counties to added senatorial representation, coupled with the failure to reduce the size of the Senate because of reductions in the number of seats to which a populous county is entitled (as compared with its senatorial representation in 1894), is that the comparative voting power of the populous counties in the Senate decreases as their share of the State’s total population increases.
With respect to the Assembly, the six assemblymen currently elected from Nassau County represent an average citizen population of 212,634, and one of that county’s current Assembly districts has a citizen population of 314,721. Suffolk County’s three assemblymen presently represent an average of 216,704 citizens. On the other hand, the least populous Assembly district, Schuyler County, has a citizen population, according to the 1960 census, of only 14,974, and yet, in accordance with the constitutional formula, is allocated one Assembly seat. Under the new apportionment, Schuyler County will again be given one Assembly seat, while one projected Monroe County district will have a citizen population of 190,343 and an Assembly district in Suffolk County will have over 170,000 citizens. Additionally, the average population of the 54 Assembly districts in New York City’s four populous counties will be in excess of 132,000 citizens each.
Under the 1953 apportionment, based on 1950 census figures, the most populous Assembly district, in Onondaga County, had a citizen population of 167,226, while the least populous district was that comprising Schuyler County, with only 14,066 citizens. In the Senate, the most populous districts were the four in Bronx County, averaging 344,545 citizens each, while the least populous district had a citizen population of only 146,666.
No adequate political' remedy to obtain relief against alleged legislative malapportionment appears to exist in New York. No initiative procedure exists under New York law. A proposal to amend the State Constitution can be submitted to a vote by the State’s electorate only after approval by a majority of both houses of two successive sessions of the New York Legislature. A majority vote of both houses of the legislature is also required before the electorate can vote on the calling of a constitutional convention. Additionally, under New York law the question of whether a constitutional convention should be called must be submitted to the electorate every 20 years, commencing in 1957. But even if a constitutional convention were convened, the same alleged discrimination which currently exists in the apportionment of Senate seats against each of the counties having 6% or more of a State’s citizen population would be perpetuated in the election of convention delegates. And, since the New York Legislature has rather consistently complied with the state constitutional requirement for decennial legislative reapportionment in accordance with the rather explicit constitutional rules, enacting effective apportionment statutes in 1907, 1917, 1943, and 1953, judicial relief in the state courts to remedy the alleged malapportionment was presumably unavailable.
III.
In Reynolds v. Sims, ante, p. 533, decided also this date, we held that the Equal Protection Clause requires that seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned substantially on a population basis. Neither house of the New York Legislature, under the state constitutional formulas and the implementing statutory provisions here attacked, is presently or, when reapportioned on the basis of 1960 census figures, will be apportioned sufficiently on a population basis to be constitutionally sustainable. Accordingly, we hold that the District Court erred in upholding the constitutionality of New York’s scheme of legislative apportionment.
We have examined the state constitutional formulas governing legislative apportionment in New York in a detailed fashion in order to point out that, as a result of following these provisions, the weight of the votes of those living in populous areas is of necessity substantially diluted in effect. However complicated or sophisticated an apportionment scheme might be, it cannot, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, result in a significant undervaluation of the weight of the votes of certain of a State’s citizens merely because of where they happen to reside. New York’s constitutional formulas relating to legislative apportionment demonstrably include a built-in bias against voters living in the State’s more populous counties. And the legislative representation accorded to the urban and suburban areas becomes proportionately less as the population of those areas increases. With the size of the Assembly fixed at 150, with a substantial number of Assembly seats distributed to sparsely populated counties without regard to population, and with an additional seat given to counties having 1% population ratios, the population-variance ratios between the more populous and the less populous counties will continually increase so long as population growth proceeds at a disparate rate in various areas of the State. With respect to the Senate, significantly different population ratio figures are used in determining the number of Senate seats to be given to the more populous and the less populous counties, and the more populous counties are required to have full first ratios in order to be entitled to additional senatorial representation. Also, in ascertaining the size of the Senate, the number of seats by which the senatorial representation of the more populous counties has increased since 1894 is added to 50, but the number of Senate seats that some of the more populous counties have lost since 1894 is not subtracted from that figure. Thus, an increasingly smaller percentage of the State’s population will, in all probability, reside in senatorial districts electing a majority of the members of that body. Despite the opaque intricacies of New York’s constitutional formulas relating to legislative apportionment, when the effect of these provisions, and the statutes implementing them, on the right to vote of those individuals living in the disfavored areas of the State is considered, we conclude that neither the existing scheme nor the forthcoming one can be constitutionally condoned.
We find it inappropriate to discuss questions relating to remedies at the present time, beyond what we said in our opinion in Reynolds., Since all members of both houses of the New York Legislature will be elected in November 1964, the court below, acting under equitable principles, must now determine whether, because of the imminence of that election and in order to give the New York Legislature an opportunity to fashion a constitutionally valid legislative apportionment plan, it would be desirable to permit the 1964 election of legislators to be conducted pursuant to the existing provisions, or whether under the circumstances the effectuation of appellants’ right to a properly weighted voice in the election of state legislators should not be delayed beyond the 1964 election. We therefore reverse the decision below and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the views stated here and in our opinion in Reynolds v. Sims.
It is so ordered.
[For dissenting opinion of MR. Justice Harlan, see ante, p. 589.]
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart, see post, p. 744.]
See 196 F. Supp. 758, where the District Court concluded that the suit presented issues warranting the convening of a three-judge court, over defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
202 F. Supp., at 743. AH decisions of the District Court, and also this Court’s initial decision in this litigation, are reported sub nom. WMCA, Inc., v. Simon.
370 U. S., at 191. Shortly after we remanded the case, the District Court ordered defendants to answer or otherwise move in respect to the complaint. Another of the defendants, a Nassau County official, joined the New York City defendants in admitting most of the allegations, and requested the Court to grant plaintiffs the relief which they were seeking. The remaining defendants, presently appellees, denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted varied defenses.
At the hearing on the merits a large amount of statistical evidence was introduced showing the population and citizen population of New York under various censuses, including the populations of the State’s 62 counties and the Senate and Assembly districts established under the various apportionments. The 1953 apportionment of Senate and Assembly seats under the 1950 census was shown, and other statistical computations showing the apportionment to be made by the legislature under the 1960 census figures, as a result of applying the pertinent constitutional provisions, were also introduced into evidence.
The District Court refused to receive evidence showing the effect of the alleged malapportionment on citizens of several of the most populous counties with respect to financial matters such as the collection of state taxes and the disbursement of state assistance. The Court also excluded evidence offered to show that the State Constitution’s apportionment formulas were devised for the express purpose of creating a class of citizens whose representation was inferior to that of a more preferred class, and that there had been intentional discrimination against the citizens of New York City in the designing of the legislative apportionment provisions of the 1894 Constitution. Since we hold that the court below erred in finding the New York legislative apportionment scheme here challenged to be constitutionally valid, we express no view on the correctness of the District Court’s exclusion of this evidence.
A concurring opinion stated that, while the six counties where plaintiffs reside contain 56.2% of the State’s population^ they comprise only 3.1% of its area, and, if legislative apportionment were “based solely on population,... 3% of the state’s area would dominate the rest of New York.”
The existing plan of apportionment of Senate and Assembly seats is provided for in McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, 1952 (Supp. 1963), State Law, §§ 120-124, enacted by the New York Legislature in 1953.
Article III, § 2, of the 1894 New York Constitution provided for a 50-member Senate and a 150-member Assembly. Article III, § 3, of the 1894 Constitution prescribed a detailed plan for the apportionment of the 50 Senate seats, subject to periodic alteration by the legislature under the formula provided for in Art. Ill, § 4.
N. Y. Const., Art. Ill, § 4.
For an extended discussion of the apportionment of seats in the New York Senate under the pertinent state constitutional provisions, see Silva, Apportionment of the New York Senate, 30 Ford. L. Rev. 595 (1962). See also Silva, Legislative Representation — With Special Reference to New York, 27 Law & Contemp. Prob. 408 (1962).
For a thorough discussion of the apportionment of seats in the New York Assembly pursuant to the relevant state constitutional provisions, see Silva, Apportionment of the New York Assembly, 31 Ford. L. Rev. 1 (1962).
Article III, § 4, of the New York Constitution requires the legislature to reapportion and redistriet Senate seats no later than 1966, and Art. Ill, § 5, provides that “[t]he members of the Assembly shall be chosen by single districts and shall be apportioned by the legislature at each regular session at which the senate districts are readjusted or altered, and by the same law, among the several counties of the state, as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants, excluding aliens.”
While the legislature has the sole power to apportion Assembly seats among the State's counties, in accordance with the constitutional formula, the New York Constitution gives local governmental authorities the exclusive power to divide their respective counties into Assembly districts. A county having only one assemblyman constitutes one Assembly district by itself, of course, and therefore cannot be divided into Assembly districts. But, with respect to counties given more than one Assembly seat, the New York Constitution, Art. Ill, § 5, provides: “In any county entitled to more than one member [of the Assembly], the board of supervisors, and in any city embracing an entire county and having no board of supervisors,, the common council, or if there be none, the body exercising the powers of a common council, shall... divide such counties into assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as may be....”
Under these specific provisions, while more than one Senate or Assembly district can be contained within the whole of a single county, and while a Senate district may consist of more than one county, no county border line can be broken in the formation of either type of district. Both Senate and Assembly districts are required to consist of contiguous territory, and each Assembly
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA or Act), 28 U. S. C. § 2680(a), bars a suit based on the Government’s licensing of an oral polio vaccine and on its subsequent approval of the release of a specific lot of that vaccine to the public.
I
On May 10, 1979, Kevan Berkovitz, then a 2-month-old infant, ingested a dose of Orimune, an oral polio vaccine manufactured by Lederle Laboratories. Within one month, he contracted a severe case of polio. The disease left Berkovitz almost completely paralyzed and unable to breathe without the assistance of a respirator. The Communicable Disease Center, an agency of the Federal Government, determined that Berkovitz had contracted polio from the vaccine.
Berkovitz, joined by his parents as guardians, subsequently filed suit against the United States in Federal District Court. The complaint alleged that the United States was liable for his injuries under the FTCA, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346(b), 2674, because the Division of Biologic Standards (DBS), then a part of the National Institutes of Health, had acted wrongfully in licensing Lederle Laboratories to produce Orimune and because the Bureau of Biologies of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had acted wrongfully in approving release to the public of the particular lot of vaccine containing Berkovitz’s dose. According to petitioners, these actions violated federal law and policy regarding the inspection and approval of polio vaccines.
The Government moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the ground that the agency actions fell within the discretionary function exception of the FTCA. The District Court denied this motion, concluding that neither the licensing of Orimune nor the release of a specific lot of that vaccine to the public was a “discretionary function” within the meaning of the FTCA. Civ. Action No. 84-2893 (WD Pa., Apr. 30, 1986). At the Government’s request, the District Court certified its decision for immediate appeal to the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b), and the Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. 822 F. 2d 1322 (1987). The court initially rejected the Government’s argument that the discretionary function exception bars all claims arising out of the regulatory activities of federal agencies. The court stated that “the discretionary function exception-is inapplicable to non-discretionary regulatory actions,” id., at 1328, and noted that employees of regulatory agencies have no discretion to violate the command of federal statutes or regulations. Contrary to petitioners’ claim, however, the court held that federal law imposed no duties on federal agencies with respect to the licensing of polio virus vaccines or the approval of the distribution of particular vaccine lots to the public. Likening the applicable regulatory scheme to the scheme found to confer discretionary regulatory authority in United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U. S. 797 (1984), the court concluded that the licensing and release of polio vaccines were wholly discretionary actions and, as such, could not form the basis for suit against the United States. A dissenting judge argued that the relevant statutes and regulations obligated the DBS to require the submission of test data relating to a vaccine from the manufacturer and to deny a license when the test data showed that the vaccine failed to conform with applicable safety standards. Reading the complaint in this case as alleging a failure on the part of the DBS to act in accordance with these directives, the dissenting judge concluded that the discretionary function exception did not bar petitioners’ suit.
We granted certiorari, 484 U. S. 1003 (1988), to resolve a conflict in the Circuits regarding the effect of the discretionary function exception on claims arising from the Government’s regulation of polio vaccines. Compare 822 F. 2d 1322, supra, with Baker v. United States, 817 F. 2d 560, 564-566 (CA9 1987) (holding that discretionary function exception did not bar suit alleging a negligent decision to license a polio vaccine); Loge v. United States, 662 F. 2d 1268, 1272-1273 (CA8 1981) (holding that discretionary function exception did not bar suit alleging negligence in both the licensing of a polio vaccine and the release of a particular vaccine lot). We now reverse the Third Circuit’s judgment.
HH J-H
The FTGA, 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b), generally authorizes suits against the United States for damages
“for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
The Act includes a number of exceptions to this broad waiver of sovereign immunity. The exception relevant to this case provides that no liability shall lie for
“[a]ny claim . . . based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.” 28 U. S. C. §2680(a).
This exception, as we stated in our most recent opinion on the subject, “marks the boundary between Congress’ willingness to impose tort liability upon the United States and its desire to protect certain governmental activities from exposure to suit by private individuals.” United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U. S., at 808.
The determination of whether the discretionary function exception bars a suit against the Government is guided by several established principles. This Court stated in Varig that “it is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that governs whether the discretionary function exception applies in a given case.” Id., at 813. In examining the nature of the challenged conduct, a court must first consider whether the action is a matter of choice for the acting employee. This inquiry is mandated by the language of the exception; conduct cannot be discretionary unless it involves an element of judgment or choice. See Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 34 (1953) (stating that the exception protects “the discretion of the executive or the administrator to act according to one’s judgment of the best course”). Thus, the discretionary function exception will not apply when a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow. In this event, the employee has no rightful option but to adhere to the directive. And if the employee’s conduct cannot appropriately be the product of judgment or choice, then there is no discretion in the conduct for the discretionary function exception to protect. Cf. Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U. S. 292, 296-297 (1988) (recognizing that conduct that is not the product of independent judgment will be unaffected by threat of liability).
Moreover, assuming the challenged conduct involves an element of judgment, a court must determine whether that judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield. The basis for the discretionary function exception was Congress’ desire to “prevent judicial ‘second-guessing’ of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort.” United States v. Varig Airlines, supra, at 814. The exception, properly construed, therefore protects only governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy. See Dalehite v. United States, supra, at 36 (“Where there is room for policy judgment and decision there is discretion”). In sum, the discretionary function exception insulates the Government from liability if the action challenged in the case involves the permissible exercise of policy judgment.
This Court’s decision in Varig Airlines illustrates these propositions. The two cases resolved in that decision were tort suits by the victims of airplane accidents who alleged that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had acted negligently in certifying certain airplanes for operation. The Court characterized the suits as challenging the FAA’s decision to certify the airplanes without first inspecting them and held that this decision was a discretionary act for which the Government was immune from liability. In reaching this result, the Court carefully reviewed the statutory and regulatory scheme governing the inspection and certification of airplanes. Congress had given the Secretary of Transportation broad authority to establish and implement a program for enforcing compliance with airplane safety standards. In the exercise of that authority, the FAA, as the Secretary’s designee, had devised a system of “spot-checking” airplanes for compliance. This Court first held that the establishment of that system was a discretionary function within the meaning of the FTCA because it represented a policy determination as to how best to “accommodat[e] the goal of air transportation safety and the reality of finite agency resources.” 467 U. S., at 820. The Court then stated that the discretionary function exception also protected “the acts of FAA employees in executing the ‘spot-check’ program” because under this program the employees “were specifically empowered to make policy judgments regarding the degree of confidence that might reasonably be placed in a given manufacturer, the need to maximize compliance with FAA regulations, and the efficient allocation of agency resources.” Ibid. Thus, the Court held the challenged acts protected from liability because they were within the range of choice accorded by federal policy and law and were the results of policy determinations.
In restating and clarifying the scope of the discretionary function exception, we intend specifically to reject the Government’s argument, pressed both in this Court and the Court of Appeals, that the exception precludes liability for any and all acts arising out of the regulatory programs of federal agencies. That argument is rebutted first by the language of the exception, which protects “discretionary” functions, rather than “regulatory” functions. The significance of Congress’ choice of language is supported by the legislative history. ' As this Court previously has indicated, the relevant legislative materials demonstrate that the exception was designed to cover not all acts of regulatory agencies and their employees, but only such acts as are “discretionary” in nature. See Dalehite v. United States, supra, at 33-34. This coverage accords with Congress’ purpose in enacting the exception: to prevent “[j]udicial intervention in . . . the political, social, and economic judgments” of governmental-including regulatory — agencies. United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U. S., at 820. Moreover, this Court twice before has rejected a variant of the Government’s position. See Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 61, 64-65 (1955) (disapproving argument that FTCA precludes liability for the performance of “uniquely governmental functions”); Rayonier, Inc. v. United States, 352 U. S. 315, 318-319 (1957) (same). And in Varig, we ignored the precise argument the Government makes in this case, focusing instead on the particular nature of the regulatory conduct at issue. To the extent we have not already put the Government’s argument to rest, we do so now. The discretionary function exception applies only to conduct that involves the permissible exercise of policy judgment. The question in this case is whether the governmental activities challenged by petitioners are of this discretionary nature.
I — I HH HH
Petitioners suit raises two broad claims. First, petitioners assert that the DBS violated a federal statute and accompanying regulations in issuing a license to Lederle Laboratories to produce Orimune. Second, petitioners argue that the Bureau of Biologies of the FDA violated federal regulations and policy in approving the release of the particular lot of Orimune that contained Kevan Berkovitz’s dose. We examine each of these broad claims by reviewing the applicable regulatory scheme and petitioners’ specific allegations of agency wrongdoing. Because the decision we review adjudicated a motion to dismiss, we accept all of the factual allegations in petitioners’ complaint as true and ask whether, in these circumstances, dismissal of the complaint was appropriate.
A
Under federal law, a manufacturer must receive a product license prior to marketing a brand of live oral polio vaccine. See 58 Stat. 702, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 262(a). In order to become eligible for such a license, a manufacturer must first make a sample of the vaccine product. See 42 CFR §73.3 (Supp. 1964); 21 CFR §601.2 (1987). This process begins with the selection of an original virus strain. The manufacturer grows a seed virus from this strain; the seed virus is then used to produce monopools, portions of which are combined to form the consumer-level product. Federal regulations set forth safety criteria for the original strain, see 42 CFR § 73.110(b)(2) (Supp. 1964); 21 CFR § 630.10(b)(2) (1987), the seed virus, see 42 CFR §§ 73.110(b)(3), (4) (Supp. 1964); 21 CFR §§630.10(b)(3), (4) (1987), and the vaccine monopools, see 42 CFR §73.114 (Supp. 1964); 21 CFR §630.16 (1987). Under the regulations, the manufacturer must conduct a variety of tests to measure the safety of the product at each stage of the manufacturing process. See 42 CFR §§73.110, 73.114 (Supp. 1964); 21 CFR §§630.10, 630.16 (1987). Upon completion of the manufacturing process and the required testing, the manufacturer is required to submit an application for a product license to the DBS. See 42 CFR §73.3 (Supp. 1964); 21 CFR §601.2 (1987). In addition to this application, the manufacturer must submit data from the tests performed and a sample of the finished product. Ibid.
In deciding whether to issue a license, the DBS is required to comply with certain statutory and regulatory provisions. The Public Health Service Act provides:
“Licenses for the maintenance of establishments for the propagation or manufacture and preparation of products [including polio vaccines] may be issued only upon a showing that the establishment and the products for which a license is desired meet standards, designed to insure the continued safety, purity, and potency of such products, prescribed in regulations, and licenses for new products may be issued only upon a showing that they meet such standards. All such licenses shall be issued, suspended, and revoked as prescribed by regulations . . . .” §351(d), 58 Stat. 702-703, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 262(d).
A regulation similarly provides that “[a] product license shall be issued only upon examination of the product and upon a determination that the product complies with the standards prescribed in the regulations . . . .” 42 CFR § 73.5(a) (Supp. 1964); see 21 CFR § 601.4 (1987). In addition, a regulation states that “[a]n application for license shall not be considered as filed” until the DBS receives the information and data regarding the product that the manufacturer is required to submit. 42 CFR § 73.3 (Supp. 1964); 21 CFR § 601.2 (1987). These statutory and regulatory provisions require the DBS, prior to issuing a product license, to receive all data the manufacturer is required to submit, to examine the product, and to make a determination that the product complies with safety standards.
Petitioners’ first allegation with regard to the licensing of Orimune is that the DBS issued a product license without first receiving data that the manufacturer must submit showing how the product, at the various stages of the manufacturing process, matched up against regulatory safety standards. See App. 12-13; Brief for Petitioners 5-6. The discretionary function exception does not bar a cause of action based on this allegation. The statute and regulations described above require, as a precondition to licensing, that the DBS receive certain test data from the manufacturer relating to the product’s compliance with regulatory standards. See § 351(d), 58 Stat. 702-703, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 262(d) (providing that a license shall issue “only upon a showing” by the manufacturer); 42 CFR §73.3 (Supp. 1964); 21 CFR §601.2 (1987) (providing that application for license shall be deemed as filed only upon receipt of relevant test data). The DBS has no discretion to issue a license without first receiving the required test data; to do so would violate a specific statutory and regulatory directive. Accordingly, to the extent that petitioners’ licensing claim is based on a decision of the DBS to issue a license without having received the required test data, the discretionary function exception imposes no bar.
Petitioners’ other allegation regarding the licensing of Orimune is difficult to describe with precision. Petitioners contend that the DBS licensed Orimune even though the vaccine did not comply with certain regulatory safety standards. See App. 12; Brief for Petitioners 4-6. This charge may be understood in any of three ways. First, petitioners may mean that the DBS licensed Orimune without first making a determination as to whether the vaccine complied with regulatory standards. Second, petitioners may intend to argue that the DBS specifically found that Orimune failed to comply with certain regulatory standards and nonetheless issued a license for the vaccine’s manufacture. Third, petitioners may concede that the DBS made a determination of compliance, but allege that this determination was incorrect. Neither petitioners’ complaint nor their briefs and argument before this Court make entirely clear their theory of the case.
If petitioners aver that the DBS licensed Orimune either without determining whether the vaccine complied with regulatory standards or after determining that the vaccine failed to comply, the discretionary function exception does not bar the claim. Under the scheme governing the DBS’s regulation of polio vaccines, the DBS may not issue a license except upon an examination of the product and a determination that the product complies with all regulatory standards. See 42 CFR § 73.5(a) (Supp. 1964); 21 CFR §601.4 (1987). The agency has no discretion to deviate from this mandated procedure. Petitioners’ claim, if interpreted as alleging that the DBS licensed Orimune in the absence of a determination that the vaccine complied with regulatory standards, therefore does not challenge a discretionary function. Rather, the claim charges a failure on the part of the agency to perform its clear duty under federal law. When a suit charges an agency with failing to act in accord with a specific mandatory directive, the discretionary function exception does not apply.
If petitioners’ claim is that the DBS made a determination that Orimune complied with regulatory standards, but that the determination was incorrect, the question of the applicability of the discretionary function exception requires a somewhat different analysis. In that event, the question turns on whether the manner and method of determining compliance with the safety standards at issue involve agency judgment of the kind protected by the discretionary function exception. Petitioners contend that the determination involves the application of objective scientific standards, see Brief for Petitioners 16-17, whereas the Government asserts that the determination incorporates considerable “policy judgment,” Brief for United States 36. In making these assertions, the parties have framed the issue appropriately; application of the discretionary function exception to the claim that the determination of compliance was incorrect hinges on whether the agency officials making that determination permissibly exercise policy choice. The parties, however, have not addressed this question in detail, and they have given us no indication of the way in which the DBS interprets and applies the regulations setting forth the criteria for compliance. Given that these regulations are particularly abstruse, we hesitate to decide the question on the scanty record before us. We therefore leave it to the District Court to decide, if petitioners choose to press this claim, whether agency officials appropriately exercise policy judgment in determining that a vaccine product complies with the relevant safety standards.
B
The regulatory scheme governing release of vaccine lots is distinct from that governing the issuance of licenses. The former set of regulations places an obligation on manufacturers to examine all vaccine lots prior to distribution to ensure that they comply with regulatory standards. See 21 CFR §610.1 (1978). These regulations, however, do not impose a corresponding duty on the Bureau of Biologies, Although the regulations empower the Bureau to examine any vaccine lot and prevent the distribution of a noncomplying lot, see 21 CFR § 610.2(a) (1978), they do not require the Bureau to take such action in all cases. The regulations generally allow the Bureau to determine the appropriate manner in which to regulate the release of vaccine lots, rather than mandating certain kinds of agency action. The regulatory scheme governing the release of vaccine lots is substantially similar in this respect to the scheme discussed in United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U. S. 797 (1984).
Given this regulatory context, the discretionary function exception bars any claims that challenge the Bureau’s formulation of policy as to the appropriate way in which to regulate the release of vaccine lots. Cf. id., at 819-820 (holding that discretionary function exception barred claim challenging FAA’s decision to establish a spot-checking program). In addition, if the policies and programs formulated by the Bureau allow room for implementing officials to make independent policy judgments, the discretionary function exception protects the acts taken by those officials in the exercise of this discretion. Cf. id., at 820 (holding that discretionary function exception barred claim that employees charged with executing the FAA’s spot-checking program made negligent policy judgments respecting the proper inspection of airplanes). The discretionary function exception, however, does not apply if the acts complained of do not involve the permissible exercise of policy discretion. Thus, if the Bureau’s policy leaves no room for an official to exercise policy judgment in performing a given act, or if the act simply does not involve the exercise of such judgment, the discretionary function exception does not bar a claim that the act was negligent or wrongful. Cf. Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U. S., at 69 (holding that a negligent failure to maintain a lighthouse in good working order subjected the Government to suit under the FTCA even though the initial decision to undertake and maintain lighthouse service was a discretionary policy judgment).
Viewed in light of these principles, petitioners’ claim regarding the release of the vaccine lot from which Ke'van Berkovitz received his dose survives the Government’s motion to dismiss. Petitioners allege that, under the authority granted by the regulations, the Bureau of Biologies has adopted a policy of testing all vaccine lots for compliance with safety standards and preventing the distribution to the public of any lots that fail to comply. Petitioners further allege that notwithstanding this policy, which allegedly leaves no room for implementing officials to exercise independent policy judgment, employees of the Bureau knowingly approved the release of a lot that did not comply with safety standards. See App. 13; Brief for Petitioners 20 — 21; Reply Brief for Petitioners 15-17. Thus, petitioners’ complaint is directed at a governmental action that allegedly involved no policy discretion. Petitioners, of course, have not proved their factual allegations, but they are not required to do so on a motion to dismiss. If those allegations are correct — that is, if the Bureau’s policy did not allow the official who took the challenged action to release a noncomplying lot on the basis of policy considerations — the discretionary function exception does not bar the claim. Because petitioners may yet show, on the basis of materials obtained in discovery or otherwise, that the conduct challenged here did not involve the permissible exercise of policy discretion, the invocation of the discretionary function exception to dismiss petitioners’ lot release claim was improper.
<1
For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the discretionary function exception required the dismissal of petitioners’ claims respecting the licensing of Orimune and the release of a particular vaccine lot. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Petitioners also sued Lederle Laboratories in a separate civil action. That suit was settled before the instant case was filed.
There is currently no dispute in this case as to whether petitioners have stated a claim that falls within this general waiver of immunity. Although the Government raised this issue in its motion to dismiss petitioners’ suit, the District Court found that the complaint stated a claim under the relevant state law, and the Government declined to request certification of this decision for immediate appeal.
The decision in Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 61 (1955), also illuminates the appropriate scope of the discretionary function exception. The plaintiff in that case sued the Government for failing to maintain a lighthouse in good working order. The Court stated that the initial decision to undertake and maintain lighthouse service was a discretionary judgment. See id., at 69. The Court held, however, that the failure to maintain the lighthouse in good condition subjected the Government to suit under the FTCA. See ibid. The latter course of conduct did not involve any permissible exercise of policy judgment.
The House of Representatives Report on the final version of the FTCA discussed the application of the discretionary function exception to the activities of regulatory agencies by stating that it would preclude application of the Act to
“a claim against a regulatory agency, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, based upon an alleged abuse of discretionary authority by an officer or employee, whether or not negligence is alleged to have been involved. . . . The bill is not intended to authorize a suit for damages to test the validity of or provide a remedy on account of such discretionary acts even though negligently performed and involving an abuse of discretion. Nor is it desirable or intended that the constitutionality of legislation, or the legality of a rule or regulation should be tested through the medium of a damage suit for tort. However, the common-law torts of employees of regulatory agencies would be included within the scope of the bill to the same extent as torts of nonregulatory agencies.” H. R. Rep. No. 1287, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1945).
This passage illustrates that Congress intended the discretionary function exception to apply to the discretionary acts of regulators, rather than to all regulatory acts.
The Government’s position in this case at times appears to replicate precisely the position expressly rejected in Indian Tomng and Rayonier. See Brief for United States 20 (arguing that Congress intended to preserve immunity for “core governmental function[s]”); id., at 16.
The parties to this case also have disputed in their briefs and arguments before this Court the applicability of the discretionary function exception to a claim alleging that the DBS wrongfully chose not to revoke Lederle Laboratories’ license to manufacture Orimune. Neither the Court of Appeals nor the District Court specifically addressed this issue. Moreover, petitioners did not raise the issue in their petition for a writ of certiorari. We accordingly do not consider or decide the question whether the discretionary function exception bars a claim against the Government for failure to revoke a license to manufacture a polio vaccine.
The DBS issued a license to Lederle Laboratories to produce Orimune in 1963. The first citation in the text is to the regulation in effect at that time. Where the regulation has remained substantially in the same form, a parallel citation is given to the current regulations.
Manufacturers are required to obtain an establishment license in addition to the product license. See 42 CFR §§ 73.2-73.4 (Supp. 1964); 21 CFR 601.1-601.2, 601.10 (1987). Petitioners have not challenged the issuance of an establishment license to Lederle Laboratoriés.
In 1972, the DBS was transferred from the National Institutes of Health to the FDA and renamed the Bureau of Biologies. See 37 Fed. Reg. 12865 (1972). In 1984, the Bureau of Biologies was renamed the Office of Biologies Research and Review. See 49 Fed. Reg. 23834 (1984). The regulations have been amended accordingly.
Petitioners point to two specific regulatory standards that the product allegedly failed to satisfy. First, petitioners claim that an original virus strain from which the vaccine was made did not comply with the requirement that the strain be “free of harmful effect upon administration in the recommended dosage to at least 100,000 people susceptible to poliomyelitis.” 42 CFR §73.110(b)(2)(i) (Supp. 1964); see 21 CFR § 630.10(b)(2)(i) (1987). Second, petitioners assert that the strain, a seed virus, a vaccine monopool, and the ultimate vaccine product failed to comply with the regulatory scheme’s neurovirulence requirement. See 42 CFR §§ 73.110(b) (2)(ii), 73.110(b)(4), 73.114(b)(1) (Supp. 1964); 21 CFR §§ 630.110(b)(2)(ii), 630.110(b)(4), 630.16(b)(1) (1987). Neuro virulence is the capacity of an infectious agent to produce pathologic effects on the central nervous system. In this context, it refers to the vaccine’s ability to cause paralytic poliomyelitis. The neurovirulence of a vaccine product is tested by injecting the product into monkeys. The product meets the neurovirulence criterion only if a specified number of the animals survive and a “comparative analysis” demonstrates that the neurovirulence of the vaccine product “does not exceed” the neurovirulenee of a reference product previously selected by the agency. 42 CFR §73.114(b)(l)(iii) (Supp. 1964); 21 CFR § 630.16(b)(l)(iii) (1987).
Even the Government conceded at oral argument that the DBS has no discretion to issue a product license without an examination of the product and a determination that the product complies with regulatory standards. The transcript reads:
“QUESTION: [Supposing the DBS] did not make any examination of the application at all, or any determination other than some papers have been filed and I will now issue the license.
“Would that comply with the regulation?
“[COUNSEL]: No, it would not comply with the regulation.
“QUESTION: It would violate a mandatory duty . . . , wouldn’t it?
“[COUNSEL]: In the extreme instance you are talking about ... , it would definitely violate that regulation.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 34-35.
As noted, see n. 9, supra, the regulatory standards that petitioners claim were not satisfied in this case are the neurovirulence criterion and the requirement that virus strains be free from harmful effect. The question presented is thus whether the determination that a vaccine product complies with each of these regulatory standards involves judgment of the kind that the discretionary function exception protects.
The citation is to the regulation in effect at the time Lederle Laboratories released the lot of Orimune containing Kevan Berkovitz’s dose. None of the regulations governing the release of vaccine lots has changed significantly since that time. The current regulations dealing with this subject have the same title and section numbers as the regulations cited in the text.
The Government’s own argument before this Court provides some support for petitioners’ allegation regarding the Bureau’s policy. The Government indicated that the Bureau reviews each lot of vaccine and decides whether it complies with safety standards. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 42. The Government further suggested that if an employee knew that a lot did not comply with these standards, he would have no discretion to approve the release of the lot. See id., at 31-32.
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us concerns the constitutionality of § 230 (3) of the New York Correction Law, which denied appellee state prisoners “good time” credit for their presentence incarceration in county jails. Appellees claim that disallowing such credit to them while permitting credit up to the full period of ultimate incarceration for state prisoners who were released on bail prior to sentencing deprived them of equal protection of the laws. The three-judge District Court, one judge dissenting, upheld their claim, 332 F. Supp. 973 (1971). The Commissioner of Correction and other officials (hereafter Commissioner) have appealed and we noted probable jurisdiction, 405 U. S. 986 (1972).
The challenged New York sentencing system is a complex one, and some basic definitions are required at the outset. Jail time denotes that time an individual passes in a county jail prior to trial and sentencing. Good time is awarded for good behavior and efficient performance of duties during incarceration. Both good time and jail time figure variously in the calculations of a series of release dates that each prisoner receives upon his arrival at state prison. Each inmate has both a minimum parole date, which is the earliest date on which he may be paroled at the discretion of the Parole Board, and a statutory release date which is the earliest date he must be paroled by the Parole Board. The minimum parole date is calculated under §§ 230 (2) and 230 (3) by subtracting the greatest amount of good time that can be earned (10 days per month) from the minimum sentence of an indeterminate term. The statutory release date is calculated under § 230 (4) by subtracting the greatest amount of good time that can be earned (5 days per month) from the maximum sentence of an indeterminate term.
Although appellees did receive jail-time credit for the period of their presentence incarceration in county jail, § 230 (3) explicitly forbids, in calculating the minimum parole date, any good-time credit for the period of county jail detention served prior to transfer to state prison. Appellee Royster, being unable to post bail, served 404 days’ jail time in the Nassau County Jail prior to his transfer to state prison to serve consecutive 5-to-10-year terms for burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the first degree. Appellee Rutherford also failed to make bail and spent 242 days’ jail time in Nassau County Jail prior to his trial, sentencing, and transfer to state prison for concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years for robbery in the first degree and two and one-half to five years for grand larceny in the second degree. It is undisputed that, were appellees Royster and Rutherford to receive good-time credit for their presentence confinement in county jail, they would be entitled to appear before the Parole Board approximately four and three months earlier, respectively, than under the computation required by § 230 (3).
Two additional points merit mention. While New York does deny good-time credit for jail time in computing the minimum parole date under §§ 230 (2) and (3), it allows such credit in calculating the statutory release date under § 230 (4). Finally, §230 (3) itself provides that good-time credit for jail time shall be awarded to those prisoners confined after sentence in county penitentiaries, as opposed to those convicted of felonies, such as appellees, who are transferred after sentence to state prison.
I
Section 230 (3) of the New York Correction Law does, as appellees note, draw a distinction “between the treatment of state prisoners incarcerated prior to sentencing and those who were not similarly incarcerated.” Appellees contend that “denying state prisoners good-time credit for the period of their pre-sentence incarceration in a County Jail whereas those fortunate enough to obtain bail prior to sentence [receive] a full allowance of good time credit for the entire period which they ultimately spend in custody” violates the equal protection of the laws and discriminates against those state prisoners unable to afford or otherwise qualify for bail prior to trial.
We first note that any relative disadvantage the distinction works on appellees is lessened by the fact that New York on September 1, 1967, replaced § 230 of its Correction Law with §§ 803 and 805, which apply to all convictions for offenses after that date. Under the new scheme, “good time earned on the minimum sentence is abolished. A prisoner meets with the Parole Board at the expiration o.f his minimum term, regardless of how much good time he has earned or of how much time he spent in jail prior to arriving at state prison.” New York has given appellees — and all those sentenced for offenses committed prior to September 1, 1967 — a chance to elect the new procedure, but appellees declined to do so. Appellees thus enjoy at least as favorable a position as all state prisoners convicted for offenses committed subsequent to September 1, 1967, including those released on bail prior to sentence. Appellees thus are disadvantaged in the computation of time only in comparison with those who were convicted of offenses committed prior to September 1, 1967, and made bail prior to trial. Even the adverse impact of this difference is lessened, though not eliminated, by the fact that New York did not deprive appellees of credit for the full amount of actual time spent in jail prior to trial and sentencing but only of the potential additional 10 days per month of good time ordinarily available under § 230 (2) to inmates for good conduct and efficient performance of duty.
We note, further, that the distinction of which appel-lees complain arose in the course of the State’s sensitive and difficult effort to encourage for its prisoners constructive future citizenship while avoiding the danger of releasing them prematurely upon society. The determination of an optimal time for parole eligibility elicited multiple legislative classifications and groupings, which the court below rightly concluded require only some rational basis to sustain them. James v. Strange, 407 U. S. 128, 140 (1972); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56, 73-74 (1972); Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U. S. 357 (1971); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 487 (1970). Appellees themselves recognize this to be the appropriate standard. For this Court has observed that “[t]he problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific.” Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 69-70 (1913). We do not wish to inhibit state experimental classifications in a practical and troublesome area, but inquire only whether the challenged distinction rationally furthers some legitimate, articulated state purpose. We conclude that it does.
II
The Commissioner defends the distinction by noting that “state prisons differ from county jails with respect to purpose, usage and availability of facilities.” State prisons are “intended to have rehabilitation as a prime purpose and the facilities at these institutions are built and equipped to serve this purpose.” The Commissioner cites the presence at state prisons of “educational and vocational services such as schools, factories, job-training programs and related activities.” At argument, the Commissioner noted: “We have barber shops. We teach trades. We manufacture a lot of goods. . . . Green-haven State Prison has a textile factory.”
We pass no judgment on the success or merits of the State’s efforts, but note only that at state prisons a serious rehabilitative program exists. County jails, on the other hand, serve primarily as detention centers. The Commissioner asserts they are “neither equipped nor intended to do anything more than detain people awaiting trial and maintain no schools, run no factories and require no work from these inmates.” While appellees do point to the existence of some rehabilitative or recreational facilities within some county jails, it is clear that nothing comparable to the State’s rehabilitative effort exists.
These significant differences afford the basis for a different treatment within a constitutional framework. We note that the granting of good-time credit toward parole eligibility takes into account a prisoner’s rehabilitative performance. Section 230 (2) of the New York Correction Law authorizes such credit toward the minimum parole date “for good conduct and efficient and willing performance of duties assigned [emphasis added].” The regulations of the New York Department of Correction, 7 N. Y. C. R. R. § 260.1 (a), state that: “[T]he opportunity to earn good behavior allowances offers inmates a tangible reward for positive efforts made during incarceration [emphasis added].” As the statute and reg-illations contemplate state evaluation of an inmate’s progress toward rehabilitation, in awarding good time, it is reasonable not to award such time for pretrial detention in a county jail where no systematic rehabilitative programs exist and where the prisoner’s conduct and performance are not even observed and evaluated by the responsible state prison officials. Further, it would hardly be appropriate for the State to undertake in the pretrial detention period programs to rehabilitate a man still clothed with a presumption of innocence. In short, an inmate in county jail is neither under the supervision of the State Correction Department nor participating in the State’s rehabilitative programs. Where there is no evaluation by state officials and little or no rehabilitative participation for anyone to evaluate, there is a rational justification for declining to give good-time credit.
Ill
We do not agree with the court below that the integrity of appellants’ assertions as to rehabilitation is undermined by the fact that the State does grant under § 230 (3) good-time credit for presentence jail time to county penitentiary inmates and under § 230 (4) to state prisoners for the purpose of calculating their statutory release dates. The legislature could have concluded rationally that county penitentiary inmates, who are nonfelons with less than one-year sentences, required quantitatively and qualitatively less rehabilitation- — -with fewer risks of misevaluation — than inmates confined to state prison for more serious crimes. And the legislature could rationally have distinguished between the minimum parole date and the statutory release date on the ground that an acceleration of the minimum parole date posed a greater danger that an inmate would be released without adequate exposure to rehabilitative programs and without adequate evaluation by prison officials. Thus, New York's decision to deny good-time credit for presentence jail time solely with respect to a state prisoner’s minimum parole date is rationally justified on the ground that the risk of prematurely releasing unrehabilitated or dangerous criminals may well be greatest when the parole decision is made prior to expiration of the minimum sentence.
IY
Neither appellees nor the court below contended that increased opportunity for state evaluation of an inmate’s behavior and rehabilitative progress was not a purpose of the challenged provision of § 230 (3). Appellees state only that the rehabilitative purpose was not the “overriding” one, and the District Court noted that “the legislature’s primary aim in enacting the good time statute was to foster and insure the maintenance of prison discipline.” 332 F. Supp., at 978 (emphasis added). We do not dispute these statements: the disciplinary-purpose is certainly an important and possibly the “primary” aim of the legislation! Yet, our decisions do not authorize courts to pick and choose among legitimate legislative aims to determine which is primary and which subordinate. Rather, legislative solutions must be respected if the “distinctions drawn have some basis in practical experience,” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 331 (1966), or if some legitimate state interest is advanced, Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S., at 486. So long as the state purpose upholding a statutory class is legitimate and nonillusory, its lack of primacy is not disqualifying.
When classifications do not call for strict judicial scrutiny, this is the only approach consistent with proper judicial regard for the judgments of the Legislative Branch. The search for legislative purpose is often elusive enough, Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217 (1971), without a requirement that primacy be ascertained. Legislation is frequently multipurposed: the removal of even a “subordinate” purpose may shift altogether the consensus of legislative judgment supporting the statute. Permitting nullification of statutory classifications based rationally on a nonprimary legislative purpose would allow courts to peruse legislative proceedings for subtle emphases supporting subjective impressions and preferences. The Equal Protection Clause does not countenance such speculative probing into the purposes of a coordinate branch. We have supplied no imaginary basis or purpose for this statutory scheme, but we likewise refuse to discard a clear and legitimate purpose because the court below perceived another to be primary.
V
As the challenged classification here rationally promotes the legitimate desire of the state legislature to afford state prison officials an adequate opportunity to evaluate both an inmate’s conduct and his rehabilitative progress before he is eligible for parole, the decision of the District Court is
Reversed.
Section 230 (3):
“In the case of a definite sentence prisoner, said reduction shall be computed upon the term of the sentence as imposed by the court, less jail time allowance, and in the case of an indeterminate sentence prisoner said reduction shall be computed upon the minimum term of such sentence, less jail time allowance. No prisoner, however, shall be released under the provisions hereof from a state prison until he shall have served at least one year. In the case of a prisoner confined in a penitentiary, said reduction shall be computed upon the term of the sentence as imposed by the court, including jail time allowance. Subject to the rules of the commissioner of correction, the maximum reduction of ten days in each month may, in the discretion of the board hereinafter provided for, be in whole or in part withheld, forfeited or cancelled, in accordance with the rules of the commissioner of correction for bad conduct, violation of prison rules or failure to perform properly duties assigned.”
Other relevant sections read as set forth below.
Section 230 (2):
“Every prisoner confined in a state prison or penitentiary, except a prisoner sentenced for an indeterminate term having a minimum of one day and a maximum of his natural life, may receive, for good conduct and efficient and willing performance of duties assigned, a reduction of his sentence not to exceed ten days for each month of the minimum term in the case of an indeterminate sentence, or of the term as imposed by the court in the case of a definite sentence. The maximum reduction allowable under this provision shall be four months per year, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to confer any right whatsoever upon any prisoner to demand or require the whole or any part of such reduction.”
Section 230 (4):
“Every prisoner confined in an institution under the jurisdiction of the state department of correction for an indeterminate term, except a prisoner sentenced for a term having a maximum of natural life, may receive, for good conduct and efficient and willing performance of duties assigned, a reduction of his sentence not to exceed two days for each month of the maximum term. For meritorious progress and achievement in a treatment program to which he has been assigned, following appropriate testing and classification, such prisoner may also receive a reduction of his sentence not to exceed three additional days for each month of the maximum term. In no event, however, shall the maximum reduction allowable under this subdivision exceed two months for each year of the maximum sentence, nor shall any such reduction be calculated under this subdivision to reduce the time actually served to a term less than the minimum sentence imposed by the court. . . .”
The Commissioner claims in his brief that the court below should have treated the instant case, not as a class action, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23, but as a petition for habeas corpus with the attendant requirement that appellees exhaust their state remedies. Brief for Appellants 2. Appellants did not, however, raise this question in their jurisdictional statement, and did not argue it before the Court. In light of this, it becomes unnecessary to comment further on any possible exhaustion question.
He also has a maximum expiration date which is the date of the maximum sentence to which an inmate can be held if he receives no good-time credit at all. This date, unlike the other two, bears no direct relevance to the instant case.
Both prisoners here were sentenced to indeterminate terms. See §230 (1):
“. . . A sentence to imprisonment in a state prison having minimum and maximum limits fixed by the court or the governor is an indeterminate sentence.”
As the court below noted:
“There is no doubt that by its express wording Section 230 mandates the denial of good time credit for the time plaintiffs served in county jail awaiting trial and sentencing. Subsection 2 thereof provides that a state prisoner may receive, ‘for good conduct and efficient and willing performance of duties assigned, a reduction of his sentence not to exceed ten days for each month of the minimum term in the case of an indeterminate sentence . . . ,’ and subsection 3 states that ‘in the case of an indeterminate sentence prisoner said reduction shall be computed upon the minimum term of such sentence, less jail time allowance.’ (Emphasis added.)” 332 F. Supp. 973, 974-975.
See People v. Deegan, 56 Misc. 2d 567, 289 N. Y. S. 2d 285 (1968); Paul v. Warden, N. Y. L. J., May 21, 1969, p. 18, col. 6.
“In the case of a prisoner confined in a penitentiary, said reduction shall be computed upon the term of the sentence as imposed by the court, including jail time allowance." (Emphasis added.)
Brief for Appellees 5.
Id., at 5-6.
The court below correctly noted:
“[The] statutory scheme of §230, which is the subject of this lawsuit, is no longer the law in New York. On September 1, 1967, § 230 was replaced by §§ 803 and 805 of the Correction Law and §§ 70.30 and 70.40 of the new Penal Law, which sections apply to all convictions for offenses committed on or after that date (but not to convictions — as of plaintiffs herein — for offenses committed prior to the effective date). Thus, the scope of this case (and of the proposed class) is necessarily limited, for the challenged statute, § 230 (3) of the Correction Law, now applies only to those prisoners who were convicted for offenses committed before September 1, 1967, whose minimum terms have not yet expired, who have not yet met with the Parole Board, and who have not yet elected the ‘conditional release’ program offered by the new law and made available to old law prisoners by § 230-a of the Correction Law. Of these prisoners, a smaller class yet — comprised of those inmates who served time in county jail prior to sentence to state prison — actually feel the effect of §230 (3) ’s proscription against good time credit for jail time. Nevertheless, the briefs in this case attest to the continuing effect of that mandate on a substantial number of individuals.” 332 F. Supp., at 975 n. 4.
Brief for Appellants 12.
As noted above, this would make a difference of three and four months, respectively, in the time appellees Rutherford and Royster were eligible to appear before the Parole Board.
Tr. of Oral Arg. 30.
Brief for Appellants 14.
Tr. of Oral. Arg. 13.
Brief for Appellants 15.
Brief for Appellees 17. But the State notes that “some counties have absolutely nothing. Some have a little something.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6.
See n. 1, supra.
Appellants further note that:
“Section 260.3 sets forth the criteria for awarding allowances and states:
“'(b) In evaluating the amount of allowance to be granted, the statutory criteria (i. e. good behavior, efficient and willing performance of duties assigned, progress and achievement in an assigned treatment program) shall be viewed in the light of the following factors:
“'(1) The attitude of the inmate;
“'(2) The capacity of the inmate; and
“'(3) The efforts made by the inmate within the limits of his capacity.’
“These factors are evaluated by a time allowance committee, whose purpose is to make recommendations to the superintendent as to the amount of good behavior allowance to be granted to inmates who are eligible to be considered for such allowance. 7 N. Y. C. R. R. 261.2. The time allowance committee awards good time on the following criteria [7 N. Y. C. R. R. 261.3]:
'"(d) The committee shall consider the entire file of the inmate and shall interview the inmate and then shall decide upon a recommendation as to the amount of good behavior allowance to be granted, applying the principles set forth in sections 260.3 and 260.4 of this Part.
'"(e) The committee shall not recommend the granting of the total allowance authorized by law or the withholding of any part of the allowance in accordance with any automatic rule, but shall appraise the entire institutional experience of the inmate and make its own determination.’ (Emphasis added.)” Reply Brief for Appellants 2-3.
See also the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Correction, John R. Cain, who stated that:
“The actual allowance of 'good time’ is discretionary and is awarded as an incentive for good conduct. It is a means for encouraging participation in programs, efficient work and discipline.
“The state correctional system seeks to encourage rehabilitation by work participation by inmates, job training programs and education programs. An inmate can be evaluated in his work and participation in the facility’s programs and 'good time’ granted as an incentive. Prior to being received in the facility, however, an inmate who is in jail is not under the supervision of the State Correction Department and is not involved in the facility program. Since the inmate is not participating in the state programs while in jail there is no opportunity to evaluate him nor need to encourage his participation.” App. 19a.
Appellants further correctly note:
“In fact, until recently changed by federal policy, the federal prison system itself did not require the awarding of good time for pre-trial incarceration under 18 U. S. C. § 4161, which awards good time solely for good behavior. Section 4161 states that good time begins to run ‘with the day on which the sentence commences to run’, and the sentence does not start to run until the prisoner is received in a federal penitentiary. See Blackshear v. United States, 434 F. 2d 68 (5th Cir.1970). The federal courts have uniformly upheld the denial of the opportunity to earn good time on this jail time. Bandy v. Willingham, 398 F. 2d 333 (10th Cir.1968), cert. den. 393 U. S. 1006; Aderhold v. Ellis, 84 F. 2d 543 (5th Cir.1936), cert. den. 299 U. S. 587; Swope v. Lawton, 83 F. 2d 814 (9th Cir.1936).” Brief for Appellants 20-21.
See supra, at 268, and nn. 7 and 8. The court below stated:
“Whatever the merit in defendants’ attempted distinction, the fact remains that state prisoners can be, and, under certain circumstances, are, granted good time credit for jail time for reasons other than as a reward for participation in the various rehabilitative programs of the state prison system. The awarding of good time for jail time to these two classes of prisoners only reinforces the belief that the legislature’s primary aim in enacting the good time statute was to foster and insure the maintenance of prison discipline.” 332 F Supp., at 978.
At oral argument the following instructive colloquy occurred:
“Q. Then it is your position that the only purpose at all, sir, by the statute, exclusively, the only single purpose, is the disciplinary one?
“MR. SORGE: Your Honor, it is extremely difficult to say whether the only purpose is just for the discipline. I believe that the court has-
“Q. If a purpose is the rehabilitation one, then are you not in some trouble?
“MR. SORGE: If the main purpose is?
“Q. If a purpose, not the main purpose, a purpose.
“MR. SORGE: I do not believe so, Your Honor, because, as the district court stated, the overriding consideration in this case is disciplinary.
“Q. You go further then than the district court, I take it, because I read the district court’s opinion the same way Mr. Justice Brennan does, as saying that rehabilitation is a subordinate function and that its opinion is based on that. You say that it really is no function at all?
“MR. SORGE: I believe that if you take the state prisoners themselves, Mr. Justice, there might be a subordinate position. However, I would repeat that the overriding consideration is the disciplinary aspect of it.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-30.
See also the court’s statement that:
“Defendants contend that good time is granted as an incentive to the inmates to participate in these prison rehabilitation programs and that, since county jails are not equipped to provide such services, there is no basis for granting good time for time served therein. If it were clear that the awarding of good time was based solely and exclusively on an evaluation of an inmate’s performance in such programs so endemic to the state prison system, the denial of good time for jail time might be understandable; however, this does not appear to be the case. Rather, it seems that the overriding consideration in the granting of good time reductions is the maintenance of prison discipline.” 332 F. Supp., at 977.
The court below noted that the disciplinary purpose of the statute is demonstrated by the fact that “a prisoner is immediately and automatically credited with a maximum allowance of good time credit for future good behavior at the time his minimum parole date is initially fixed upon his arrival in state prison. In effect, then, a prisoner does not 'earn’ good time credit as time goes on for exemplary performance in assorted prison programs but rather simply avoids being penalized for bad behavior.” The court then cited § 235 of New York Correction Law providing that good time may be withheld as “ 'punishment for offenses against the discipline of the prison or penitentiary’ (emphasis added) . . . .” 332 F. Supp., at 977-978.
The statements above do demonstrate a disciplinary purpose for the statute, but do not negate the rehabilitative one. There is nothing to show that good-time credit may not be revoked for failure of the inmate to participate acceptably in the State’s rehabilitative program as well as for disciplinary violations. Indeed, § 230 (3) requires loss of good time for “bad conduct, violation of prison rules or failure to perform properly duties assigned." (Emphasis added.)
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.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The. question presented is whether the United States, as the owner of Bellevue Houses, a defense-housing project in the District of Columbia, is a “landlord” within the meaning of the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act, with particular reference to rights of occupancy and rates of rental. For the reasons to be stated, we hold that it is not.
The United States of America, petitioner herein, filed its amended complaint in the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia against Wittek, the respondent, seeking possession of the premises occupied by him in the defense-housing project in the District of Columbia known 'as Bellevue Houses. The complaint alleged that the. premises were owned by the United States and that the housing accommodations had been constructed by the Navy Department under authority of § 201 of the Second Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act. 1941. This summary proceeding was brought under § 20, 31 Stat.' 1193, 41 Stat. 555, D. C. Code (1940) § 11-735. The respondent’s tenancy had been terminated by notice to quit, served upon him February 28, 1946, as required by § 1219, 31 Stat. 1382, D. C. Code (1940) § 45-902, and the United States claimed that he no longer had any right to possession. The respondent’s defense, now before us, is that the United States did not establish any of the additional facts which the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act required a landlord to establish as a condition of such landlord’s recovery of possession of housing accommodations to which the Act applied. The. parties agreed that the cause be disposed of by the Municipal Court upon the pleadings, pretrial stipulations and certain exhibits. That court found that it had jurisdiction, that the Emergency Rent Act did not apply to the United States as the landlord of the premises in question and it ordered possession of the premises to be given to the • United States. The Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allowed an appeal, iimited to two questions. It disposed of one by sustaining the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court. It answered the other by holding that the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act did apply to the United States as the landlord in this proceeding. It ordered the judgment reversed and the cause remanded to the Municipal Court of Appeals. 83 U. S. App. D. C. 377, 171 F. 2d 8. We granted certiorari because of the substantial importance of the decision to the administration of Government-owned, low-rent housing, as well as to Government-owned, defense housing, in the District of Columbia. 336 U. S. 931.
I. If the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act is now applied to Government-owned, defense housing in the District, such as Bellevue Houses, we are warned that we soon may be compelled to hold the same interpretation applicable to' Government-owned, low-rent housing in the.District.
When the circumstances are appreciated, it is practically inconceivable that. Congress would have subjected its Government-owned, low-rent housing program in the District of Columbia to the additional control prescribed by the District of Columbia.Emergency Rent Act. Yet the interpretation by which the court below held that Act applicable to the United States as a landlord of defense housing might make the Act equally applicable to the United States as a landlord of all other housing accommodations, including its low-rent housing. The District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act came beforé Congress, late in 1941, through and with- the support of the Congressional Committees on the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It was- designed as a model, prewar, temporary, emergency measure to forestall the skyrocketing of rentals of housing accommodations for defense workers then concentrating in the "district of Columbia. Obviously, it was directed, at least primarily, at private landlords. It sought to stabilize housing rentals at about the level of January 1, 1941, •which it selected as “a level fixed (so far as practicable) by free competition;....”
Congress traditionally has relied heavily upon its Committees on the District of Columbia in District matters. Through them it must have seen this measure in the light of its own long-term, low-rent housing program for the District. In appraising the attitude of these Committees and of Congress toward Government-owned, low-rent housing as a substitute for substandard housing in the District, it is impossible to overemphasize either the seriousness of the need or the long-standing concern of Congress about that need, The substandard housing in the District has been a frequent subject of congressional debate, study and legislation since the Civil War. The narrow alleys in the interior of 200 or more of the large downtown city blocks of the District, although unfit for habitation, have been notoriously congested with a large population for -which adequate housing never has existed. This condition has been widely publicized and only partial success has been attained through the efforts to improve it. Out of this need there has evolved a long-term congressional program to eliminate these substandard dwellings. Due to an obvious lack of suitable private housing, this program has led to the construction of a number of Government-built, owned and operated low-rent housing accommodations. In 1934, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Alley Dwelling Act, 48 Stat. 930, D. C. Code (1940) § 5-103, et seq. It authorized the President to acquire land adjacent to the inhabited alleys in the District, erect buildings thereon and rent them “upon such terms and conditions as he may determine:....” Pursuant to this Act, he designated the Chairman (officially entitled the President) of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, the Executive Officer (later the Director) of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Director of Housing of the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works to carry out its purposes. He named the group The Alley Dwelling Authority. In 1938, he substituted the Architect of the Capitol for the third official constituting the Authority, and, in 1943, he changed its name to that of the National Capital Housing Authority. It' is this presidentially designated Authority that has operated, for the United States, all of its low-rent housing projects in the District. It is this Authority that has fixed the rentals and passed upon the respective rights of tenants to occupy premises in those projects. Its composition, including two United States officials and the President of the Board of Commissioners of the District, demonstrates the incongruity of an attempt, such as is here suggested, to subject it to the control of the District’s Administrator of Rent Control, himself appointed by the Board of Commissioners of the District. The recognized responsibility of this Authority as a federal, housing agency further appears from the fact that, in due course, it was chosen by the Government to be the operating lessee of more than 5,000 Government-owned, defense-housing, dwelling units, which were built by the United States in or near the District, including the Bellevue Houses.
The issue before us does not turn upon what particular agency is operating the Bellevue Houses or the other Government-owned housing of the United States. The issue is'whether the-United States, through whatever agency it operates, is to be controlled in its rental policies by the District Administrator of Rent Control. In determining the meaning of the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act, approved December 2, 1941, which created the District Administrator of Rent Control, it therefore is material to note that the United States, in 1941, already was acting as a landlord of much Government-owned housing in the District and that, in each instance, it had placed those operations in the control of a.national or presir dentially designated authority or official with authorization fitted to the particular and varied purposes of that housing. This fact is of crucial significance in connection with the low-rent housing in the District which had been in operation for several years. Its distinctly social welfare and relief purposes already were in the hands of The Alley Dwelling Authority.
Beginning in 1934, The Alley Dwelling Authority built and put into operation five Government-owned, low-rent housing projects (including 112 dwelling units) and three commercial properties. In 1938, Title II was added to the District of Columbia AJley Dwelling Act, 52 Stat. 1188, D. C. Code (1940) §’5-|112, et seq.,.and the Authority was designated also- as $, public housing agency to carry out the purposes of the United States Housing Act.of 1937, 50 Stat. 888, et seq. See 42 U. S. C. (1940 ed.) § 14Q1, et seq. This enabled it. to secure loans to build low-rent, housing accommodations and its program promptly expanded. By the end of 1941 it had completed, under Title II, six more low-rent projects, including 1,613- dwelling units, and the Government’s brief in the instant case states that, it is now managing, under that Title, 3,147 such dwellings. The character of these dwellings is plain from the definition of “low-rent housing” in the Housing Act. This was prewar, poor-relief, low-rent housing, rather than defense housing. These projects were subsidized. The rentals were keyed to the inadequacy of the income of the respective tenants. The rentals did not purport to equal the- level of those fixed by free competition for comparable privately owned housing. It was an important feature of the operating policy of these projects that a tenant be dispossessed, or “graduated” as the Authority termed it, whenever that tenant’s financial needs no longer entitled him to the subsidized privileges. The inappropriateness of applying to such projects rentals based upon levels fixed by free com-. petition as of January 1, 1941, under the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act, is evident. That Act’s policy of rent control fostered the continuance of tenancies regardless of 'the financial status of the individual tenant. If applied to low-rent housing it would give vested rights to relief clients once installed, rather than to new clients in greater need.. In the absence of an express statement by Congress, it is not conceivable that Congress, with its familiarity with these relief operations of the United States, as the landlord of such low-rent, relief housing, would subject The Alley Dwelling Authority in. the rental policy of such housing to the control of a local Administrator of Rent Control under an Act designed to meet the problems of employed war workers rather than the problems of indigent families, already wholly or partially dependent upon public support. Such a subjection, however, apparently would follow-from the reasoning of the court below that the use by Congress of the general term “landlord,” in the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act, must subject the United- States, as the landlord of Government-owned, defense-housing accommodations, to the provisions of that Act. The District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act makes no distinction between the United States as a landlord'of low-rent housing and as a landlord of defense housing. If the Act applies to the Bellevue Houses, it apparently may be applied equally tb all of the activities of the United States as a landlord. Therefore, while the complaint in the instant case does riot seek.to dispossess a tenant of a Government-owned, low-rent housing unit, v¡e note the warning of Government counsel that, if we hold that the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act is applicable in the instant case, we soon may be compelled to hold it-applicable also to the United States as the landlord of low-rent housing.
II. The District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act does ■ not apply to Government-owned, defense housing in the District) such as the Bellevue Houses.
A. The Act contains no express reference to the United SfatÉS as a landlord or to the application of the Act to Government-owned housing of any kind. A general statute imposing restrictions does not impose them upon the Government itself without a clear expression or implication to that effect. The text, surrounding circumstances and legislative history of this District Act neither express nor imply a change in the authority already vested in permanent federal agencies in their management of the Government-owned housing in the District. The District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act thus appears to have been enacted as a temporary measure supplementing, rather than superseding, the contribution already being made by the permanent federal housing authorities toward meeting the housing crisis. We find no evidence that Congress believed that the managers of any of its housing projects in the District would be “tempted •... to demand exorbitant rentals” or engage in the “rent-gouging practices...” against which the new Act was directed. It seems obvious that the need for District rent control was not in the operation of Government-owned housing, where the Federal Government already had complete control over the rentals, but was in the operation of privately owned housing, where neither the Federal nor District. Government had any control..
B. Government-owned, defense housing did not require the new rental control, in the District, that Congress imposed upon privately owned housing by the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act. The increasing number of Government-owned, defense-housing units testified to the satisfaction of Congress and of.the Administration with such projects. Rental rates in them were under complete governmental control. At the time of the enactment of the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act, December 2, 1941, defense housing could be constructed in the District, and elsewhere, under § 201 of the Sécond Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act, 1941, approved September 9, 1940, 54 Stat. 872, 883, or. under the Lanham Act, approved October 14, 1940, 54 Stat. 1125. Bellevue Houses were built by the Navy under the first of those Acts. The rent control of defense housing under that Act was, in the first instance, expressly vested in the discretion of the Secretary of War or of the Navy, and the tenants were restricted to war workers. This provision was amended, June 28, 1941, so as to give to the agencies administering that housing the same powers and" duties as had been given to the Federal Works Administrator as to defense housing constructed under the Lanham Act. The rental policy under the Lanham Act, at that time, provided: “That the [Federal Works] Administrator shall fix fair rentals, on projects developed pursuant to this Act, which shall be within the financial» reach of persons engaged in national defense:....” (Emphasis supplied.) § 7, 54 Stat. 1127, renumbered § 304> 55 Stat. 363. This rental policy was thus expressly fitted to the purposes of the defense housing. Those purposes did not call for its further subordination to the control of a District Administrator of. Rent Control under other statutory standards fitted to private landlords. This special defense-housing rental policy was further expressly emphasized by Congress in another amendment made applicable to the Lanham Act defense housing January 21, 1942. Therefore, whether or not these further provisions were also to be applicable to Bellevue Houses, which had been constructed under an earlier Act, they became applicable to the many Government-owned, defense-housing units constructed in the District under the Lanham Act. Congress thus evidenced its purpose to insist upon special standards of rentals for its defense housing. It is significant that it did so by Acts approved June 28, 1941, and January. 21, 1942. One was enacted before, and the other after, the enactment of the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act on December 2, 1941. This emphasis was repeated on April 10, 1942, in a manner which demonstrated still fürther that Congress, in its consideration of the Lanham Act, had'not overlooked the substantial extent to which that Act related to the construction of defense housing in the District of Columbia. On that date Congress amended the Lanham Act with special reference to' operations in the District. It added Title IV. This authorized a $30,000,000 appropriation “to provide housing in or near the District of Columbia (including living quarters for single persons and for families) for employees of the United States whose duties are determined by the National Housing Administrator to be essential to national defense and to require them to reside in or near the District of Columbia.” 56 Stat. 212, 42 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 1561. The rental control provisions amended on January 21, 1942 (see note 21, supra), already were applicable to such housing. The very § 304 which contained those amended rental control provisions was further amended so as expressly to in elude, the District of Columbia in the term “local municipalities” to which land could be conveyed for street or other public use incidental to a project. See 54 Stat. 1127, 55 Stat. 363, 56 Stat, 212, 42 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 1544...
In the light of the foregoing express provisions for the control of rents in the public interest on Government-owned, defense-housing projects, there is no ground for implication that the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act conflicts with it.
III. The National Emergency Price Control Act of 19J¡.2 emphasizes the conclusion that the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act does not apply to Government-owned housing, in the District.
Although the National Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, approved January 30, 1942, expressly empowered the National Price Administrator, under certain limitations, to establish maximum rentals in so-called defense-rental areas, he never did so in the District of Columbia. That Act, therefore, does not have a direct application to the issue in this case. However, the language of that Act and its policy toward the rent control of Government-owned, housing accommodations, both inside and outside of the District of Columbia, has a bearing upon the proper construction of the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act. The National Act is not only consistent with our interpretation of the District Act but it lends support to that interpretation. The National Act left the control over rent to local authorities, except where the National Price Administrator found it necessary to intervene. The decision of the National Price Administrator not to intervene in the District of Columbia was an especial compliment to the existing controls, because the District of Columbia.was a typical area calling for competent rent control and, in fact, had been declared by the statute itself to be a “defense-rental area....” § 302 (d), 56 Stat. 36, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 942 (d). His satisfaction with the conditions in the District indicates that the local practice followed by the District Administrator of Rent Control, in not attempting to fix the rentals in Government-owned housing, had produced no conditions which seemed to the National Price Administrator to call for federal intervention. A still more significant point is that, if he had intervened, under the National Act, he, and not the District Administrator of Rent, Control, would have been the 'one vested with control over the rental policy of the Government-owned/ housing accommodations.
In contrast to the omission, in the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act, of any express reference to the United States as a landlord, the National Act expressly included the United States as a “person” to whom it applied. Thus, within two months after the omission of the United States from such a definition in the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act, Congress demonstrated that, when it sought to include control of Government-owned housing under conditions where the éstablished procedures and local controls might fail to meet the needs of the times, it expressly said so. The same section provided that the punishments prescribed for private violators did not apply to the United States.
The National Price Administrator, however, never published any regulations even potentially applicable to the District of Columbia. On the other hand, he did publish regulations stating his general policy as to Government-owned, housing accommodations elsewhere which might come under his control. Such regulations stated that, for housing constructed and owned by the United States, a state or any political subdivision of either, the maximum rents were to be those generally prevailing for comparable housing accommodations on the maximum rent date “as determined by the ownér of such accommodations:....” Similarly, for housing accommodations rented to Army or Navy personnel, including civilian employees of the War and Navy Departments, for which rent, is fixed by the national rent schedule of the War or Navy Departments, the maximum rents were. to be those established by such rent schedule.
Later, when Congress enacted the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 193-201, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed., Supp. I) '§§ 1881-1901, it expressly excluded the District of Columbia from the Act and struck out the previous express inclusion of the United States as a “person” subject to the Act.
The effect of the National Emergency Price Control Act, therefore, is to emphasize, both in its form and its practical operation, that Congress did not seek by the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act to place Government-owned housing under a local rent administrator.
IV. The District Administrator of Rent Control has not taken part in this proceeding and there is no evidence before us that at any time he has sought to exercise jurisdiction over the United States as a landlord of ■ either low-rent housing or defense housing.
The District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act has been in effect since 1941 and the United States as landlord has owned and operated several thousand housing units in the District. There is nothing in the Rules and Regulations or the General Orders of the Office of the Administrator of Rent Control suggesting the application of the Act to the United States as a landlord of Government-owned housing. The absence of evidence of asserted control by the District official, coupled with the absence of complaint by the National Price Administrator during the life of the National Emergency Price Control Act, is thoroughly. consistent with a widely accepted interpretation of the local Act in accordance with the conclusion which we have found to be fully justified by the language of Congress.
The judgment accordingly is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The District, of Columbia Emergency Rent Act was approved December 2, 1941, 55 Stat. 788, D. C. Code (1940, Supp. VI) §§ 45-1601 to 45-1611. It took effect January 1, 1942, and was to terminate December 31, 1945. Id. §§ 2(1), 1 (b); § 45-1602 (1); and see § 45-1601 (b). Its life, however, was extended to December 31, 1946, 59 Stat. 592; to December 31, 1947, 60 Stat. 340; to March 31, 1948, 61 Stat. 713; to April 30, 1948, 62 Stat. 100; to March 31, 1949, 62 Stat. 205; to April 30, 1949, 63 Stat. 30; to June 30, 1950,, 63 Stat. 48. It has been amended in a few other provisions, none of which are material here.
Approved September 9, 1940, 54 Stat. 883-884. The management and administration of Bellevue Houses were transferred by the Navy Department to the National Housing Administration under authorization of this section and also under § 7 of the Lanham Act. approved October 14,-1940, 54 Stat. 1125, 1127,42 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 1544, and Executive Order No. 9070, 3 C. F. R. Cum. Supp. 1095, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 601 note, p. 5711. The authority to operate and manage Bellevue Houses later was delegated, by lease, to the National Capital Housing Authority, which was responsible for the rental of the premises involved in the instant case at the time of this proceeding. In making, this delegation, the United States relied upon the same Acts, together with § 5 of the Act of June 28,1941, 55 Stat. 363, and amendments made to the Lanham Act by the Act of January 21,1942,56 Stat. 11, et seq.
The amended complaint, the proceedings and- the opinions below refer also-to allegations, stipulations-and evidence to the effect that the United States had rented the premises in question to the respondent for $38.20 a month, including gas heating and other utility services, but that it had increased such rental to $43 a month, beginning February 1, 1946. The United States claimed that this increase was essential m order for it to meet a substantial rise in operating expenses, due to the necessary substitution of commercial gas to be used for space heating purposes in place of surplus sludge gas supplied by the District of Columbia free or at nominal cost.'The United States also alleged that the respondent refused to execute a new lease and refused to pay rent at the increased rate, with the result that, on February 28, 1946, it served its 30-day notice terminating the respondent’s tenancy. It further alleged that this increase in rent had been made under its previously cited authority to operate the project and without reference to the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act. This increase in rent presents (under §§ 2’ to 4 of that Act, D. C. Code (1940, Supp. VI) §§,45-1602 to 45-1604) the same issue, based upon the • applicability of the'Act to the United States as a'landlord, as is presented (under §5 (b), D. C. Code (1940, Supp. VI) §45-1605 (b)). by the maintenance of this proceeding for possession of the premises in question without making any of the additional allegations called for. by that Act. We deal with the issue as presented under § 5 (b) because- it is there less involved in factual controversy than it is under §§ 2 to 4.
“Sec. 5. Prohibitions. —...
“(b) No action or proceeding to recover possession of housing accommodations shall be maintainable by any landlord against any tenant, notwithstanding that the tenant.has no lease or that his lease has expired, so long as the tenant continues to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled, 'unless—
“(1) The tenant is (a) violating an obligation of his tenancy (other than arf obligation to pay rent higher than rent permitted under this Act or any regulation or order thereunder applicable to' the housing accommodations involved or an obligation to surrender possession of such accommodations) or (b) is committing a nuisance or using the housing accommodations for an immoral or illegal purpose or for other than living or dwelling purposes, or
“ (2) The landlord seeks in- good faith to recover possession of the property for his immediate and personal use and occupancy as a dwelling, or
“(3) The landlord has mr-good faith contracted in writing to sell -the property for immediate and personal use and occupancy as a dwelling by the purchaser and that the contract of sale contains a representation by the purchaser that the property is being purchased by him for Such immediate and personal use and occupancy, or
“(4) The landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession for the immediate purpose of substantially altering, remodeling, or demolishing the property and replacing it with new construction, the plans for which altered, remodeled, or new construction having been filed with and approved by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, or
“(5) The housing accommodations are nonhousekeeping, furnished, accommodations located within a single dwelling unit not used as a rooming or boarding house as defined by this Act and the remaining portion of which dwelling unit is occupied by the lessor or his immediate family, or
“(6) The landlord, being a recognized school or an accredited nonprofit university, has a bona fide need for the premises for educational, research', administrativé, or dormitory use.” 55 Stat. 791, 56 Stat. 759, 61 Stat.- 721, D. C. Code (1940, Supp.
VI) §45-1605 (b).
Wittek v. United States, 54 A. 2d 747. For an earlier.proceeding in the same case, see United States v. Wittek, 48 A. 2d 805.
Appeal was taken under 56 Stat. 196, D. C. Code (1940, Supp. VI) § 11-773. The question now before us was stated as follows: “Whether the conditions imposed by the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act on suits for possession apply where such a suit is brought by the United States as landlord.” Wittek v. United States, 83. U. S. App. D. C. 377, 378, 171 F. 2d 8, 9.
"Section 1. Purposes, Time Limit. — (a) It is hereby found that'the national emergency and the national-defense program (1) have aggravated the congested situation with regard to housing accommodations existing at the seat of government; (2) have led or will lead to profiteering and other speculative and manipulative practices by some owners of housing accommodations; (3) have rendered or will render ineffective the normal operations of a free market in housing accommodations; and (4) are making it increasingly difficult for persons whose duties or obligations require them to live or work in the District of Columbia to obtain such accommodations. Whereupon it is the purpose of this Act and the policy of the Congress during the existing emergency to prevent undue rent increases and any other practices relating to housing accommodations in the District of Columbia which may tend to increase the cost of living or otherwise impede the national-defense program.
“(b) The provisions of this Act, and all regulations, orders, and requirements thereunder, shall terminate on December 31,1945';..'..” (Emphasis supplied.) 55 Stat. 788, D. C. Code (1940, Supp. VI) § 45-1601.
In seven steps the termination date has been extended to June 30* 1950. See note 1, supra.
The Committee Reports refer by implication to private landlords, rather than to the United States — either as the established landlord of the widespread, low-rent housing in the District or as the landlord of the future defense housing then being developed in the District., by the United States as an additional means of combating the housing shortage.
“With a population influx at a higher rate than ever before in it's history, the Nation’s Capital today is faced with a demand, for housing accommodations which threatens to create a situation more serious than that existing during the last war. The present demand for living quarters on the part of those whom the defense effort requires to live, and work in Washington, has tempted some owners and managers of rental properties to demand exorbitant rentals. It is true, and gratifying to note, that a large majority of owners and managers have refrained from.taking advantage of the rental situation created by the national emergency as it affects the Nation’s Capital. This bill is designed to protect this group as well as present and future tenants in the District of Columbia, from the rent-gouging practices of a minority of landlords.
“The most appropriate regulation of. rental properties to meet the present emergency-situation is regulation designed to stabilize the rent level at a level fixed (so far as practicable) by free competition; _ competition before it was seriously affected by an acute housing shortage and by restrictions on new construction caused by shortages in certain, building materials' required by the military needs of the-' Nation.
“It is particularly appropriate that the Congress immediately enact legislation of this type for the Nation's Capital — legislation that may serve as a model for enactments by States which may desire control for those areas within their borders suffering from similar rental housing dislocations caused, by- the national emergency and the national-defense program.” (Emphasis, supplied.) H. R. Rep. No. 1317,77th Cong., 1st Sess. 2, 6 (1941).
And see S. Rep. No. 827, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1941). See Iso, discussion of the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives by Representative Randolph of West Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, 87 Cong. Rec., Pt. 8, 8447-8454-(194I).
The nature of the need was reflected in the original statement of the purpose of the Act.
“..'. to enable the President, in the interest of public health, comfort, morals, safety, and welfare, to provide for the discontinuance of the use as dwellings of buildings situated in alleys and to eliminate the hidden communities in inhabited alleys of the District of Columbia, and to carry out the policy declared in the Act approved May 16, 1918, as amended, of caring for the alley population of' the District of Columbia, the President is hereby authorized and empowered,... —■.
“(a) To purchase, or acquire by condemnation or gift, any land, buildings, or structures, or any interest therein, situated in or adjacent to any inhabited alley in the District of Columbia,... ; •
“(b)... to demolish, move, or alter any buildings or structures situated thereon and erect such buildings or structures thereon as deemed advisable:... ;
“(c) To lease, rent, maintain, equip, manage, exchange, sell, or convey any such lands, buildings, or structures upon such terms and conditions as he may determine:....” (Emphasis supplied.) 48 Stat. 930-931.
See also, 52 Stat. 1186, D. C. Code (1940) § 5-103.
Executive Order No. 6868, October 9, 1934 (published in,Report of the National Capital Housing Authority for the Ten-Year Period 1934-1944, p. 3), and see Executive Order No. 8033, 3 C. F. R. Cum. Supp. 443. This was pursuant to the authorization contained in 48 Stat. 931, D. C. Code (1940) §5-104.''
Executive Order No. 7784-A, 3 Fed. Reg. 51 (1938).
Executive Order No. 9344, 3 C. F. R. Cum. Supp. 1279.
For» this and the other.factual material.relating to this Authority, see Report of the National Capital Housing Authority for the TenYéar Period 1934H944, submitted by.it to the President December 28, 1944, and by him to Congress March Í, 1945, 91 Cong. Rec., Pt. 2, 1597 (1945). See also, the-Annual Reports of this Authority to the President,.all required by § 5 (a) and (b) of the District of Columbia' Alley Dwelling Act, 48 Stat. 932, D. C. Code (1940) § 5-107 (a) and (b).
“Sec. 2. When used in this Act—
“(1) The term ‘low-rent housing’ means decent, safe, and sanitary-dwellings within the financial reach of families of low income, and developed and administered to promote serviceability, efficiency, economy, and stability, and embraces all necessary appurtenances thereto. The dwellings in low-rent, housing as defined in this Act shall be available solely for families whose net income
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 petitioner is a labor organization. The respondent is a company engaged in the business of providing dump trucks and drivers, as a subcontractor on highway construction, with its principal place of business at Tiffin, Ohio. The petitioner represented the respondent’s employees from 1950 until 1956 under an oral agreement. In 1956 the parties engaged in negotiations for a written agreement. An impasse in bargaining precipitated a strike which lasted from August to October of that year. During the strike the petitioner engaged in secondary activities involving some of the respondent’s customers and suppliers, for the purpose of inducing them to cease doing business with the respondent. Claiming that these activities were unlawful both under § 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U. S. C. § 187, and under the common law of Ohio, the respondent sued the petitioner in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, claiming damages for business losses caused by the petitioner’s allegedly unlawful conduct during the strike.
After a trial without a jury, the District Court found that the petitioner had encouraged the employees of France Stone Co., a supplier of the respondent, and the employees of C. A. Schoen, Inc., and O’Connel Coal Co., customers of respondent, to force their employers to cease doing business with the respondent, in violation of § 303 of the federal Act. The court awarded the respondent some $1,600 damages for business losses caused by this violation of federal law. The court also determined that during the strike the petitioner had persuaded the management of Launder & Son, Inc., another of the respondent’s customers, to refrain from doing business with the respondent. Since there had been no approach to Launder’s employees, the court held that the request to Launder management was permissible activity under federal law, but ruled that this conduct violated the common law of Ohio, which, the court said, prohibits “making direct appeals to a struck employer’s customers or suppliers to stop doing business with the struck employer . . . .” The respondent was accordingly awarded almost $9,000 as compensatory damages for this violation of Ohio law. In addition, the court awarded the respondent more than $9,000 for the loss of a contract to haul sand for the Wilson Sand & Gravel Co., which loss had resulted from an insufficient number of drivers available during the strike to perform the contract. This award was based upon the court’s reasoning that the respondent was entitled to recover damages measured by all of the profits lost as a result of the petitioner’s total strike activity, so long as some of that activity was unlawful. Finally, the court awarded punitive damages of $15,000, although expressly finding that the petitioner’s conduct during the strike had at all times been free of any violence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the award in all respects. Relying on the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction, Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U. S. 238, and cases involving union violence, e. g., Flame Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers, 303 F. 2d 39, the appellate court concluded that "[a] nonfederal cause of action is not extinguished because a state court is pre-empted by federal law from providing relief,” and that “punitive damages are recoverable for unlawful secondary boycott activities . Certiorari was granted to consider the issues of federal labor law which this case presents. 375 U. S. 939.
At the outset we affirm the award of compensatory damages for the violation of § 303 of the federal Act. The District Court found that “the defendant encouraged the employees of the O’Connel Company to stop using plaintiff’s trucks for the purpose of forcing or requiring the O’Connel Company to cease doing business with the plaintiff . . . .” This finding of a clear violation of § 303 was supported by the evidence, as was the amount of damages awarded therefor.
With respect to the remaining components of the money judgment recovered by the respondent, the central question to be decided is whether a court, state or federal, is free to apply state law in awarding damages resulting from a union’s peaceful strike conduct vis-á-vis a secondary employer, or is confined in the field of damage actions brought for union secondary activities to the specifically limited provisions of § 303 of the federal Act. We disagree with the Court of Appeals that this question can be resolved either by reference to the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction or by reference to the line of precedents which have permitted state law to be applied in situations where union activities involving violence were present.
If the provisions of § 303 mark the limits beyond which a court, state or federal, may not go in awarding damages for a union's secondary activities, then the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction can be of no service. Pendent jurisdiction permits a federal court under some circumstances to determine a state cause of action which otherwise would have to be heard in the state court. Hum v. Oursler, supra. But if the state court would be without authority to award damages under state law, then the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction can give “the District Court ... no greater power to do so.” Lauf v. Skinner & Co., 303 U. S. 323, 328.
And in cases involving union violence, state law has been permitted to prevail by reason of controlling considerations which are entirely absent in the present case. “ [W] e have allowed the States to grant compensation for the consequences, as defined by the traditional law of torts, of conduct marked by violence and imminent threats to the public order. United Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U. S. 634; United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Corp., 347 U. S. 656. . . . State jurisdiction has prevailed in these situations because the compelling state interest, in the scheme of our federalism, in the maintenance of domestic peace is not overridden in the absence of clearly expressed congressional direction. ... In the present case there is no such compelling state interest.” San Diego Bldg. Trades v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 247-248.
It is the respondent's contention, however, that since the petitioner union's peaceful conduct was neither arguably-protected under § 7 nor arguably prohibited under § 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the trial court was free to award damages on the basis of state law for injuries caused by this conduct. But even though it may be assumed that at least some of the secondary activity here involved was neither protected nor prohibited, it is still necessary to determine whether by enacting § 303, “Congress occupied this field and closed it to state regulation.” Automobile Workers v. O’Brien, 339 U. S. 454, 457. The basic question, in other words, is whether “in a case such as this, incompatible doctrines of local law must give way to principles of federal labor law.” Teamsters Local 174 v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, 102. The answer to that question ultimately depends upon whether the application of state law in this kind of case would operate to frustrate the purpose of the federal legislation. Colorado Anti-Discrimination Comm’n v. Continental Air Lines, 372 U. S. 714, 722.
Section 303 (b) of the Labor Management Relations Act expressly authorizes state and federal courts to award damages to any person injured by certain secondary boycott activities described in § 303 (a). The type of conduct to be made the subject of a private damage action was considered by Congress, and § 303 (a) comprehensively and with great particularity “describes and condemns specific union conduct directed to specific objectives.” Carpenters Local 1976 v. Labor Board, 357 U. S. 93, 98. In selecting which forms of economic pressure should be prohibited by § 303, Congress struck the “balance . . . between the uncontrolled power of management and labor to further their respective interests,” id,., at 100, by “preserving the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear, on offending employers in primary labor disputes and [by] shielding unoffending employers and others from pressures in controversies not their own.” Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. & Construction Trades Council, 341 U. S. 675, 692.
In this case, the petitioner’s request to Launder’s management to cease doing business with the respondent was not proscribed by the Act. “[A] union is free to approach an employer to persuade him to engage in a boycott, so long as it refrains from the specifically prohibited means of coercion through inducement of employees.” Carpenters Local 1976 v. Labor Board, supra. at 99. This weapon of self-help, permitted by federal law, formed an integral part of the petitioner’s effort to achieve its bargaining goals during negotiations with the respondent. Allowing its use is a part of the balance struck by Congress between the conflicting interests of the union, the employees, the employer and the community. Electrical Workers Local 761 v. Labor Board, 366 U. S. 667, 672. If the Ohio law of secondary boycott can be applied to proscribe the same type of conduct which Congress focused upon but did not proscribe when it enacted § 303, the inevitable result would be to frustrate the congressional determination to leave this weapon of self-help available, and to upset the balance of power between labor and management expressed in our national labor policy. “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.” Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, 500. We hold, therefore, that the damages awarded against the petitioner based upon its peaceful persuasion of Launder’s management not to do business with the respondent during the strike cannot stand.
The same considerations require reversal of the award of punitive damages. Punitive damages for violations of § 303 conflict with the congressional judgment, reflected both in the language of the federal statute and in its legislative history, that recovery for an employer’s business losses caused by a union’s peaceful secondary activities proscribed by § 303 should be limited to actual, compensatory damages. And insofar as punitive damages in this case were based on secondary activities which violated only state law, they cannot stand, because, as we have held, substantive state law in this area must yield to federal limitations. In short, this is an area “of judicial decision within which the policy of the law is so dominated by the sweep of federal statutes that legal relations which they affect must be deemed governed by federal law having its source in those statutes, rather than by local law.” Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co., 317 U. S. 173, 176. Accordingly, we hold that since state law has been displaced by § 303 in private damage actions based on peaceful union secondary activities, the District Court in this case was without authority to award punitive damages.
There remains for consideration only the question of the damage award for the respondent’s loss of the Wilson account. The respondent conceded at trial that there was “no evidence of unlawful activity in connection with this [the Wilson] job,” and the record makes clear that the respondent lost the Wilson account because his drivers were discouraged from working during the strike by the petitioner’s primary strike activity. Since § 303 (b) authorizes an award of damages only in the event of injury “by reason of any violation of subsection (a)” and peaceful primary strike activity does not violate § 303 (a), Electrical Workers Local 761 v. Labor Board, 366 U. S. 667, 672, the District Court was without power to award damages proximately caused by lawful, primary activities, even though the petitioner may have contemporaneously engaged in unlawful acts elsewhere. See Chauffeurs Local 175 v. Labor Board, 294 F. 2d 261.
The judgment is vacated and the case remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 provided:
“(a) It shall be unlawful, for the purposes of this section only, in an industry or activity affecting commerce, for any labor organization to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is—
“(1) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor or employer organization or any employer or other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person;
“(2) forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 159 of this title;
“(3) forcing or requiring any employer to recognize or bargain with a particular labor organization as the representative of his employees if another labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 159 of this title;
“(4) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the National Labor Relations Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work. Nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to make unlawful a refusal by any person to enter upon the premises of any employer (other than his own employer), if the employees of such employer are engaged in a strike ratified or approved by a representative of such employees whom such employer is required to recognize under áubchapter II of this chapter.
“(b) Whoever shall be injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of subsection (a) of this section may sue therefor in any district court of the United States subject to the limitations and provisions of section 185 of this title without respect to the amount in controversy, or in any other court having jurisdiction of the parties, and shall recover the damages by him sustained and the cost of the suit.” 61 Stat. 158, 29 U. S. C. § 187.
Certain amendments to § 303 were made by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 545, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 187, but these amendments are not germane to the questions presented in this case.
200 F. Supp. 653, 658-659.
Id., at 661.
/A, at 656, 661.
Id., at 656, 658, 661.
Id., at 661.
320 F. 2d 505.
Id., at 507.
Id., at 508.
200 F. Supp., at 659.
No damages were awarded with respect to the petitioner’s dealings with the employees of France Stone Co. or C. A. Schoen, Inc.
See note 1, supra.
Section 8 (b) (4), 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b) (4), and § 303, 29 U. S. C. § 187, “have an identity of language” but specify two “different remedies.” Longshoremen v. Juneau Corp., 342 U. S. 237, 244. Section 8 (b) (4) provides that certain conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice for which an administrative remedy is afforded. The same conduct under § 303 also gives rise to a claim for damages cognizable in either state or federal courts. As a consequence of the 1959 amendments to the Act, § 303 now incorporates by reference the prohibitions embodied in § 8 (b)(4).
No claim has been made that Launder’s voluntary compliance with the petitioner’s request, unsupported by any consideration, amounted to an “agreement, express or implied” under § 8 (e) of the Act, added by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 158 (e).
Section 303 (b) provides in pertinent part that “[wjhoever shall be injured in his business or property . . . shall recover the damages by him sustained , . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
In the Senate debate on the bill, Senator Taft said, "... I see no reason why suits of this sort should not be permitted to be filed. After all, it is only to restore to people who lose something because of boycotts and jurisdictional strikes the money which they have lost.” 93 Cong. Rec. 4858. Later, in response to Senator Morse’s claim that § 303 would impose virtually unlimited liability, Senator Taft said, “Under the Sherman Act the same question of boycott damage is subject to a suit for damages and attorneys’ fees. In this case we simply provide for the amount of the actual damages.” 93 Cong. Rec. 4872-4873.
See United Mine Workers v. Patton, 211 F. 2d 742, 747-750; Overnite Transportation Co. v. Teamsters, 257 N. C. 18, 125 S. E. 2d 277, cert. denied, 371 U. S. 862.
It is argued that the petitioner’s unlawful secondary activities made more effective the petitioner’s attempts to discourage employees of the respondent from working during the strike. But there is nothing in the record to indicate, and no finding by the trial court, that the petitioner’s secondary activities which were unlawful under § 303 had any effect whatsoever on the respondent’s employees’ decisions not to work during the strike.
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 Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
One Cunningham applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to authorize extension of his existing motor carrier route. A railroad and eleven motor carriers, including appellee, intervened to oppose. The issues were referred to an examiner who after hearing recommended that, with exceptions not material here, a certificate be granted. Appellee excepted, whereupon Division 5 of the Commission, in substance, approved the recommendation. Appellee requested reconsideration by the full Commission, which was denied, and then petitioned for “extraordinary relief,” which also was refused. The Commission thereupon issued a certificate to Cunningham. Appellee, upon the ground that .the evidence did not show need for the additional transportation service, petitioned the District Court to set aside the certificate and order. The Commission and the United States answered and a three-judge court was convened.
On the day appointed for hearing, appellee moved for leave to amend its petition to raise, for the first time, a contention that the Commission’s action was invalid for want of jurisdiction because the examiner had not been appointed pursuant to § 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The District Court allowed amendment and, upon proof that the appointment had not been in accordance with that Act, invalidated the order and certificate without going into the merits of the issue tendered in the original complaint. This appeal by the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission raises but a single question — whether such an objection, first made at that stage of the proceedings, was not erroneously entertained. We hold that it was.
Appellee did not offer nor did the court require any excuse for its failure to raise the objection upon at least one of its many opportunities during the administrative proceeding. Appellee does not claim to have been misled or in any way hampered in ascertaining the facts about the examiner’s appointment. It did not bestir itself to learn the facts until long after the administrative proceeding was closed and months after the case was at issue in the District Court, at which time the Commission promptly supplied the facts upon which the contention was based and sustained.
The apparent reason for complacency was that it was not actually prejudiced by the conduct or manner of appointment of the examiner. There is no suggestion that he exhibited bias, favoritism or unfairness. Nor is there ground for assuming it from the relationships in the proceeding. He did not act and was not expected to act both as prosecutor and judge. The Commission, which appointed him, did not institute or become a party in interest to the proceeding. Neither it nor its examiner had any function except to decide justly between contestants in an adversary proceeding. The issue is clearly an afterthought, brought forward at the last possible moment to undo the administrative proceedings without consideration of the merits and can prevail only from technical compulsion irrespective of considerations of practical justice.
In Riss & Co. v. United States, 341 U. S. 907, this Court held that officers hearing applications for certificates of convenience and necessity under § 207 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act are subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. But timeliness of the objection was not before us, because in that case the examiner’s appointment had been twice challenged in the administrative proceedings, once, as it should have been, before the examiner at the hearings and again before the Commission on a petition for rehearing. That decision established only that a litigant in such a case as this who does make such demand at the time of hearing is entitled to an examiner chosen as the Act prescribes.
We have recognized in more than a few decisions, and Congress has recognized in more than a few statutes, that orderly procedure and good administration require that objections to the proceedings of an administrative agency be made while it has opportunity for correction in order to raise issues reviewable by the courts. It is urged in this case that the Commission had a predetermined policy on this subject which would have required it to overrule the objection if made. While this may well be true, the Commission is obliged to deal with a large number of like cases. Repetition of the objection in them might lead to a change of policy, or, if it did not, the Commission would at least be put on notice of the accumulating risk of wholesale reversals being incurred by its persistence. Simple fairness to those who are engaged in the tasks of administration, and to litigants, requires as a general rule that courts should not topple over administrative decisions unless the administrative body not only has erred but has erred against objection made at the time appropriate under its practice.
It is argued, however, that this case falls outside of this general rule and the result below is technically compelled because, if the appointment of the hearing examiner was irregular, the Commission in some manner lost jurisdiction and its order is totally void. This inference is drawn from our decision in Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, for it is contended we could not have sustained a collateral attack by writ of habeas corpus in that case unless we found the defect in that examiner’s appointment to be one of jurisdictional magnitude. We need not inquire what should have been the result upon that case had the Government denied or the Court considered whether the objection there sustained was taken in time. The effect of the omission was not there raised in briefs or argument nor discussed in the opinion of the Court. Therefore, the case is not a binding precedent on this point. Even as to our own judicial power or jurisdiction, this Court has followed the lead of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall who held that this Court is not bound by a prior exercise of jurisdiction in a case where it was not questioned and it was passed sub silentio.
The question not being foreclosed by precedent, we hold that the defect in the examiner’s appointment was an irregularity which would invalidate a resulting order if the Commission had overruled an appropriate objection made during the hearings. But it is not one which deprives the Commission of power or jurisdiction, so that even in the absence of timely objection its order should be set aside as a nullity.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court for determination on the merits.
Reversed.
49 U. S. C. § 307.
5 U. S. C. §1010.
100 F. Supp. 432.
Our decision in the Riss case was announced after the administrative proceeding herein, but before the District Court’s hearing. Riss apparently prompted appellee to raise the point about the examiner’s qualifications in the District Court.
Spiller v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 253 U. S. 117, 130; United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner, 273 U. S. 103, 113; United States v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 288 U. S. 490, 494; Unemployment Compensation Commission of Alaska v. Aragon, 329 U. S. 143, 155.
Section 9 (a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. §77i; §25 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78y; § 24 of the Public Utility Plolding Company Act, 15 U. S. C. § 79x; § 10 of the Pair Labor Standards Act, 29 U. S. C. §210; § 10 (e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (e).
The Government informs us that in about five thousand cases commenced after the effective date of the Administrative Procedure Act, orders are for an indefinite period vulnerable to attack if no timely objection during the administrative process is required. The policy of the Commission is to grant application for rehearing in cases where applicant made the objection before the examiner. Since its established practice is not to consider issues not raised before the examiner, it will refuse rehearings in other cases.
Webster v. Fall, 266 U. S. 507.
United States v. More, 3 Cranch 159, 172; Snow v. United States, 118 U. S. 346, 354; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82, 87; Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott, 191 U. S. 225, 236; Arant v. Lane, 245 U. S. 166, 170.
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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This direct appeal from a final judgment of a three-judge District Court is but another episode in the long and continued struggle between the railroads and competing barge lines. In 1960 the Interstate Commerce Commission issued an order permitting a departure from the long- and short-haul provision of § 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act. 310 I. C. C. 437. This order permitted the New York Central and connecting carriers to inaugurate a rate structure on its Belt Line west of Kankakee, Illinois, to eastern destinations under which lower rates were charged for some long hauls than for shorter ones on the same route. The District Court approved this action by dismissing a complaint to set aside the order. 209 F. Supp. 744. We noted probable jurisdiction, 374 U. S. 823, and now reverse the judgment with directions that the District Court vacate the order of the Commission and remand for further consideration in light of this opinion.
I.
The New York Central operates the Kankakee Belt Line, which extends from South Bend, Indiana, through Kankakee, Illinois, and westward to Zearing, Illinois. That portion of the line west of Kankakee to Moronts, Illinois, roughly parallels the Illinois River in Northern Illinois and is used, in large part, to transport corn toward eastern markets. In the mid-1930’s, the Illinois River was developed for barge movement and almost all of the corn traffic was drawn away from the rails to the river, corn being moved to Chicago by barge and then shipped to the East by rail. Prior to 1957, barge rates from ports along the Illinois River to Chicago averaged 4.625(4 per hundred pounds of corn. From Chicago to eastern destinations, rail rates were 49(4 per hundred pounds of corn and 49.5(4 for corn products, so that the total shipping cost from ports on the Illinois River to the East was 53.625(4 for corn and 54.125(4 for corn products. At the same time, rates for shipping corn via all-rail routes from origins on the Belt Line to eastern markets averaged 72(4 for corn and 72.5(5 for corn products, computed either as through rates or as a combination of a 23(4 rail rate to Chicago and the 490 or 49.5(5 rate from Chicago to the East.
The railroads chose to meet the barge competition by establishing a new rate structure on December 15, 1956, with a proportional rate for rail shipments of corn to Kankakee which was competitive with the barge rate to Chicago. The railroads continued the regular rates for transportation of corn to Kankakee from points on the Belt Line but allowed credit on reshipment from Kan-kakee to eastern points which resulted in a net rate of 60 for transportation from Belt Line points to Kankakee. The 60 proportional rate applies only if the corn is milled in transit and only if it is reshipped to the East. Because of the credit, the resulting rate system favors eastbound shipments of corn from Belt Line points west of Kanka-kee over similar shipments via the same route starting at Kankakee. For this reason the rate structure violates the long- and short-haul prohibition of § 4 of the Act and the railroads had to apply for authority for fourth-section departures. In 1957 a temporary fourth-section order was entered authorizing the filing and immediate application of the rates but not approving them, “all such rates being subject to complaint, investigation and correction if in conflict with any provision of the Interstate Commerce Act.” The application was set down for hearing, but the Commission did not exercise its power to enter into a general investigation of the lawfulness of the rates under §15(1) or §15(7) of the Act, 41 Stat. 484-487, as amended, 49 U. S. C. §§ 15 (1), 15 (7). Nor did the appellants file a formal complaint under § 13 of the Act, 24 Stat. 383-384, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 13, assailing the lawfulness of the rates.
Subsequently the Examiner denied § 4 relief because Belt Line rates to Kankakee were less than the out-of-pocket cost and were “lower than necessary to meet the barge competition.” The Commission reversed, holding that the proportional rate from origins along the Kankakee Belt Line to Kankakee “has no independent existence, but is an integral part of the rate which applies on the through transportation from Belt origin” to the East. The Commission found that the through combination rate was compensatory and that since the barges attracted the corn grown adjacent to the river and the rails attracted that along the Belt Line, the rates were not lower than necessary to meet the barge rates and did not constitute destructive competition.
The Chicago Board of Trade, which had intervened in the proceeding, charged that the rates violated § 3 (1) of the Act (as well as § 4) because they discriminated against Chicago grain merchants and processors. The Commission refused to pass upon the question as not being relevant to a § 4 proceeding. Nor did the Commission consider Mechling’s contention that the rates violated § 3 (4) of the Act because they discriminated between connecting carriers. Other objections that the rates violated § 1 (5) of the Act as not being just and reasonable were likewise refused consideration. While the Commission found that the railroad’s action was not a competitively destructive practice, it made no direct finding that the action did not violate the National Transportation Policy, despite the appellants’ insistence that it did.
The District Court approved the Commission’s action in all respects and dismissed the complaint, holding “that the order in question was within the statutory power of the Commission, that it is supported by findings and conclusions based on substantial evidence, and that no prejudicial error occurred in the hearings before the Examiner and Commission.” 209 F. Supp., at 749.
We have concluded that there is error in the holding in two respects: (1) The Commission should have passed upon the questions raised and evidence offered that the rates violated other sections of the Act; (2) the Commission erred in failing to specifically consider and pass upon the question of whether the rates violated the National Transportation Policy.
II.
Contentions were made and proof was offered by the Chicago Board of Trade of discriminatory violations of § 3 (1) of the Act, especially discrimination against whole corn by the milling-in-transit limitation. Under the conclusion of the Examiner that the fourth-section application should be denied, it was not necessary to pass upon the § 3 (1) contention. However, when the Commission took the opposite view on the § 4 application, the claim under § 3 (1) was ripe for decision. The Commission found that “[although the New York Central intends to remove the milling-in-transit limitation, these issues do not directly deal with the fourth-section principles here involved, but are properly matters which may be raised in investigation or complaint proceedings.” 310 I. C. C. 437, 451.
Likewise, appellant Mechling claims discrimination against the barge lines at Chicago in violation of § 3 (4) of the Act, which prohibits carriers from practicing rate discrimination between connecting lines, including common carriers by water. The gist of the grievance is the assertion that the New York Central rate structure results in lower reshipping rates for ex-rail corn eastbound from Chicago than for ex-barge corn. Mechling urges that the Commission should have allowed full inquiry into this contention and should have determined whether § 3 (4) is being violated.
In defense of its position the Commission says that it does not grant relief under § 4 when the rates proposed result in violations of other sections of the Act. However, the Commission does not believe that this policy requires it to consider and decide, in a fourth-section proceeding, every allegation of rate unlawfulness, no matter how remote. Continuing, the Commission argues that since the attack on the rates was on a proportional factor, the 60, and not on the through charge, these other claims of unlawfulness were beyond the immediate § 4 issues. We cannot agree that the mechanism of the rate under attack permits of such easy dismemberment. Indeed, there is a definite tie-in that prevents the compartmentalization of the elements going into the combination. The 60 is not a separate charge but is the result of the railroad’s combination rate. The shipper is charged 230 for the transportation of corn from points west to Kan-kakee, with milling-in-transit, and is allowed a 170 credit on the rate from Kankakee to the East, either direct or via Chicago, on the transportation of the resulting corn products. This combination rate has a real impact on the freight originating along the Belt Line. Further, the rate is not “remote,” as is shown by the undisputed statement of counsel at argument that the barges have lost 53% of their carriage since it was made effective in 1957.
If the proceeding is splintered, contestants will be obliged to await the conclusion of § 4 proceedings before raising claims of violations under other sections of the Act. Not only would this be poor administration but it would result in manifest inequities and allow potential windfalls to some carriers.
Moreover, such splintering appears to be contrary to the consistent policy of the Commission in fourth-section proceedings. Over 50 years ago the Commission said:
“[T]he proviso authorizing this Commission to permit exceptions to the general prohibition of . . . [Section 4] is not a grant of arbitrary or absolute power, but its exercise must be limited and conditioned upon the presence in special cases of conditions and circumstances which would make such exceptions legal and proper and in no wise antagonistic to other provisions of the act.” Railroad Comm’n of Nevada v. Southern Pac. Co., 21 I. C. C. 329, 341 (1911).
In at least 10 subsequent cases, as well as in its annual reports, the Commission has re-emphasized the same principle. See 34 I. C. C. Ann. Rep. 47. Furthermore, the application of all of the Act’s prohibitions against discrimination “as a whole” furthers the purpose of the Congress in its enactment. The Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce once stated it this way:
“The provisions of the . . . [Interstate Commerce Act] are based upon the theory that the paramount evil chargeable against the operation of the transportation system of the United States as now conducted is unjust discrimination between persons, places, commodities, or particular descriptions of traffic. The underlying purpose and aim of the measure is the prevention of these discriminations, both by declaring them unlawful and adding to the remedies now available for securing redress and enforcing punishment . . . .” S. Rep. No. 46, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 215-216 (1886).
In accordance with this policy, this Court declared in New York v. United States, 331 U. S. 284, 296 (1947), that “[t]he principal evil at which the Interstate Commerce Act was aimed was discrimination in its various manifestations.” In the Intermountain Rate Cases, 234 U. S. 476, 485-486 (1914), the Court held that the Commission's power to relieve carriers from the requirements of § 4 depends upon
“the facts established and the judgment of that body in the exercise of a sound legal discretion as to whether the request should be granted compatibly with a due consideration of the private and public interests concerned and in view of the preference and discrimination clauses of the second and third sections.” (Emphasis added.)
The fact that the long- and short-haul prohibition of § 4 is particularized does not require any different interpretation. The Congress might well have concluded that such a practice was so pernicious that it required specific condemnation.
Finally, by hearing and determining, in a single proceeding, all charges of discrimination bearing upon the formal § 4 application, the Commission would further the legislative purpose as declared by the National Transportation Policy. It directed that the Interstate Commerce Act “shall be administered and enforced with a view to carrying out” its purpose “to encourage the establishment and maintenance of reasonable charges for transportation services, without unjust discrimina-tions, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive competitive practices . . . .” 54 Stat. 899, 49 U. S. C., note preceding § 1.
We do not say that such a rule of consolidation is an absolute. Many of these applications are filed each year and the Commission summarily disposes of the majority of them. Certainly where issues are not raised or brought to adversary position there is no need to consolidate. Likewise, where consolidation would inordinately delay the § 4 proceeding, good administration would require its denial. However, in the instant case, we see no practical reason why the merits of the several contentions should not have been reached. To require the parties to begin anew and thus spawn several cases, all of which might have been easily disposed of in the § 4 proceeding, needlessly subjects appellants' claims to the rigors of circumlocution so deadly to effective administrative and judicial processes. This proceeding is now in its seventh year— during all of which period the rate under attack has been in force — and, still, basic questions as to the validity of the rate have not been considered by the Commission.
III.
The Examiner entered a finding, which is uncontested, that the proportional rate here under attack did not cover the out-of-pocket costs of the railroad. In spite of this finding, the Commission gave little, if any, consideration to any resulting violation of the National Transportation Policy. There is no economic analysis, no expert testimony, no supporting data. Instead, the Commission found that the through rate, which it thought compensatory, rather than the Belt Line proportional rate, was controlling. Viewed in this manner, the Commission determined that the rate was not a destructively competitive practice. However, it supported this conclusion only with passing references to the first-year experience under the rate of two Illinois elevators and 10 Illinois River ports. One of the elevators had experienced no adverse effects from the rate while the other had lost some grain grown closer to the Belt Line. The 10 ports experienced about a 23% larger corn shipment to Chicago but the proportion of this increase to the whole grain movement is not shown. Nevertheless, the Commission concluded from this “that while corn grown adjacent to the Belt was attracted to the rails, that grown adjacent to the river remained with the barges. Thus, it is evident that the proposed rates are not lower than necessary to meet the barge competition.” 310 I. C. C. 437, 452. In contradiction to this we have the undenied statement of counsel at argument, quoting statistics of the Chicago Board of Trade, that much corn traffic has been diverted from barge to rail since the rate went into effect, so that the barge lines carried 53% less corn to Chicago in 1963 than they did in 1957. The finding that the through rate was compensatory does not answer the question of whether the direct effect of the below-cost proportional rate on the Belt Line traffic is wholly at odds with the National Transportation Policy. Prior to the establishment of the rate, the barge lines enjoyed practically all of the traffic. However, the combination rate appears to have diverted appreciable traffic from the barge lines without any apparent profit to the railroad. Indeed, the Commission has not indicated whether any additional trafile resulted on the rail haul between Chicago or Kankakee and New York. We, therefore, do not believe it sufficient for the Commission to approve such a rate simply on a finding that the through rate is reasonably compensatory and no lower than necessary to meet competition. In light of the facts present here, the claim of violation of the National Transportation Policy, raised and insisted upon by the appellants at all stages of the proceedings, must be specifically considered.
The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cases are remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate the order of the Commission and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
24 Stat. 380, as amended, 71 Stat. 292, 49 U. S. C. § 4 (1):
“(1) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to this part or part III to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers, or of like kind of property, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line or route in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance, or to charge any greater compensation as a through rate than the aggregate of the intermediate rates subject to the provisions of this part or part III, but this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the terms of this part or part III to charge or receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, That upon application to the Commission and after investigation, such carrier, in special cases, may be authorized by the Commission to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property, and the Commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated carriers may be relieved from the operation of the foregoing provisions of this section, but in exercising the authority conferred upon it in this proviso, the Commission shall not permit the establishment of any charge to or from the more distant point that is not reasonably compensatory for the service performed; and no such authorization shall be granted on account of merely potential water competition not actually in existence: Provided further, That any such carrier or carriers operating over a circuitous line or route may, subject only to the standards of lawfulness set forth in other provisions of this part or part III and without further authorization, meet the charges of such carrier or carriers of the same type operating over a more direct line or route, to or from the competitive points, provided that rates so established over circuitous routes shall not be evidence on the issue of the compensatory character of rates involved in other proceedings: And provided further, That tariffs proposing rates subject to the provisions of this paragraph requiring Commission authorization may be filed when application is made to the Commission under the provisions hereof, and in the event such application is approved, the Commission shall permit such tariffs to become effective upon one day’s notice.”
Reshipment of a commodity which has previously been shipped by barge is termed “ex-barge.” When prior transportation is by rail, reshipment is termed “ex-rail.”
Raised to 4.8250 in December 1957.
A rate which covers only a portion of the total transportation and is therefore only a portion of the total transportation charge.
The net rate was 50 when the plan was established, later 5%0, and now 60.
Proposed report, sheet 26.
310 I. C. C. 437, 450.
24 Stat. 380, as amended, 54 Stat. 902, 49 U. S. C. § 3 (1):
“It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this part to make, give, or cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, association, locality, port, port district, gateway, transit point, region, district, territory, or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever; or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, association, locality, port, port district, gateway, transit point, region, district, territory, or any particular description of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever: Provided, however, That this paragraph shall not be construed to apply to discrimination, prejudice, or disadvantage to the traffic of any other carrier of whatever description.”
24 Stat. 380, as amended, 54 Stat. 903-904, 49 U. S. C. § 3 (4):
“All carriers subject to the provisions of this part shall, according to their respective powers, afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for the interchange of traffic between their respective lines and connecting lines, and for the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of passengers or property to and from connecting lines; and shall not discriminate in their rates, fares, and charges between connecting lines, or unduly prejudice any connecting line in the distribution of traffic that is not specifically routed by the shipper. As used in this paragraph the term ‘connecting line’ means the connecting line of any carrier subject to the provisions of this part or any common carrier by water subject to part III.”
24 Stat. 379, as amended, 41 Stat. 475, 49 U. S. C. § 1 (5):
“All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transportation of passengers or property ... as aforesaid, or in connection therewith, shall be just and reasonable, and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service or any part thereof is prohibited and declared to be unlawful.”
National Transportation Policy, 54 Stat. 899, 49 U. S. C., note preceding § 1:
“It is hereby declared to be the national transportation policy of the Congress to provide for fair and impartial regulation of all modes of transportation subject to the provisions of this act (chapters 1, 8, 12, 13 and 19 of this title), so administered as to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of each; to promote safe, adequate, economical, and efficient service and foster sound economic conditions in transportation and among the several carriers; to encourage the establishment and maintenance of reasonable charges for transportation services, without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive competitive practices; to cooperate with the several States and the duly authorized officials thereof; and to encourage fair wages and equitable working conditions — all to the end of developing, coordinating, and preserving a national transportation system by water, highway, and rail, as well as other means, adequate to meet the needs of the commerce of the United States, of the Postal Service, and of the national defense. All of the provisions of this act (chapters 1, 8, 12, 13 and 19 of this title), shall be administered and enforced with a view to carrying out the above declaration of policy.”
Transcontinental Cases of 1922, 74 I. C. C. 48, 71; Commodity Rates on Lumber and Other Forest Products, In Carloads, From South Pacific Coast Territory To Points In Central Freight Association Territory, 165 I. C. C. 561, 569; Differential Routes To Central Territory, 211 I. C. C. 403, 421; Bituminous Coal to Buffalo, N. Y., 219 I. C. C. 554, 560; Pig Iron To Butler, Pa., 222 I. C. C. 1, 2; Iron and Steel to Minnesota, 231 I. C. C. 425, 428; Iron and Steel from Minnequa to Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota, 278 I. C. C. 163, 168-169; Coal and Coal Briquets in the South, 289 I. C. C. 341, 376-377; Passenger Fares, Hell Gate Bridge Route, New York, N. Y., 296 I. C. C. 147, 153; Nepheline Syenite from Ontario. Canada, to the East, 308 I. C. C. 561, 564-565.
Friendly, The Federal Administrative Agencies: The Need for Better Definition of Standards, 75 Harv. L. Rev. 863, 884.
On Mechling’s claimed violation of § 3 (4), proof on cross-examination was offered before the Examiner and refused as being relevant only in a “division case.” The report of the Commission is silent on the point. It was stated before the Examiner that the record “made fairly plain” the contention which, if true, should permit the Commission to proceed on remand to pass upon it; if not, then the record should be supplemented by stipulation or by additional evidence before the Examiner, if necessary.
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 Reed
announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Murphy join.
The Memphis Natural Gas Company is a Delaware corporation which owns and operates a pipe line for the transportation of natural gas. The line runs from the Monroe Gas Field in the State of Louisiana through the states of Arkansas and Mississippi to Memphis and other points in the State of Tennessee. Approximately 135 miles of the pipe line lie within Mississippi; at two points within that state there are compressing stations. It is stipulated that the Gas Company has never engaged in any intrastate commerce in Mississippi; that it has only one customer within the state, the Mississippi Power and Light Company, to which it sells gas from its interstate line at wholesale from several delivery points; that the Gas Company has never qualified under the laws of Mississippi to do intrastate business within that state; that it has no agent for the service of process and that it has no office within the state; and that its only employees and representatives in Mississippi are those necessary to maintain the pipe line and its auxiliary appurtenances.
The Gas Company has paid all ad valorem taxes assessed against its property in Mississippi pursuant to the state law. In addition to the ad valorem taxes, Mississippi imposes a “franchise, or excise tax” upon all corporations “doing business” within the state. For the purpose of the Act, “doing business” is defined “[to] mean and [to] include each and every act, power or privilege exercised or enjoyed in this State, as an incident to, or by virtue of the powers and privileges acquired by the nature of such organization.” The tax is “equal to $1.50 of each $1,000.00 or fraction thereof of the value of capital used, invested or employed” within the state.
The Gas Company filed a petition for review by the State Tax Commission of Mississippi of the franchise tax assessed against it for the years 1942, 1943 and 1944 by the State Tax Commissioner. In this petition the Gas Company argued that the imposition of the tax by the state was an act prohibited by the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. From an order of the Tax Commission approving the action of the Commissioner, the Gas Company appealed to the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi. That court reversed the Tax Commission, but was itself reversed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi. The Supreme Court said that Mississippi had made “no attempt to tax interstate commerce as such, but the levy is an exaction which the State requires as a recompense for its protection of lawful activities carried on in this State by the corporation, foreign or domestic, activities which are incidental to the powers and privileges possessed by it by the nature of its organization — here the local activities in maintaining, keeping in repair, and otherwise in manning the facilities of the system throughout the 135 miles of its line in this State.” 201 Miss. 670, 674, 29 So. 2d 268, 270. It argued that the state tax did not bear directly upon interstate commerce and that any burden imposed upon that commerce was remote and unsubstantial. It concluded that the local tax was not unconstitutional and ordered that the taxes in question, plus penalties, be paid by the Gas Company. A petition for certiorari, under § 237 (b), Judicial Code, was filed in this Court by the Gas Company on May 17, 1947. It presented the question as to whether the judgment violated the Commerce Clause by requiring a foreign undomesticated corporation, engaged in interstate commerce, to pay the tax. That petition was granted June 16, 1947. 331 U. S. 802.
The suggestion is made that by the stipulation of facts in the trial court, Mississippi concedes the truth of an allegation of the challenged petition before the State Tax Commission reading as follows:
“To carry on interstate commerce is not a franchise or a privilege granted by the state; it is a right which every citizen of the United States is entitled to exercise under the constitution and laws of the United States; and the accession and possession of mere corporate facilities, as a matter of convenience in carrying on their business, cannot have the effect of depriving it of such right, unless congress should see fit to interpose some contrary regulation. Your Petitioner obtains no protection from the State of Mississippi and acquires no powers or privileges in its interstate activity other than the protection afforded your Petitioner by virtue of the payment of an ad valorem tax on the property used by the Company wholly in interstate commerce.”
It is said that because of this concession Mississippi cannot exact a tax from petitioner as the state “affords nothing to this petitioner for which it could ask recompense by way of a tax.” The pertinent part of the stipulation reads: “That all of the facts stated in said petition are true and no proof of the same shall be required in this cause.” No contention as to the concession is presented to us by the petition for certiorari, assignment of errors or brief. Petitioner’s contention is that the tax levied against it is invalid under the Commerce Clause. Petitioner’s failure to raise the question alone would justify a refusal here to consider the contention. See Connecticut R. Co. v. Palmer, 305 U. S. 493, 496; Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U. S. 22, 34. The answer to the suggestion, however, seems to us clear. The argument is that the Supreme Court of Mississippi must be reversed because the tax before us “is a tax on the privilege of engaging in the doing of interstate business within the State, and such a tax is . . . invalid under the Commerce Clause.” This conclusion seems to be reached by the following analysis. The stipulation between the Company and the State Tax Commission is read as if the phrase “in its interstate activity” modified only the words “powers” and “privileges” and not the word “protection.” If that is a proper construction of this stipulation, then the parties have agreed that the Company has obtained by the tax “no protection from the State . . . other than the protection afforded ... by virtue of the payment of an ad valorem tax . . . .” The dissent then concludes that the imposition of the ad valorem taxes “exhausted” the state’s taxing power and, consequently, that the tax “is a tax on the privilege of engaging in interstate business” and, as such, “invalid under the Commerce Clause.”
The state Supreme Court construed the tax as “an exaction ... as a recompense for . . . protection of . . . the local activities in maintaining, keeping in repair, and otherwise in manning the facilities of the system throughout the 135 miles of its line in this State.” As we are bound by the construction of the state statute by the state court, it is idle to suggest that the tax is on “the privilege of engaging in interstate business.” Nor can this result be changed by the suggestion that the tax cannot be on any local incidents “because they have already been fully taxed.” The local incidents, spoken of by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, were not the taxable events selected for the imposition of the ad valorem tax. These local incidents were the basis for the franchise or excise tax now in controversy. No reason is perceived why Mississippi cannot exact this different tax for the same protection. It is as though the ad valorem rate had been increased. The power to levy such a new tax is not and could not be questioned except as an interference with commerce. The legal question remains as to whether a state can exact a tax on those activities under the Commerce Clause.
The facts of this case present again the perennial problem of the validity of a state tax for the privilege of carrying on, within a state, certain activities admittedly necessary to maintain or operate the interstate business of the taxpayer. This transportation by pipe line with deliveries within the state at wholesale only is interstate business. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Comm’n, 332 U. S. 507, 513, and cases cited. Notwithstanding the power granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause to regulate the taxation of interstate commerce, if it so desires, that body generally has left the determination to the courts of what state taxes on or affecting commerce were permissible and what impermissible under the Commerce Clause. The states have sought by taxation to collect from the instrumentalities of commerce compensation for the protection and advantages rendered to commerce by state governments. The federal courts have sought over the years to determine the scope of a state’s power to tax in the light of the competing interests of interstate commerce, and of the states, with their power to impose reasonable taxes upon incidents connected with that commerce. See Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U. S. 434, 441. We continue at that task, characterized long ago as an area of “nice distinctions.” Galveston, Harrisburg & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U.S. 217, 225.
There is no question here of Due Process. The Gas Company’s property is in the taxing state where the taxable incidents occurred. McLeod v. Dilworth Co., 322 U. S. 327, 329. See Nippert v. City of Richmond, 327 U. S. 416, 423. Nor is the measure used to calculate the amount of the tax challenged. That measure is $1.50 on each thousand dollars of capital employed within Mississippi. Southern Gas Corp. v. Alabama, 301 U. S. 148, 156, Third. The attack on the Mississippi statute is that it violates the Commerce Clause by putting a tax on the commerce itself.
The local incidents covered by the definition of doing business hereinbefore set out, § 9312, Mississippi Code, supra, were said by the Supreme Court in this case to be “the local activities in maintaining, keeping in repair, and otherwise in manning the facilities of the system” in Mississippi. 201 Miss. 670, 674, 29 So. 2d 268, 270. The cases just cited in the note show that, from the viewpoint of the Commerce Clause, where the corporations carry on a local activity sufficiently separate from the interstate commerce, state taxes may be validly laid, even though the exaction from the business of the taxpayer is precisely the same as though the tax had been levied upon the interstate business itself. But the choice of a local incident for the tax, without more, is not enough. There are always convenient local incidents in every interstate operation. Nippert v. City of Richmond, supra, at 423. The incident selected should be one that does not lend itself to repeated exactions in other states. Otherwise intrastate commerce may be preferred over interstate commerce. Again, where there is a state exaction for some intrastate privilege that discriminates against interstate commerce, it is invalid even though it is sufficiently disconnected from the commerce to be taxable otherwise.
The Mississippi tax under consideration is not discriminatory. It is levied, in addition to ad valorem taxes, on corporations created under Mississippi laws, those admitted to do business in Mississippi and those operating in the state without any authority from the state. See note 1, supra. Petitioner operated local compressor stations. We have heretofore held that the generation of electric energy for the operation of such stations was subject to state taxation without violation of the Commerce Clause. Coverdale v. Arkansas-Louisiana Pipe Line Co., 303 U. S. 604. A glance at the activities, named above, listed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, shows that there is no possibility of multiple taxation through the same exac-tions by other states. The amount of the tax is reasonable. It is properly apportioned to the investment in Mississippi.
However, a state tax upon a corporation doing only an interstate business may be invalid under our decisions because levied (1) upon the privilege of doing interstate business within the state, or (2) upon some local event so much a part of interstate business as to be in effect a tax upon the interstate business itself. Petitioner asserts that the Mississippi statute so offends.
First. This Court has drawn the distinction in the field of pipe line taxation between state statutes on the privilege of doing business where only interstate business was done and those upon appropriate local incidents. In Ozark Pipe Line Corp. v. Monier, 266 U. S. 555, the Ozark Pipe Line Corporation operated an oil pipe line from Oklahoma, through Missouri to a point in Illinois. Oil was neither received nor delivered in Missouri. This was interstate transportation. Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Power Comm’n, 331 U. S. 682, 689, and cases cited at note 12. It had its principal office in Missouri. It had a license from Missouri authorizing it to engage “ ‘exclusively in the business of transporting crude petroleum by pipe line.’ ” Page 561. The state tax was an apportioned franchise tax. It was construed by this Court as a tax “upon the privilege or right to do business.” Page 562. Virginia v. Imperial Coal Co., 293 U. S. 15, 20. As such a tax upon a corporation doing only an interstate business, it was held invalid under the Commerce Clause.
In State Tax Commission v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 284 U. S. 41, a pipe line ran from Louisiana, through Mississippi and back to Louisiana. Two local Mississippi distributors took gas in that state from the respondent. Mississippi sought to tax the respondent under a privilege tax law that required the pipe line company to get a license to exercise the privilege desired, that is, to operate an interstate pipe line. This Court held that the entire business of the respondent was interstate despite a claimed local activity by the reduction of pressure to deliver gas to the Mississippi distributors. It followed that the state license for the privilege of engaging in the business of operating a pipe line was an invalid burden under the Commerce Clause.
On the other hand, in Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Stone, 308 U. S. 522, we affirmed per curiam a judgment of the Fifth Circuit in Stone v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 103 F. 2d 544, on the authority of Southern Gas Corporation v. Alabama, supra at 153, 156-57. The tax in question in the 308 U. S. case was exacted by the same Mississippi statute employed here. This differs from the Mississippi statute in the Interstate case in 284 U. S. The Interstate case in 308 U. S. differed from this present case, so far as is material, only in the fact that the foreign corporation filed a copy of its charter as a prerequisite to doing business in Mississippi and appointed an agent for the service of process. The page references in the Stone citation of the Southern Gas case show that this Court considered the Mississippi tax in the Stone case as one not on business but “ ‘on the privilege of exercising corporate functions within the State and its employment of its capital in [Mississippi].' ” Southern Gas Corp. v. Alabama, supra, 153. In the Southern Gas case, page 155, the company did intrastate business, but in the Stone case no intrastate business was done. Thus the local event of qualifying for intrastate business, which occurred in both Southern Gas and Stone, brought a different result from that in the Ozark case and in Interstate, 284 U. S., where the privilege or right to do interstate business was protected. Mississippi, through its Supreme Court, has declared that there is no attempt to tax the privilege of doing an interstate business or to secure anything from the corporation by this statute except compensation for the protection of the enumerated local activities of “maintaining, keeping in repair, and otherwise in manning the facilities.” 201 Miss. 674, 29 So. 2d 270. Under § 9314, quoted in note 1, in the light of that statute’s definition of “doing business” set out on pp. 81-82, supra, this is a reasonable meaning to give the taxing statute. We must accept the state court’s interpretation. We therefore conclude that the Mississippi tax here involved is not upon the privilege of doing an interstate business.
Second. We come now to the second question. That is whether the challenged excise for carrying on within the state the aforementioned activities of maintenance, repair and manning by a corporation engaged solely in interstate commerce may be taxed. The answer on this point depends upon whether these activities are so much a part of the interstate business as to be under the protection of the Commerce Clause as this Court has construed it. In this case the local activities are those involved in the maintenance of the pipe line. This tax is not an unap-portioned tax on gross receipts from the commerce itself. It is measured by a proportion of the capital employed within the state. It cannot be duplicated in other states. Compare Western Live Stock v. Bureau, 303 U. S. 250, 255. In Ozark Pipe Line v. Monier, supra, this Court, at p. 565, spoke of such activities as set out below. If it was intended to say that such in-the-state activities as there described could not be taxed, we disagree with that conclusion. We are inclined to the view that the fact that the tax there under consideration was considered a tax “upon the privilege or right to do business,” led the Court to point out that as the local activities were essential to that business, they were not taxable activities. The pipe line itself and all appurtenances are essential, yet an ad valorem tax can be laid.
In taxation, we do not have the problems raised by many decisions on state regulations alleged to impede the free flow of commerce when not nationally uniform. Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761. Regulations may be imposed by the state on commerce. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, supra; Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U. S. 28. When state taxation of activities or property within a state is involved, different considerations control. It is no longer a question of actual interruption of the operation of commerce. Kelly v. Washington, 302 U. S. 1, 14. Rather a prohibited tax exaction is one beyond the power of the state because the taxable event is outside its boundaries, McLeod v. Dilworth Co., supra, or for a privilege the state cannot grant. See note 10, supra. Is it bad because a tax on the commerce itself? We have sustained a fee for the privilege of using state courts, exacted by the state from a business licensed by the United States to handle customs charges. Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen, 322 U. S. 202. Likewise a special privilege tax upon an interstate automobile transportation company for the use of the state roads has been approved. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of Railroad Comm’rs, 332 U. S. 495.
The Mississippi excise has no more effect upon the commerce than any of the instances just recited. The events giving rise to this tax were no more essential to the interstate commerce than those just mentioned or ad valorem taxes. We think that the state is within its constitutional rights in exacting compensation under this statute for the protection it affords the activities within its borders. Of course, the interstate commerce could not be conducted without these local activities. But that fact is not conclusive. These are events apart from the flow of commerce. This is a tax on activities for which the state, not the United States, gives protection and the state is entitled to compensation when its tax cannot be said to be an unreasonable burden or a toll on the interstate business.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the judgment.
Miss. Code § 9313 (1942): “There is hereby imposed ... a franchise or excise tax upon every corporation . . . now existing in this state, or hereafter organized, created or established, under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Mississippi, equal to $1.50 for each $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, of the value of the capital used, invested or employed in the exercise of any power, privilege or right enjoyed by such organization within this state, except as hereinafter provided. It being the purpose of this section to require the payment to the state of Mississippi, this tax for the right granted by the laws of this state to exist as such organization, and enjoy, under the protection of the laws of this state, the powers, rights, privileges and immunities derived from the state by the form of such existence.”
§9314: “For the year 1940 and annually thereafter, there shall be and is hereby imposed, levied and assessed upon every corporation, association or joint stock company, as hereinbefore defined, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of some other state, territory or country, or organized and existing without any specific statutory authority, now, or hereafter doing business within this state, as hereinbefore defined, a franchise or excise tax equal to $1.50 of each $1,000.00 br fraction thereof of the value of capital used, invested or employed within this state, except as hereinafter provided. It being the purpose of this section to require the payment of a tax by all organizations not organized under the laws of this state, measured by the amount of capital or its equivalent, for which such organization receives the benefit and protection of the government and laws of the state.”
Miss. Code §9312 (1942).
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408, 429.
Such local incidents form a sound basis for taxation by a state of foreign corporations doing interstate business. For example, we have upheld state taxes on sales after completion of the interstate transit, McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U. S. 33; on production of electricity for interstate commerce, Utah Power & L. Co. v. Pfost, 286 U. S. 165, compare Fisher’s Blend Station, Inc. v. Tax Comm’n, 297 U. S. 650, 655; a privilege tax on the operation of machines for the production of electricity to drive gas in interstate commerce, Coverdale v. Arkansas-Louisiana Pipe Line Co., 303 U. S. 604; a use tax on rails shipped interstate for immediate incorporation into an interstate transportation system, Southern Pacific Co. v. Gallagher, 306 U. S. 167.
We have upheld a franchise tax on a foreign corporation authorized to do business and making sales in a state other than its actual or business domicile, Ford Motor Co. v. Beauchamp, 308 U. S. 331; a privilege tax on a foreign corporation doing business in the state upon a proportion of property in the taxing state that was computed by using interstate commerce as an element, Hump Hairpin Co. v. Emmerson, 258 U. S. 290; Western Cartridge Co. v. Emmerson, 281 U. S. 511; an excise on intrastate manufacturing, added to an ad valorem tax and measured by sales, including out of state, American Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis, 250 U. S. 459, and see Powell, 60 Harv. L. Rev. 501, 508 and 727, Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S. 249, 255; a license for storing goods at rest in the state under a transit privilege, Independent Warehouses, Inc. v. Scheele, 331 U. S. 70.
See Western Live Stock v. Bureau, 303 U. S. 250, 254.
See Western Live Stock v. Bureau, 303 U. S. 250, 255.
See Best & Co. v. Maxwell, 311 U. S. 454; Nippert v. City of Richmond, supra, at 431-32. Cf. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of Railroad Comm’rs, 332 U. S. 495, 501-502.
See Hump Hairpin Co. v. Emmerson, 258 U. S. 290, 295, and Western Cartridge Co. v. Emmerson, 281 U. S. 511, 514.
See Southern Gas Corp. v. Alabama, 301 U. S. 148, 156, Third, and cases cited; International Harvester Co. v. Evatt, 329 U. S. 416, 422-23; Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of Railroad Comm’rs, 332 U. S. 495, 501-502.
This Court has held many times that a state has no power to refuse or tax the privilege of doing interstate business. A foreign corporation, seeking or requiring no privilege from a state such as the power of eminent domain, the right to use public ways or beds of streams, and without federal charter or other federal statutory privilege, cannot be denied the right to enter a state, remain there and operate a purely interstate business without a state franchise. Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, 56; International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91, 107 (3); Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282. See also California v. Pacific R. Co., 127 U. S. 1; Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U. S. 525; Colorado v. United States, 271 U. S. 153, 164; State ex rel. Board v. Stanolind Pipe Line Co., 216 Iowa 436, 445, 249 N. W. 366, 371.
Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S. 249, “because it taxes the very process of interstate commerce” (p. 253), it is “a direct imposition on that very freedom of commercial flow which for more than a hundred and fifty years has been the ward of the Commerce Clause” (p. 256); Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Co., 330 U. S. 422, “Steve-doring, we conclude, is essentially a part of the commerce itself and therefore a tax . . . upon the privilege of conducting the business of stevedoring for interstate and foreign commerce, measured by those gross receipts, is invalid” (p. 433); this follows “a line of precedents outlawing taxes on the commerce itself” (p. 433). Galveston, Harrisburg & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, supra at 224.
See Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 304 U. S. 307, 312, n. 11; see comments on American Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis, n. 4, supra.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 9836 (1919):
“. . . Every corporation, not organized under the laws of this state, and engaged in business in this state, shall pay an annual franchise tax to the state of Missouri equal to one-tenth of one per cent, of the par value of its capital stock and surplus employed in business in this state . . . .”
The opinion evoked a dissent by Justice Brandéis which pointed out that: “The tax assailed is not laid upon the occupation . . .”; nor “upon the privilege of doing business.” Pp. 567-68. The Justice concluded that “a tax is not a direct burden merely because it is laid upon an indispensable instrumentality of such commerce,” but that the contrary is true “where it is upon property moving in interstate commerce.” P. 569. Compare Ozark with Atlantic Lumber Co. v. Comm’r, 298 U. S. 553.
The Ozark case has had a long history in this Court. Since 288 U. S., it has not been cited in a manner pertinent to our present issue, except to be distinguished, sometimes narrowly. In Helson & Randolph v. Kentucky, 279 U. S. 245, 249, and State Tax Commission v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 284 U. S. 41, 43, it was cited with approval for the proposition that a state cannot lay a tax on the occupation or the business of carrying on interstate commerce. In Anglo-Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. v. Alabama, 288 U. S. 218, Ozark was relied upon to hold unconstitutional a state tax upon a corporation which was qualified to do intrastate business within the state but which in fact did only an interstate business. Cardozo, J., joined by Brandéis, J., and Stone, J., dissented on the ground that the tax could be supported as a tax laid upon the privilege to do intrastate business. Ozark was next before the Court in Virginia v. Imperial Coal Co., supra, a case involving a tax on tangible and intangible property situated and used within the state to carry on an exclusively interstate business. In that case it was distinguished on the ground that an-ad valorem property tax, and not a privilege tax, was before the Court. In Atlantic Lumber Co. v. Comm’r, 298 U. S. 553, involving an excise tax on corporations doing business within Massachusetts, Ozark was again distinguished, this time on the ground that the Lumber Co. was engaged in local activities within the state and, therefore, that the burden imposed upon its interstate commerce was remote and incidental. Again, in Southern Gas Corp. v. Alabama, 301 U. S. 148, Ozark was found to be inapposite because of factual differences. Southern Gas ruled upon the constitutionality of a tax assessed on the basis of the same tax that was before this Court in Anglo-Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. v. Alabama, supra. The state tax was held constitutional by the Southern Gas case as a tax exacted for the privilege of doing an intrastate business by a company in fact engaging in intrastate business in Alabama.
Miss. Gen. Laws (1930), c. 88, §3: “Every person desiring to engage in any business, or exercise any privilege hereinafter specified, shall first, before commencing same, apply for, pay for, and procure from the proper officer a privilege license authorizing him to engage in the business, or exercise the privilege specified therein; and the amount of tax shown in the following schedules is hereby imposed for the privilege of engaging and/or continuing in the businesses set out therein.”
Id., § 163: “Upon each person engaging and/or continuing in this state in the business of operating a pipe line or transporting in or through this state oil, or natural, or artificial gas, through pipes, and/or conduits, a tax, as follows: [On each mile a varying tax that depended upon the diameter of the pipe].”
The same rationale has led this Court at times to declare invalid similar taxes on foreign corporations, admitted to do business in a state and doing only an interstate business through activities within the state. The leading decisions supporting this view (Cheney Brothers Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. 8. 147, and Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Massachusetts, 268 U. S. 203) have been strictly limited. Atlantic Lumber Co. v. Commissioner, 298 U. S. 553; cf. Southern Gas Corporation v. Alabama, supra, at p. 156, and dissent in Anglo-Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. v. Alabama, 288 U. S. 218, 229, at 237. In the Cheney case an excise tax for the privilege of doing business in Massachusetts of an unapportioned percentage of its authorized capital stock (Mass. Acts, 1909, c. 490, Part III, § 56) was invalidated as being wholly on interstate commerce although it maintained "in Boston a selling office with one office salesman and four other salesmen who travel through New England. The salesmen solicit and take orders, subject to approval by the home office in Connecticut, and it ships directly to the purchasers. No stock of goods is kept in the Boston office, but only samples used in soliciting and taking orders. Copies and records of orders are retained, but no bookkeeping is done, and the office makes no collections. The salesmen and the office rent are paid directly from Connecticut and the other expenses of the office are paid from a small deposit kept in Boston for the purpose. No other business is done in the State.” P. 153.
In the Alpha Portland case where, on the assumption that the taxpayer had obtained a right to do business in the state, under similar circumstances an unapportioned excise on the privilege to do business in Massachusetts was invalidated because a burden on commerce.
St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 362; Southern Gas Corp. v. Alabama, supra at 153, First; Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U. S. 69, 79; Caldarola v. Eckert, 332 U. S. 155, 158.
See note 11, supra.
This Court said, 266 U. S. at 565: “The business actually carried on by appellant was exclusively in interstate commerce. The maintenance of an office, the purchase of supplies, employment of labor, maintenance and operation of telephone and telegraph lines and automobiles, and appellant’s other acts within the State, were all exclusively in furtherance of its interstate business; and the property itself, however extensive or of whatever character, was likewise devoted only to that end. They were the means and instrumentalities by which that business was done and in no proper sense constituted, or contributed to, the doing of a local business.” See also Heyman v. Hays, 236 U. S. 178, 185.
Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 439, 445:
“The rule of property taxation is that the value of the property is the basis of taxation. It does not mean a tax upon the earnings which the property makes, nor for the privilege of using the property, but rests solely upon the value. But the value of property results from the use to which it is put and varies with the profitableness of that use, present and prospective, actual and anticipated. There is no pecuniary value outside of that which results from such use. The amount and profitable character of such use determines the value, and if property is taxed at its actual cash value it is taxed upon something which is created by the uses to which it is put.”
See also Northwest Airlines v. Minnesota, 322 U. S. 292; Adams Express Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 194; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Massachusetts, 125 U. S. 530.
In the Union Brokerage case we dealt not with an annual tax on franchises or licenses but with a state’s single exaction from a foreign corporation for the right to use the courts of the state. The company was a customhouse broker engaged wholly in thus earning fees by “ ‘charges upon the commerce itself,’ ” p. 209. There were incidental activities in the state in furtherance of this main purpose, p. 208: “Union’s business is localized in Minnesota, it buys materials and services from people in that State, it enters into business relationships, as this case, a suit against its former president, illustrates, wholly outside of the arrangements it makes with importers or exporters.”
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 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.
Me. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent union, affiliated with the International Typographical Union, entered into collective bargaining agreements with various publishers, including respondent News Syndicate (and Dow Jones & Co.), which contained a provision that “the General Laws of the International Typographical Union . . . not in conflict with this contract or with federal or state law shall govern relations between the parties on conditions not specifically enumerated herein.” The contract limited mail-room employment to “journeymen and apprentices.” The contract also provided that mail-room superintendents, foremen, and assistant foremen must be members of the union arid that the foremen would do the hiring. The General Laws of ITU provided that “foremen or journeymen” should be “active members” of the union, that only union members should operate, maintain, and service any mailing machinery or equipment, that no person should be eligible as a “learner” who is not a union member.
Another provision of the contract stated, however, that “The Union shall not discipline the Foreman for carrying out the instructions of the Publisher or his representatives in accordance with this agreement.” It also provided, that the foremen “shall be appointed and may be removed by the Publisher.”
The foreman at one plant was a union member and the Board found that he discriminated in favor of union men against a nonunion employee named Julius Arrigale. It also found that the foreman at another plant was a union member and discriminated in favor of union men and against a nonunion employee named Burton Randall. It concluded that the union and the News Syndicate had violated §8 (b)(1)(A) and (2) and §8 (a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, 61 Stat. 136, 140-141, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158, respectively, by their contract arrangements and by operating an unlawful closed shop and preferential hiring system. It held that vesting control over employment in union foremen was a delegation of exclusive control over hiring to the union without the requisite safeguards prescribed by the Board in Mountain Pacific Chapter, 119 N. L. R. B. 883. The order of the Board contained various provisions including a direction that all employees in the mail-rooms be reimbursed for dues and assessments paid the union for a period beginning six months before the service of the charges against it; and this duty was made, so far as concerns the news mail-room, a joint and several liability of the union and News Syndicate. 122 N. L. R. B. 818.
The Board petitioned the Court of Appeals for enforcement of the order. That court held that the finding of discrimination against Randall was in part supported by the record; and it refused enforcement of the Board’s order, allowing the Board, if it wished, to enter an order directed only to that instance of discrimination the Court of Appeals found the record to show. 279 F. 2d 323. The case is here on petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted along with No. 340, International Typographical Union v. Labor Board, post, p. 705, because of the conflict between them. 364 U. S. 877, 878.
What we have this day decided in Carpenters Local 60 v. Labor Board, ante, p. 651, is dispositive of the provision in the Board’s order requiring respondents to reimburse union members for dues and assessments.
We also believe the Court of Appeals was right in concluding that the contract on its face is not unlawful even though the foremen — who are union members — do the hiring. In the first place, the contract (unlike the General Laws) does not require journeymen and apprentices to be union members. In the second place, the provisions of the contract which we have set forth make the foremen “solely the employers’ agents,” as the Court of Appeals concluded. 279 F. 2d, at 330. Finally, as we said in Teamsters Local 357 v. Labor Board, decided this day, ante, p. 667, we will not assume that unions and employers will violate the federal law, favoring discrimination in favor of union members against the clear command of this Act of Congress. As stated by the Court of Appeals, “In the absence of provisions calling explicitly for illegal conduct, the contract cannot be held illegal because it failed affirmatively to disclaim all illegal objectives.” 279 F. 2d, at 330.
We also agree with the Court of Appeals that the General Laws provision of the contract is not per se unlawful. For it has in it the condition that only those General Laws of the union are incorporated which are “not in conflict with this contract or with federal or state law.” Any rule or regulation of the union which permitted or required discrimination in favor of union employees would, therefore, be excluded from incorporation in the contract since it would be at war with the Act. We can say with Judge Prettyman in Honolulu Star-Bulletin v. Labor Board, 107 U. S. App. D. C. 58, 61, 274 F. 2d 567, 570, that while the words “not in conflict with federal . . . law” might in some circumstances be puzzling or uncertain as to meaning, “there could hardly be any uncertainty respecting a closed-shop clause.” For the command of § 8 is clear and explicit and the only exception is plainly spelled out in the provisos to § 8 (a) (3).
Whether in practice respondents maintained and enforced closed-shop and preferential hiring conditions raises a distinct question.
The Board’s case comes down to the method by which those in the mail-room became journeymen. One could either take an apprentice training program or pass a competency examination. Apprentices were hired by the foremen; but the Court of Appeals found that there were no discriminatory practices in the actual hiring of apprentices. If a person followed the examination route, the contract .provided for it to be given “by impartial examiners qualified to judge journeyman competency selected by the parties hereto.” The examiners were union officials and the mail-room foremen.
The union proposed and News Syndicate agreed in 1956 to put into the class of a “regular substitute” those extras who in the prior two years had earned 15 vacation credits, which was another way of describing those who had averaged about three days’ work a week. Those who were hired on a day-to-day basis (“shaped for work”) included 60 nonunion men. Of these, 31 were invited to take the examination. They passed, were made “regular substitutes,” and subsequently became union members. Thereafter each of the new “regular substitutes” was hired prior to Randall, though he had “shaped” at the News longer than many of them. Randall, it appears, had full-time outside jobs that kept him from “shaping” regularly. Arrigale was a nonjourneyman who shaped up for the Wall Street Journal, which had essentially the same hiring setup as the News. The asserted discrimination occurred when “outside card-men” were hired in preference to Arrigale, although Arri-gale was “shaping” steadily and was the oldest nonunion extra. The foreman testified he took “outside card-men” because he could be sure of their competency, because they would have taken the journeyman test or had served as apprentices. There was no evidence that membership in the union was a condition for the journeyman test, save that all journeymen in fact did become union men.
Respondents, therefore, contend that to accord priority in the hire of extras to men who work regularly for the employer (and who also have the journeyman status). is a hiring system based on competency and legitimate employee qualifications.
The Court of Appeals concluded:
“We find ... a dearth of evidence either that a Union journeyman has ever been hired in preference (let alone, an unlawful preference) to a nonunion journeyman, or that the qualifying standards for taking a competency examination are discriminatory. The record is barren of even the slightest hint that there has been discrimination in the conduct of the examinations. Availability, dependability and regularity of service, as well as mere competency, are valid nondiscriminatory considerations in determining the order of hire. The fact that one applicant is as competent as another, does not mean that the other may not properly be preferred on the basis of his other qualifications. And the fact that those achieving status as new ‘regular substitutes’ subsequently became Union members and even indicated their willingness to do so prior to the adoption of the standard, does not indicate, at least on this record, that the standard, seemingly fair, was discriminatory in its effect. Randall admitted that he would have welcomed the opportunity to become a Union member, and for aught that appears in the record, so would the remaining extras who did not meet the established standard.
“We conclude that the record does not warrant a finding that the hiring system in general, or the competency system in particular, by its discrimination against nonunion applicants, encouraged Union membership.” 279 F. 2d, at pp. 333-334.
This finding of the Court of Appeals disposed of Arrigale’s complaint'and all of Randall’s with the exception of the loss of one night’s employment as to which the court sustained the Board. The Board drew contrary inferences. But it does not now seriously challenge the foregoing finding of the Court of Appeals. Rather, its main reliance is on the long history of ITU’s use of the closed shop, the fact that foremen were union members, and the obscurity of the “not in conflict” clause of the agreement. We think the reversal of the Board on the facts by the Court of Appeals was within the scope of review entrusted to it. See Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U. S. 474, 490-491. ’
A~ , Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Whittaker dissents. See his dissenting opinion in Carpenters Local 60 v. Labor Board, decided this day, ante, p. 660.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 8 provides in relevant part:
“(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
“(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7;
“(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: Provided, That nothing in this Act, or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in section 8 (a) of this Act as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later . . . . Provided further, That no employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee for nonmembership in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such membership was not available to the employee on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership;
“(b) 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: Provided, That .this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein; . . .
“(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a) (3) or to discriminate against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership . . . .”
Section 7 provides:
“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).”
The 1947 amendments to the Act changed the ruling in Packard Motor Car Co. v. Labor Board, 330 U. S. 485, which held that foremen were “employees.” Section 2 (3) now excludes from the term “employees” one who is “employed as a supervisor.” Section 2 (11) defines a “supervisor” as one “having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire,” etc., employees. Section 14 (a) provides:
“Nothing herein shall prohibit any individual employed as a supervisor from becoming or remaining a member of a labor organization, but no employer subject to this Act shall be compelled to deem individuals defined herein as supervisors as employees for the purpose of any law, either national or local, relating to collective bargaining.”
As stated by Senator Taft, under these provisions even a union of foremen could be recognized by an employer, though no employer could be compelled to do so. S. Eep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 5.
Burton Randall is neither a union member nor a journeyman within the meaning of the contract between the union and the News. The hiring practices at the News are as follows: The minimum mailing-room staff (“regular situation holders”) are both union members and journeymen; they report for work each night and are not required to “shape.” To fill in vacancies and to meet added needs, the foreman next turns to “regular substitutes,” who are both journeymen and union members. Next in line of priority are those the Board insists are referred to as “outside card men,” but who are at any rate both journeymen and union members regularly shaping up for other newspapers, but available for work on the News. The lowest priority category consists of what the Board calls “nonunion shapers” (and the union, “non-journeymen casuals”); at any rate, these men have neither union membership nor journeyman status. Within the category, such men are ranked in seniority running from the date of first shaping up for the News. Burton Randall is a “nonunion shaper” or “non-journeyman casual.” He has been turning up for the “shaping” at the News for a good many years; for most of them, he showed only on Fridays and Saturdays since he held another job. From 1950 to 1956, he was third in seniority on the “casual” list; from 1956, he was first on that list.
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.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This litigation involves a challenge to a federal grant program that provides funding for services relating to adolescent sexuality and pregnancy. Considering the federal statute both “on its face” and “as applied,” the District Court ruled that the statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment insofar as it provided for the involvement of religious organizations in the federally funded programs. We conclude ^ however, that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face, and that a determination of whether any of the- grants made pursuant to the statute violate the Establishment Clause requires further proceedings in the District Court.
I
The Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA or Act), Pub. L. 97-35, 95 Stat. 578, 42 U. S. C. §300z et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. IV), was passed by Congress in 1981 in response to the “severe adverse health, social, and economic consequences” that often follow pregnancy and childbirth among unmarried adolescents. 42 U. S. C. §300z(a)(5) (1982 ed., Supp. IV). Like its predecessor, the Adolescent Health Services and Pregnancy. Prevention and Care Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-626, Tit. VI, 92 Stat., 3595-3601 (Title VI), the AFLA is essentially a scheme for providing grants to public or nonprofit private organizations or agencies “for services and research in the area of premarital adolescent sexual relations and pregnancy.” S. Rep. No. 97-161, p~. 1 (1981) (hereinafter Senate Report). These grants are intended to serve several purposes, including the promotion of “self discipline and other prudent approaches to the problem of adolescent premarital sexual relations,” § 300z(b)(l), the promotion of adoption as an alternative for adolescent parents, § 300z(b)(2), the establishment of new approaches to the delivery of care services for pregnant adolescents, §300z(b)(3), and the support of research and demonstration projects “concerning the societal causes and consequences of adolescent premarital sexual relations, contraceptive use, pregnancy, and child rearing,” § 300z(b)(4).
In pertinent part, grant recipients are to provide two types of services: “care services,” for the provision of care to pregnant adolescents and adolescent parents, § 300z-l(a)(7), and “prevention services,” for the prevention of adolescent sexual relations, §300z-l(a)(8). While the AFLA leaves it up to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to define exactly what-types of services a grantee must provide, see §§300z-l (a)(7), (8), 300z-l(b), the statute contains a listing of “necessary services” that may be funded. These services include pregnancy testing and maternity counseling, adoption counseling and referral services, prenatal and postnatal health care, nutritional information, counseling, child care, mental health services, and perhaps most importantly for present purposes, “educational services relating to’family life and problems associated with adolescent premarital sexual relations,” §300z-l(a)(4).
In drawing up the AFLA and determining what services to provide under the Act, Congress was well aware that “the problems of adolescent premarital sexual relations, pregnancy, and parenthood are multiple and complex.” § 300z(a) (8)(A). Indeed, Congress expressly recognized that legislative or governmental action alone would be insufficient:
“[S]uch problems are best approached through a variety of integrated and essential services provided to adolescents and their families by other family members, religious and charitable organizations, voluntary associations, and other groups in the private sector as well'as services provided by publicly sponsored initiatives.” § 300z(a)(8)(B).
Accordingly, the AFLA expressly states that federally provided services in this area should promote the involvement of parents, and should “emphasize the provision of support by other family members, religious and charitable organizations, voluntary associations, and other groups.” §300z(a)(10)(C). The AFLA implements this goal by providing in § 300z-2 that demonstration projects funded by the government
“shall use such methods as will strengthen the capacity of families to deal with the sexual behavior, pregnancy, or parenthood of adolescents and to make use of support systems such as other family members, friends, religious and charitable organizations, -and voluntary associations.”
In addition, AFLA requires grant applicants, among other things, to describe how they will, “as appropriate in the provision of services[,] involve families of adolescents[, and] involve religious and charitable organizations, voluntary associations, and other groups in the private sector as well as services provided by publicly sponsored initiatives.” § 300z-5(a)(21). This broad-based involvement of groups outside of the government was intended by Congress to “establish better coordination, integration, and linkages” among existing programs in the community, §300z(b)(3) (1982 ed., Supp. IV), to aid in the development of “strong family values and close family ties,” §300z(a)(10)(A), and to “help adolescents and their families deal with complex issues of adolescent premarital sexual relations and the consequences of such relations.” §300z(a)(10)(C).
In line with its purposes, the AFLA also imposes limitations on the use of funds by grantees. First, the AFLA expressly states that no funds provided for demonstration projects under the statute may be used for family planning services (other than counseling and referral services) unless appropriate family planning services are not otherwise available in the community. § 300z-3(b)(l). Second, the AFLA restricts the awarding of grants to “programs or projects which do not provide abortions or abortion counseling or referral,” except that the program may provide referral for abortion counseling if the adolescent and her parents request such referral. §300z-10(a). Finally, the AFLA states that “grants may be made only to projects or programs which do not advocate, promote, or encourage abortion.” § 300z-I0(a).
Since 1981, when the AFLA was adopted, the Secretary has received 1,088 grant applications and awarded 141 grants. Brief for Federal Appellant 8. Funding has gone to a wide variety of recipients, including state and local health agencies, private-hospitals, community health associations, privately operated health care centers, and community and charitable organizations. It is undisputed that a number of grantees or subgrantees were organizations with institutional ties to religious denominations. See App. 748-756 (listing grantees).
In 1983, this lawsuit against the Secretary was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by appellees, a group of federal taxpayers, clergymen, and the American Jewish Congress. Seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief, appellees challenged the constitutionality of the AFLA on the grounds that on its face and as applied the statute violates the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court held for appellees and declared that the AFLA was invalid both on its face and as applied “insofar as religious organizations are involved in carrying out the programs and purposes of the Act.” 657 F. Supp. 1547, 1570 (DC 1987).
The court first found that under Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83 (1968), appellees had standing to challenge the statute both on its face and as applied. Turning to the merits, the District Court applied the three-part test for Establishment Clause cases set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971). The court concluded that the AFLA has a valid secular purpose: the prevention of social and economic injury caused by teenage pregnancy and premarital sexual relations. In the court’s view, however, the AFLA does not survive the second prong of the Lemon test because it has the “direct and immediate” effect of advancing religion insofar as it expressly requires grant applicants to describe how they will involve, religious organizations in the provision of services. § 300z-5(a)(21)(B). The statute also permits religious organizations to be grantees and “envisions a direct role for those organizations in the education and counseling components of AFLA grants.” 657 F. Supp., at 1562. As written, the AFLA makes it possible for religióusly affiliated grantees to teach adolescents on issues.that can be considered “fundamental elements of religious doctrine.” The AFLA does all this without imposing any restriction whatsoever against the teaching of “religion qua religion” or the inculcation of religious beliefs in federally funded programs. As. the District Court put it, “[t]o presume that AFLA counselors from religious organizations can put their beliefs aside when counseling an adolescent on matters that are part of religious doctrine is simply unrealistic.” Id., at 1563 (citing Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U. S. 373 (1985)).
The District Court then concluded that the statute as applied also runs afoul of the Lemon effects test. The evidence presented by appellees revealed that AFLA grants had gone to various organizations that were affiliated with religious denominations and that had corporate requirements that the organizations abide by religious doctrines. Other AFLA grantees were- not explicitly affiliated with organized religions, but were “religiously inspired and dedicated to teaching the dogma that inspired them.” 657 F. Supp., at 1564. In the District Court’s view, the record clearly established that the AFLA, as it has been administered by the Secretary, has in fact directly advanced religion, provided funding for institutions that wére “pervasively sectarian,” or allowed federal funds to be used for education and counseling that “amounts to the teaching of religion.” Ibid. As to. the entanglement prong of Lemon, the court ruled that because AFLA funds are used largely for counseling and teaching, it would require overly intrusive monitoring or oversight to ensure that religion is not advanced by religiously affiliated AFLÁ grantees. Indeed, the court felt that “it is impossible to comprehend entanglement more extensive and continuous than that necessitated by the AFLA.” 657 F. Supp., at 1568.
In a separate order, filed August 13, 1987, the District Court ruled that the “constitutionally infirm language of the AFLA, namely its references to ‘religious organizations,’” App. to Juris. Statement in No. 431, p. 53a, is severable from the Act pursuant to Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U. S. 678 (1987). The court also denied the Secretary’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to clarify what the court meant by “religious organizations” for purposes of determining the scope of its injunction. On the same day that this order was entered, appellants docketed their appeal on the merits directly with this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1252. A separate appeal from the District Court’s August 13 order was also docketed, as was a cross-appeal by appel-lees on the severability issue. On November 9, 1987, we noted probable jurisdiction in all three appeals and consolidated the cases for argument. 484 U. S. 942 (1987).
II
The District Court in this lawsuit held the AFLA unconstitutional both on its face and as applied. Few of our cases in the Establishment Clause area have explicitly distinguished between facial challenges to a statute and attacks on the statute as applied. Several cases have clearly involved challenges to a statute “on its face.” For example, in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578 (1987), we considered the validity of the Louisiana “Creationism Act,” finding the Act “facially invalid.” Indeed, in that case it was clear that only a facial challenge could have been considered, as the Act had not been implemented. Id., at 581, n. 1. Other cases, as well, have considered the validity of statutes without the benefit of a record as to how the statute had actually been applied. See Wolman v. Walter, 433 U. S. 229 (1977); Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756 (1973).
In other cases we have, in the course of determining the constitutionality of a statute, referred not only to the language of the statute but also to the manner in which it had been administered in practice. Levitt v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty, 413 U. S. 472, 479 (1973); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U. S. 349 (1975). See also Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, supra, at 377-379; Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U. S. 402 (1985). In several cases we have expressly recognized that an otherwise valid statute authorizing grants might be challenged on the grounds that the award of a grant in a particular case would be impermissible. Hunt v. McNair, 413 U. S. 734 (1973), involved a challenge to a South Carolina statute that provided for the issuance of revenue bonds to assist “institutions of higher learning” in constructing new facilities.. The plaintiffs in that case did not contest the validity of the statute as a whole, but contended only that a statutory grant to a religiously affiliated college would be invalid. Id., at 736. In Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672 (1971), the Court reviewed a federal statute authorizing construction grants to colleges exclusively for secular educational purposes. We rejected the contention that the statute was invalid- “on its face” and “as applied” to the four church-related colleges that were named as defendants in the case. However, we did leave open the possibility that the statute might authorize grants which could be invalid, stating that “[individual projects can be properly evaluated if and when challenges arise with respect to particular recipients and some evidence is then presented to show that the institution does in fact possess” sectarian characteristics that might make a grant of aid to the institution constitutionally impermissible. Id., at 682. See also Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U. S. 736, 760-761 (1976) (upholding a similar statute authorizing grants to colléges against a “facial” attack and pretermitting the question whether “particular applications may result in unconstitutional use of funds”).
There is, then, precedent in this area of constitutional law for distinguishing between the validity of the statute on its face and its validity in particular applications. Although the Court’s opinions have not even adverted to (to say nothing of explicitly delineated) the consequences of this distinction between “on its face” and “as applied” in this context, we think they do justify the District Court’s approach in separating the two issues as it did here.
This said, we turn to consider whether the District Court was correct in concluding that the AFLA was unconstitutional on its face. As in previous cases involving facial challenges on Establishment Clause grounds, e. g., Edwards v. Aguillard, supra; Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388 (1983), we assess the constitutionality of an enactment by reference to the three factors first articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971). Under the Lemon standard, which guides “[t]he general nature of our. inquiry in this area,” Mueller v. Allen, supra, at 394, a court may invalidate a statute only if it is motivated wholly by an impermissible purpose, Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 680 (1984); Stone v. Graham, 449 U. S. 39, 41 (1980), if its primary effect is the advancement of religion, Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U. S. 703, 708 (1985), or if it requires excessive entanglement between church and state, Lemon, supra, at 613; Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U. S. 664, 674 (1970). We consider each of these factors in turn.
As we see it, it is clear from the face of the statute that the AFLA was motivated primarily, if not entirely, by a legitimate secular purpose — the elimination or reduction of social and economic problems caused by teenage sexuality, pregnancy, and parenthood. See §§300z(a), (b) (1982 ed. and Supp. IV). Appellees cannot, and do not, dispute that, on the whole, religious concerns were not the sole motivation behind the Act, see Lynch, supra, at 680, nor can it be said that the AFLA lacks a legitimate secular purpose, see Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S., at 585. In the court below, however, appellees argued that the real purpose of the AFLA could only be understood in reference to the AFLA’s predecessor, Title VI. Appellees contended that Congress had an impermissible purpose in adopting the AFLA because it specifically amended Title VI to increase the role of religious organizations in the programs sponsored by the Act. In particular, they pointed to the fact that the AFLA, unlike Title VI, requires grant applicants to describe how they will involve religious organizations in the programs funded by the AFLA. § 300z-5(a)(21)(B).
The District Court rejected this argument,- however, reasoning that even if it is assumed that the AFLA was motivated in part by improper concerns, the parts of the statute to which appellees object were also motivated by other, entirely legitimate secular concerns. We agree with this conclusion. As the District Court correctly pointed out, Congress amended Title VI in a number of ways, most importantly for present purposes by attempting to enlist the aid of not only “religious organizations,” but also “family members...., charitable organizations, voluntary associations, and other groups in the private sector,” in addressing the problems associated with adolescent sexuality. § 300z(a)(8)(B); see also §§300z-5(a)(21)(A), (B), Cf. Title VI, § 601(a) (5) (“[T]he problems of adolescent [sexuality]... are best approached through a variety of integrated and essential services”). Congress’ decision to amend the statute in this way reflects the entirely appropriate aim of increasing broad-based community involvement “in helping adolescent boys and girls understand the implications of premarital sexual relations, pregnancy, and parenthood.” See Senate Report, at 2, 15-16. In adopting the AFLA, Congress expressly intended to expand the services already authorized by Title VI, to insure the increased participation of parents in education and support services, to increase the flexibility of the programs, and to spark the development of new, innovative services. Id., at 7-9. These are all legitimate secular goals that are furthered by the AFLA’s additions to Title VI, including the challenged provisions that refer to religious organizations. There simply is no evidence that Congress’ “actual purpose” in passing the AFLA was one of “endorsing religion.” See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S., at 589-594. Nor are we in a position to doubt that Congress’ expressed purposes are “sincere and not a sham.” Id., at 587.
As usual in Establishment Clause cases, see, e. g., Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U. S. 373 (1985); Mueller, supra, the more difficult question is whether the primary effect of the challenged statute is impermissible. Before we address this question, however, it is useful to review again just what the AFLA sets out to do. Simply stated, it authorizes grants to institutions that are capable of providing certain care and prevention services to adolescents. Because of the complexity of the problems that Congress sought to remedy, potential grantees are required to describe how they will involve other organizations, including religious organizations, in the programs funded by the federal grants. § 300z-5(a)(21)(B); see also § 300z-2(a). There is no requirement in the Act that grantees be affiliated with any religious denomination, although the Act clearly does not rule out grants to religious organizations. The services to be provided under the AFLA are not religious in character, see n. 2, supra, nor has there been any suggestion that religious institutions or organizations with religious ties are uniquely well qualified to carry out those services. Certainly it is true that a substantial part of the services listed as “necessary services” under the Act involve some sort of education or counseling, see, e. g., §§300z-l(a)(4)(D), (G), (H), (J), (L), (M), (0), but there is nothing inherently religious about these activities and appellees do not contend that, by themselves, the AFLA’s “necessary services” somehow have the primary effect of advancing religion. Finally, it is clear that the AFLA takes a particular approach toward dealing with adolescent sexuality and pregnancy — for example, two of its stated purposes are to “promote self discipline and other prudent approaches to the problem of adolescent premarital sexual relations,” §300z(b)(l), and to “promote adoption as an alternative,” 300z(b)(2) — but again, that approach is not inherently religious * although it may coincide with the approach taken by certain religions.
Given this statutory framework, there are two ways in which the statute, considered “on its face,” might be said to have the impermissible primary effect of advancing religion. First, it can be argued that the AFLA advances religion by expressly recognizing that “religious organizations have a role to play” in addressing the problems associated with teenage sexuality. Senate Report, at 16. In this view, even if no religious institution receives aid or funding pursuant to the AFLA, the statute is invalid under the Establishment Clause because, among other things, it expressly enlists the involvement of religiously affiliated organizations in the federally subsidized programs, it endorses religious solutions to the problems addressed by the Act, or it creates symbolic ties between church and state. Secondly, it can be argued that the AFLA is invalid on its face because it allows religiously affiliated organizations to participate as grantees or subgrantees in AFLA programs. From this standpoint, the Act is invalid because it authorizes direct federal funding of religious organizations which, given the AFLA’s educational function and the fact that the AFLA’s “viewpoint” may coincide with the grantee’s “viewpoint” on sexual matters, will result unavoidably in the impermissible “inculcation” of religious beliefs in the context of a federally funded program.
We consider the former objection first. As noted previously, the AFLA expressly mentions the role of religious organizations in four places. It states (1) that the problems of teenage sexuality are “best approached through a variety of integrated and essential services provided to adolescents and their families by[, among others,] religious organizations,” §300z(a)(8)(B), (2) that federally subsidized services “should emphasize the provision of support by[, among others,] religious and charitable organizations,” §300z(a)(10)(C), (3) that AFLA programs “shall use such methods as will strengthen the capacity of families... to make use of support systems such as... religious... organizations,” §300z-2(a), and (4) that grant applicants shall describe how they will involve religious organizations, among other groups, in the provision of services under the Act. § 300z-5(a)(21)(B).
Putting aside for the moment the possible role of religious organizations as grantees, these provisions of the statute reflect at most Congress’ considered judgment that religious organizations can help solve the problems to which the AFLA is addressed. See Senate Report, at 15-16. Nothing in our previous eases prevents Congress from making such a judgment or from recognizing the important part that religion or religious organizations may play in resolving certain, secular problems. Particularly when, as Congress found, “prevention of adolescent sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy depends primarily upon developing strong family values and close family ties,” § 300z(a)(10)(A), it seems quite sensible for Congress to recognize that religious organizations can influence values and can have some influence on family life, including parents’ relations with their adolescent children. To the extent that this congressional recognition has any effect of advancing religion, the effect is at most “incidental and remote.” See Lynch, 465 U. S., at 683; Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U. S., at 710; Nyquist, 413 U. S., at 771. In addition, although the AFLA does require potential grantees to describe how they will involve religious organizations in the provision, of services under the Act, it also requires grantees to describe the involvement of “charitable organizations, voluntary associations, and other groups in the private sector,” § 300z-5(a)(21)(B). In our view, this reflects the statute’s successful maintenance of “a course of neutrality among religions, and between religion and non-religion,” Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U. S., at 382.
This brings us to the second ground for objecting to the AFLA: the fact that it allows religious institutions' to participate as recipients of federal funds. The AFLA defines an “eligible grant recipient” as a “public or nonprofit private organization or agency” which demonstrates the capability of providing the requisite services. § 300z — 1(a)(3). As this provision would indicate, a fairly wide spectrum' of organizations is eligible to apply for and receive funding under the Act, and nothing on the face of the Act suggests it is anything but neutral with respect to the grantee’s status as a sectarian or purely secular institution. See Senate Report, at 16 (“Religious affiliation is not a criterion for selection as a grantee...”). In this regard, then, the AFLA is similar to other statutes that this Court has upheld against Establishment Clause challenges in the past. In Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U. S. 736 (1976), for example, we upheld a Maryland statute that provided annual subsidies directly to qualifying colleges and universities in the State, including religiously affiliated institutions. As the plurality stated, “religious institutions need not be quarantined from public benefits that are neutrally available to all.” Id., at 746 (discussing Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1 (1947) (approving busing services equally available to both public and private school children), and Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236 (1968) (upholding state provision of secular textbooks for both public and private school students)). Similarly, in Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672 (1971), we approved the federal Higher Educational Facilities Act, which was intended by Congress to.provide construction grants to “all colleges and universities regardless of any affiliation with or sponsorship by a religious body.” Id., at 676. And in Hunt v. McNair, 413 U. S. 734 (1973), we rejected a challenge to a South Carolina statute that made certain benefits “available to all institutions of higher education in South Carolina, whether or not having a religious affiliation.” Id., at 741. In other cases involving indirect grants of state aid to religious institutions, we have found it important that the aid is made available regardless of whether it will ultimately flow to a secular or sectarian institution. See, e. g., Witters v. Washington Dept. of Services for Blind, 474 U. S. 481, 487 (1986); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S., at 398; Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at 17-18; Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U. S., at 676.
We, note in addition that this Court has never held that religious institutions are disabled by the First Amendment from participating in publicly sponsored social welfare programs. To the contrary, in Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U. S. 291 (1899), the Court upheld an agreement between the Commissioners of the District of Columbia and a religiously affiliated hospital whereby the Federal Government would pay for the construction of a new building on the grounds of the hospital. In effect, the Court refused to hold that the mere fact that the hospital was “conducted under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church” was sufficient to alter the purely secular legal character of the corporation, id., at 298, particularly in the absence of any allegation that the hospital discriminated on the basis of religion or operated in any way inconsistent with its secular charter. In the Court’s view, the giving of federal aid to the hospital was entirely consistent with the Establishment-Clause, and the fact that the hospital was religiously affiliated was “wholly immaterial.” Ibid. The propriety of this holding, and the long history of cooperation and interdependency between governments and charitable or religious organizations is reflected in the legislative history of the AFLA. See S. Rep. No. 98-496, p. 10 (1984) (“Charitable organizations with religious affiliations historically have provided social services with the support of their communities and without controversy”).
Of course, even when the challenged statute appears to be neutral on its face, we have always been careful to ensure that direct government aid to religiously affiliated institutions does not have the primary effect of advancing religion. One way in which direct government aid might have that effect is if the aid flows to institutions that are “pervasively sectarian.” We stated in Hunt that
“[a]id normally may be thought to have a primary effect of advancing religion when it flows to an institution in which religion is so pervasive that a substantial portion of its functions are subsumed in the religious mission _” 413 U. S., at 743.
The reason for this is that there is a risk that direct government funding, even if it is designated for specific secular purposes, may nonetheless advance the pervasively sectarian institution’s “religious mission.” See Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U. S., at 385 (discussing how aid to religious schools may impermissibly advance religion). Accordingly, a relevant factor in deciding whether a particular statute on its face can be said to have the improper effect of advancing religion is the determination of whether, and to what extent, the statute directs government aid to pervasively sectarian institutions. In Grand Rapids School District, for example, the Court began its “effects” inquiry with “a consideration of the nature of the institutions in which the [challenged] programs operate.” Id., at 384.
In this lawsuit, nothing on the face of the AFLA indicates that a significant proportion of the federal funds will be disbursed to “pervasively sectarian” institutions. Indeed, the contention that there is a substantial risk of such institutions receiving direct aid is undercut by the AFLA’s facially neutral grant requirements, the wide spectrum of public ánd private organizations which are capable of meeting the AFLA’s requirements, and the fact that, of the eligible religious institutions, many will not deserve the label of “pervasively sectarian.” This is not a case like Gmnd Rapids, where the challenged aid flowed almost entirely to parochial schools. In that case the State’s “Shared Time” program was directed specifically at providing certain classes for nonpublic schools, and 40 of 41 of the schools that actually participated in the program were found to be “pervasively sectarian.” Id., at 385. See also Nyquist, 413 U. S., at 768 (“‘all or practically all’ ” of the schools entitled to receive grants were religiously affiliated); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U. S., at 371. Instead, this litigation more closely resembles Tilton and Roemer, where it was foreseeable that some proportion of the recipients of government aid would be religiously affiliated, but that only a small portion of these, if any, could be considered “pervasively sectarian.” In those cases we upheld the challenged statutes on their face and as applied to the institutions named in the complaints, but left open the consequences which would ensue if they allowed federal aid to go to institutions that were in fact pervasively sectarian. Tilton, 403 U. S., at 682; Roemer, 426 U. S., at 760. As in Tilton and Roemer, we do not think the possibility that AFLA grants may go to religious institutions that can be considered “pervasively sectarian” is sufficient to conclude that no grants whatsoever can. be given under the statute to religious organizations. We think that the District Court was wrong in concluding otherwise.
Nor do we agree with the District Court that the AFLA necessarily has the effect of advancing religion because the religiously affiliated AFLA grantees will be providing educational arid counseling services to adolescents. Of course, we have said that the Establishment Clause does “prohibit government-financed or government-sponsored indoctrination into the beliefs of a particular religious faith,” Grand Rapids, supra, at 385, and we have accordingly struck down programs that entail an unacceptable risk that government funding would be used to “advance the religious mission” of the religious institution receiving aid. See, e. g., Meek, supra, at 370. But nothing in our prior cases warrants the presumption adopted by the District Court that religiously affiliated AFLA grantees are not capable of carrying out their functions under the AFLA in a lawful, secular manner. Only in the context of aid to “pervasively sectarian” institutions have we invalidated an aid program on the grounds that there was a “substantial” risk that aid to these religious institutions would, knowingly or unknowingly, result in religious indoctrination. E. g., Grand Rapids, supra, at 387-398; Meek, supra, at 371. In contrast, when the aid is to flow to religiously affiliated institutions that were not pervasively sectarian, as in Roemer, we refused to presume that it would be used in a way that would have the primary effect of advancing religion. Roemer, 426 U. S., at 760 (“We must assume that the colleges... will exercise their delegated control over use of the funds in compliance with the statutory, and therefore the constitutional, mandate”). We think that the type of presumption that the District Court applied in this case is simply unwarranted. As we stated in Roemer: “It has not been the Court’s practice, in considering facial challenges to statutes of this kind, to strike them down in anticipation that particular applications may result in unconstitutional use of funds.” Id., at 761; see also Tilton, supra, at 682.
We also disagree with the District Court’s conclusion that the AFLA is invalid because it authorizes “teaching” by religious grant recipients on “matters [that] are fundamental elements of religious doctrine,” such as the harm of premarital sex and the reasons for choosing adoption over abortion. 657 F. Supp., at 1562. On an issue as sensitive and important as teenage sexuality, it is not surprising that the Government’s secular concerns would either coincide or conflict with those of religious institutions. But the possibility or even the likelihood that some of the religious institutions who receive AFLA funding will agree with the message that Congress intended to deliver to adolescents through the AFLA is insufficient to warrant a finding that the statute on its face has the primary effect of advancing religion. See Lynch, 465 U. S., at 682; id., at 715-716 (Brennan, J., dissenting); Harris v. McRae, 448 U. S. 297, 319-320 (1980). Nor does the alignment of the statute and the religious views of the grantees run afoul 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: | 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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases, involving the interpretation of § 355 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, have an appropriately complex history.
American Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereafter A. T. & T.) conducts its local communications business through corporate subsidiaries. Prior to July 1, 1961, communications services in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho were provided by Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereafter Pacific). A. T. & T. held about 90% of the common stock of Pacific at all relevant times. The remainder was widely distributed.
Early in 1961, it was decided to divide Pacific into two separate corporate subsidiaries of A. T. & T. The plan was to create a new corporation, Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company (hereafter Northwest) to conduct telephone business in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, leaving the conduct of the California business in the hands of Pacific. To this end, Pacific would transfer all its assets and liabilities in the first three States to Northwest, in return for Northwest common stock and debt paper. Then, Pacific would transfer sufficient Northwest stock to Pacific shareholders to pass control of Northwest to the parent company, A. T. & T.
Pacific had, however, objectives other than fission. It wanted to generate cash to pay off existing liabilities and meet needs for capital, but not to have excess cash left over. It also feared that a simple distribution of the Northwest stock would encounter obstacles under California corporation law. Consequently, the “Plan for Reorganization” submitted to Pacific’s shareholders on February 27, 1961, had two special features. It provided that only about 56% of the Northwest common stock would be offered to Pacific shareholders immediately after the creation of Northwest. It also provided that, instead of simply distributing Northwest stock pro rata to shareholders, Pacific would distribute to its shareholders transferable rights entitling their holders to purchase Northwest common from Pacific at an amount to be specified by Pacific's Board of Directors, but expected to be below the fair market value of the Northwest common.
In its February 27 statement to shareholders, Pacific said that it was seeking a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service
“with respect to the tax status of the rights to purchase which will be issued in connection with the offerings of capital stock of the New Company to shareholders of the Company . . .
The statement warned, however, that “[tjaxable income to the holders of such shares may result with respect to such rights.”
The plan was approved by Pacific’s shareholders on March 24, 1961. Pacific transferred its assets and liabilities in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho to Northwest, and ceased business in those States on June 30, 1961. On September 29, 1961, Pacific issued to its common stockholders one right for each outstanding share of Pacific stock. These rights were exercisable until October 20, 1961. Six rights plus a payment of $16 were required to purchase one share of Northwest common. The rights issued in 1961 were sufficient to transfer about 57% of the Northwest stock.
By September 29, 1961, the Internal Revenue Service had ruled that shareholders who sold rights would realize ordinary income in the amount of the sales price, and that shareholders who exercised rights would realize ordinary income in the amount of the difference between $16 paid in and the fair market value, measured as of the date of exercise, of the Northwest common received. The prospectus accompanying the distributed rights informed Pacific shareholders of this ruling.
On June 12, 1963, the remaining 43% of the Northwest stock was offered to Pacific shareholders. This second offering was structured much as the first had been, except that eight rights plus $16 were required to purchase one share of Northwest.
The Gordons, respondents in No. 760, and the Baans, petitioners in No. 781, were minority shareholders of Pacific as of September 29, 1961. In the rights distribution that occurred that day the Gordons received 1,540 rights under the plan. They exercised 1,536 of the rights on October 5, 1961, paying $4,096 to obtain 256 shares of Northwest, at a price of $46 plus six rights per share. The average price of Northwest stock on the American Stock Exchange was $26 per share on October 5. On the same day, the Gordons sold the four odd rights for $6.36. The Baans received 600 rights on September 29, 1961. They exercised them all on October 11, 1961, receiving 100 shares of Northwest in return for their 600 rights and $1,600. On October 11, the agreed fair market value of one Northwest share was $26.94.
In their federal income tax returns for 1961, neither the Gordons nor the Baans reported any income upon the receipt of the rights or upon exercising them to obtain Northwest stock at less than its fair market value. The Gordons also did not report any income on the sale of the four rights. The Commissioner asserted deficiencies against both sets of taxpayers. He contended, in a joint proceeding in the Tax Court, that the taxpayers received ordinary income in the amount of the difference between the sum they paid in exercising their rights and the fair market value of the Northwest stock received. He contended further that the Gordons realized ordinary income in the amount of $6.36, the sales price, upon the sale of their four odd rights.
The Tax Court upheld the taxpayers’ contention that the 1961 distribution of Northwest stock met the requirements of § 355 of the Code, with the result that no gain or loss should be recognized on the receipt by them or their exercise of the rights. The Tax Court held, however, that the Gordons’ sale of the four odd rights resulted in ordinary income to them. The Commissioner appealed the Bmn case to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Gordon case to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; in the latter, the Gordons cross-appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed the Tax Court, holding that the spread between $16 and fair market value was taxable as ordinary income to the Baans. The Second Circuit disagreed, sustaining the Tax Court on this point in the Gordon case, Judge Friendly dissenting. The Second Circuit went on to hold that the amount received by the Gordons for the four odd rights was taxable as a capital gain rather than as ordinary income, reversing the Tax Court on this point.
Because of the conflict, we granted certiorari. 389 U. S. 1033, 1034. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on both points.
Under §§ 301 and 316 of the Code, subject to specific exceptions and qualifications provided in the Code, any distribution of property by a corporation to its shareholders out of accumulated earnings and profits is a dividend taxable to the shareholders as ordinary income. Every distribution of corporate property, again except as otherwise specifically provided, “is made out of earnings and profits to the extent thereof.” It is here agreed that on September 28, 1961, Pacific’s accumulated earnings and profits were larger in extent than the total amount the Commissioner here contends was a dividend — the difference between the fair market value of all Northwest stock sold in 1961 and the total amount, at $16 per share, paid in by purchasers.
Whether the actual dividend occurs at the moment when valuable rights are distributed or at the moment when their value is realized through sale or exercise, it is clear that when a corporation sells corporate property to stockholders or their assignees at less than its fair market value, thus diminishing the net worth of the corporation, it is engaging in a “distribution of property” as that term is used in § 316. Such a sale thus results in a dividend to shareholders unless some specific exception or qualification applies. In particular, it is here agreed that the spread was taxable to the present taxpayers unless the distribution of Northwest stock by Pacific met the requirements for nonrecognition stated in § 355, or § 354, or § 346 (b) of the Code. Since the Tax Court concluded that the requirements of § 355 had been met, it did not reach taxpayers’ alternative contentions. Under the disposition that we make here upon the § 355 question, these alternative contentions remain open for further proceedings in the Tax Court.
Section 355 provides that certain distributions of securities of corporations controlled by the distributing corporation do not result in recognized gain or loss to the distributee shareholders. The requirements of the section are detailed and specific, and must be applied with precision. It is no doubt true, as the Second Circuit emphasized, that the general purpose of the section was to distinguish corporate fission from the distribution of earnings and profits. However, although a court may have reference to this purpose when -there is a genuine question as to the meaning of one of the requirements Congress has imposed, a court is not free to disregard requirements simply because it considers them redundant or unsuited to achieving the general purpose in a particular case. Congress has abundant power to provide that a corporation wishing to spin off a subsidiary must, however bona fide its intentions, conform the details of a distribution to a particular set of rules.
The Commissioner contends that the 1961 distribution of Northwest stock failed to qualify under § 356 in several respects. We need, however, reach only one. Section 355 (a)(1)(D) requires that, in order to qualify for nonrecognition of gain or loss to shareholders, the distribution must be such that
“as part of the distribution, the distributing corporation distributes—
“(i) all of the stock and securities in the controlled corporation held by it immediately before the distribution, or
“(ii) an amount of stock in the controlled corporation constituting control within the meaning of section 368 (c), and . . .
Section 368 (c) provides in relevant part that
“the term ‘control’ means the ownership of stock possessing at least 80 percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote and at least 80 percent of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock of the corporation.”
On September 28, 1961, the day before the first rights distribution, Pacific owned all of the common stock of Northwest, the only class of securities that company had issued. The 1961 rights offering contemplated transferring, and succeeded in transferring, about 57% of the Northwest common to Pacific shareholders. It therefore could not be clearer that this 1961 distribution did not transfer “all” of the stock of Northwest held by Pacific prior to it, and did not transfer “control” as that term is defined in § 368 (c).
Nevertheless, taxpayers contend, and the Second Circuit agreed, that the requirements of subsection (a)(1)(D) were here met because Pacific distributed the remaining 43% of the Northwest stock in 1963. The court said that the purpose of the subsection “in no way requires a single distribution.” The court apparently concluded that so long as it appears, at the time the issue arises, that the parent corporation has in fact distributed all of the stock of the subsidiary, the requirements of § (a)(1) (D)(i) have been satisfied.
We are forced to disagree. The Code requires that “the distribution” divest the controlling corporation of all of, or 80% control of, the controlled corporation. Clearly, if an initial transfer of less than a controlling interest in the controlled corporation is to be treated for tax purposes as a mere first step in the divestiture of control, it must at least be identifiable as such at the time it is made. Absent other specific directions from Congress, Code provisions must be interpreted so as to conform to the basic premise of annual tax accounting. It would be wholly inconsistent with this premise to hold that the essential character of a transaction, and its tax impact, should remain not only undeterminable but unfixed for an indefinite and unlimited period in the future, awaiting events that might or might not happen. This requirement that the character of a transaction be determinable does not mean that the entire divestiture must necessarily occur within a single tax year. It does, however, mean that if one transaction is to be characterized as a “first step” there must be a binding commitment to take the later steps.
Here, it was little more than a fortuity that, by the time suit was brought alleging a deficiency in taxpayers' 1961 returns, Pacific had distributed the remainder of the stock. The plan for reorganization submitted to shareholders in 1961 promised that 56% of that stock would be distributed immediately. The plan went on,
“It is expected that within about three years after acquiring the stock of the New Company, the Company by one or more offerings will offer for sale the balance of such stock, following the procedures described in the preceding paragraph. The proceeds from such sales will be used by the Company to repay advances then outstanding and for general corporate purposes including expenditures for extensions, additions and improvements to its telephone plant.
“The prices at which the shares of the New Company will be offered pursuant to the offerings referred to . . . will be determined by the Board of Directors of the Company at the time of each offering.”
It was further stated that such subsequent distributions would occur “[a]t a time or times related to its [Pacific’s] need for new capital.” Although there is other language in the plan that might be interpreted as preventing Pacific management from dealing with the Northwest stock in any way inconsistent with eventual sale to Pacific shareholders, there is obviously no promise to sell any particular amount of stock, at any particular time, at any particular price. If the 1961 distribution played a part in what later proved to be a total divestiture of the Northwest stock, it was not, in 1961, either a total divestiture or a step in a plan of total divestiture.
Accordingly, we hold that the taxpayers, having exercised rights to purchase shares of Northwest from Pacific in 1961, must recognize ordinary income in that year in the amount of the difference between $16 per share and the fair market value of a share of Northwest common at the moment the rights were exercised.
The second question presented by the petition in No. 760, whether the $6.36 received by taxpayers Gordon upon the sale of four rights was taxable as ordinary income, as a capital gain, or not at all, does not require extended discussion in light of our view upon the first question. Since receipt and exercise of the rights would have produced ordinary income, receipt and sale of the rights, constituting merely an alternative route to realization, also produced income taxable at ordinary rates. Helvering v. Horst, 311 U. S. 112; Gibson v. Commissioner, 133 F. 2d 308 (C. A. 2d Cir.).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The record indicates that Pacific’s attorneys had advised that if Pacific distributed the Northwest shares without payment of consideration by Pacific’s shareholders, the distribution would have to be charged to earned surplus; the attorneys further advised that Pacific had insufficient earned surplus for this purpose, and that if this difficulty were avoided by creation of a reduction surplus, the reduction surplus would, under California law, have to be used first to redeem Pacific’s preferred shares.
Section 301 (a) provides as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a distribution of property (as defined in section 317 (a)) made by a corporation to a shareholder with respect to its stock shall be treated in the manner provided in subsection (c).”
Section 317 (a) provides that “the term 'property' means money, securities, and any other property . . . .” Section 301 (c) provides that the “portion of the distribution which is a dividend (as defined in section 316) shall be included in gross income.” Section 316 says that “the term 'dividend' means any distribution of property made by a corporation to its shareholders — (1) out of its earnings and profits accumulated after February 28, 1913, or . . . .”
Section 316 (a) provides in part as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, every distribution is made out of earnings and profits to the extent thereof . . . .”
See, e. g., Choate v. Commissioner, 129 F. 2d 684 (C. A. 2d Cir.). In Palmer v. Commissioner, 302 U. S. 63, 69, this Court said:
“While a sale of corporate assets to stockholders is, in a literal sense, a distribution of its property, such a transaction does not necessarily fall within the statutory definition of a dividend. For a sale to stockholders may not result in any diminution of its net worth and in that case cannot result in any distribution of its profits.
“On the other hand such a sale, if for substantially less than the value of the property sold, may be as effective a means of distributing profits among stockholders as the formal declaration of a dividend.”
In Palmer, rights were distributed entitling shareholders to purchase from the corporation shares of stock in another corporation. Find-, ing that the sales price represented the reasonable value of the shares at the time the corporation committed itself to sell them, this Court found no dividend. It held that the mere issue of rights was not a dividend. It has not, however, been authoritatively settled whether an issue of rights to purchase at less than fair market value itself constitutes a dividend, or the dividend occurs only on the actual purchase. In the present case this need not be decided.
It is important to begin from this premise. In our view, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit erred in its approach to the § 355 problem because it assumed, at the outset, that the Commissioner essentially sought to tax a transaction that brought no “income” to Pacific shareholders. Whether the shareholders received income, however, cannot in practice be determined in the abstract, before looking at § 355.
Any common shareholder in some sense "owns” a fraction of the assets of the corporation in which he holds stock, including those assets that reflect accumulated corporate earnings. Earnings are not taxed to the shareholder when they accrue to the corporation, but instead when they are passed to shareholders individually through dividends. Consequently it does not help to note, as the Second Circuit here did, that the distribution of Northwest stock merely changed the form of ownership that Pacific’s shareholders enjoyed and did not increase their wealth. This is only very roughly true at best, but in the rough sense in which it is here true, it is true of any dividend. The question is not whether a shareholder ends up with “more” but whether the change in the form of his ownership represents a transfer to him, by the corporation, of assets reflecting its accumulated earnings and profits.
There may be a genuine theoretical difference between a change in form representing a mere corporate fission, separating what the shareholder owns into two smaller but essentially similar parts, and a change in form representing a dividend, separating what a shareholder owns qua shareholder from what he owns as an individual. This difference, however, must be defined by objectively workable tests, such as Congress supplied in § 355. Neither the Second Circuit nor the taxpayers have suggested any other way of identifying a true fission.
Sec. 355. Distribution of stock and securities of a controlled corporation.
(a) Effect on distributees.
(1) General rule.
If—
(A) a corporation (referred to in this section as the “distributing corporation”)—
(i) distributes to a shareholder, with respect to its stock, or
(ii) distributes to a security holder, in exchange for its securities, solely stock or securities of a corporation (referred to in this section as “controlled corporation”) which it controls immediately before the distribution,
(B) the transaction was not used principally as a device for the distribution of the earnings and profits of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation or both (but the mere fact that subsequent to the distribution stock or securities in one or more of such corporations are sold or exchanged by all or some of the dis-tributees (other than pursuant to an arrangement negotiated or agreed upon prior to such distribution) shall not be construed to mean that the transaction was used principally as such a device),
(C) the requirements of subsection (b) (relating to active business) are satisfied, and
(D) as part of the distribution, the distributing corporation distributes—
(1) all of the stock and securities in the controlled corporation held by it immediately before the distribution, or
(ii) an amount of stock in the controlled corporation constituting control within the meaning of section 368 (c), and it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary or his delegate that the retention by the distributing corporation of stock (or stock and securities) in the controlled corporation was not in pursuance of a plan having as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of Federal income tax, then no gain or loss shall be recognized to (and no amount shall be includible in the income of) such shareholder or security holder on the receipt of such stock or securities.
(2) Non pro rata distributions, etc.
Paragraph (1) shall be applied without regard to the following:
(A) whether or not the distribution is pro’ rata with respect to all of the shareholders of the distributing corporation,
(B) whether or not the shareholder surrenders stock in the distributing corporation, and
(C) whether or not the distribution is in pursuance of a plan of reorganization (within the meaning of section 368 (a)(1)(D)).
(3) Limitation.
Paragraph (1) shall not apply if—
(A) the principal amount of the securities in the controlled corporation which are received exceeds the principal amount of the securities which are surrendered in connection with such distribution, or
(B) securities in the controlled corporation are received and no securities are surrendered in connection with such distribution.
For purposes of this section (other than paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection) and so much of section 356 as relates to this section, stock of a controlled corporation acquired by the distributing corporation by reason of any transaction which occurs within 5 years of the distribution of such stock and in which gain or loss was recognized in whole or in part, shall' not be treated as stock of such controlled corporation, but as other property.
(4) Cross reference.
For treatment of the distribution if any property is received which is not permitted to be received under this subsection (including an excess principal amount of securities received over securities surrendered), see section 356.
(b) Requirements as to active business.
(1) In general.
Subsection (a) shall apply only if either—
(A) the distributing corporation, and the controlled corporation (or, if stock of more than one controlled corporation is distributed, each of such corporations), is engaged immediately after the distribution in the active conduct of a trade or business, or
(B) immediately before the distribution, the distributing corporation had no assets other than stock or securities in the controlled corporations and each of the controlled corporations is engaged immediately after the distribution in the active conduct of a trade or business.
(2) Definition.
For purposes of paragraph (1), a corporation shall be treated as engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business if and only if—
(A) it is engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business, or substantially all of its assets consist of stock and securities of a corporation controlled by it (immediately after the distribution) which is so engaged,
(B) such trade or business has been actively conducted throughout the 5-year period ending on the date of the distribution,
(C) such trade or business was not acquired within the period described in subparagraph (B) in a transaction in which gain or loss was recognized in whole or in part, and
(D) control of a corporation which (at the times of acquisition of control) was conducting such trade or business—
(i) was not acquired directly (or through one or more corporations) by another corporation within the period described in subparagraph (B), or
(ii) was so acquired by another corporation within such period, but such control was so acquired only by reason of transactions in which gain or loss was not recognized in whole or in part, or only by reason of such transactions combined with acquisitions before the beginning of such period.
The Commissioner contends, first, that Pacific did not distribute “solely stock or securities” as required by §355 (a)(1)(A), because it distributed rights rather than stock. He contends, second, that Pacific did not distribute the Northwest stock “to a shareholder, with respect to its stock”'as required by § 355 (a) (1) (A) (i), because it did not distribute the stock to shareholders but sold it to holders of transferable rights, for cash consideration. He contends, third, that Northwest did not meet the quantity requirements of § 355 (a) (1) (D) because it parted with only 57% of the stock in 1961.
Any one of these arguments, if established, would support the result the Commissioner seeks. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit perforce rejected all three. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted all three. We reach only the last.
In the Tax Court, the Commissioner did not argue that Pacific had failed to meet the requirement that it distribute at least 80% of the Northwest stock, but rested upon his other arguments against applying § 355. When the Tax Court rejected these arguments, the Commissioner raised the 80% question, as well as his other arguments in both Courts of Appeals. Both considered the point on the merits, dividing on it as on the others. Since the general issue of the applicability of § 355 has been in the case since its inception, taxpayers do not contend that the 80% question is not properly before this Court. Since the record leaves no disputed issue of fact with respect to this question, we find it proper to decide it here without reference to a trier of fact.
382 F. 2d 499, 507.
See Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 U. S. 359, 363-365.
The Commissioner contends that a multistep divestiture presents special problems in preventing bailouts of earnings and profits. The Second Circuit, recognizing such potential problems, held that they can be dealt with under § (a)(1)(B), which provides that nonrecognition shall result only when it appears that
“the transaction was not used principally as a device for the distribution of the earnings and profits of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation or both
Congress may, of course, have chosen not to leave problems created by multistep divestitures to specific adjudication under this “device” subsection, but to require both a unitary divestiture and satisfaction of the “device” requirement. Whether § (a)(1)(D) would prohibit or limit a divestiture of control committed from the outset but spread over a series of steps is a problem we need not reach.
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.
This case has a long history, the course of which must be summarized for understanding of the Court’s disposition. • On July 26, 1951, petitioner was arrested for conspiracy to violate the Smith Act, 18 U. S. C. §§ 371, 2385, and was released on furnishing $7,500 bail. On the following day bail was increased to $50,000 pending transfer of the proceedings to a different city and petitioner was recommitted. On August 2 petitioner was arraigned, and several days later bail was set at $25,000. Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus seeking a reduction of bail was dismissed. The district judge who had fixed bail was disqualified, see Connelly v. United States District Court, 191 F. 2d 692, and the district judge whose sentence is now under review was assigned to the case. On motion of the Government, the court increased bail to $50,000 on August 30; petitioner’s motion to reduce bail and her petition for a writ of habeas corpus were denied; on review of the denial of habeas corpus, the Court of Appeals affirmed, Stack v. Boyle, 192 F. 2d 56. This Court, however, found that bail had “not been fixed by proper methods” and remitted the case for the proper remedy of a motion to reduce bail, Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S. 1, 7. The District Court denied such motion by petitioner, United States v. Schneiderman, 102 F. Supp. 52; on appeal, the Court of Appeals ordered bail set at $10,000. Stack v. United States, 193 F. 2d 875. Shortly thereafter, on December 10, 1951, petitioner, having been found to have been improperly confined since August 30 of that year, was released on bail.
The trial under the conspiracy indictment began on February 5, 1952. Testifying in her own defense, petitioner on cross-examination on June 26 refused to answer four questions about Communist membership of other persons; she was adjudged guilty of civil contempt and committed to jail until the contempt had been purged. On June 30 she refused to answer eleven questions about Communist membership of other persons; the court announced its intention to treat these refusals as criminal contempt. At the conclusion of the trial petitioner was found guilty of conspiracy to violate the Smith Act and was sentenced to serve five years’ imprisonment and to pay a $10,000 fine. The District Court denied bail pending appeal of the conspiracy conviction; on application to the Court of Appeals to fix bail, the case was remanded to the District Court, which again denied bail. United States v. Schneiderman, 106 F. Supp. 941. The Court of Appeals then fixed bail at $20,000, and on August 30 petitioner, upon furnishing that amount, was released from custody, having been in jail since June 26. The conspiracy conviction was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 225 F. 2d 146, but reversed by this Court, 354 U. S. 298. The indictment was eventually dismissed on motion of the Government.
Petitioner had in the meantime, on August 8, 1952, been adjudged guilty of eleven criminal contempts for her eleven refusals to answer on June 30, and she was sentenced by the District Court to eleven one-year terms of imprisonment, to run concurrently and to commence upon the completion of petitioner’s imprisonment for the conspiracy. It is as to this sentence that review is sought here today.
On September 3, 1952, four days after petitioner’s release from custody, the District Court ordered her recommitted on the civil contempt arising out of the four refusals to answer on June 26. 107 F. Supp. 408. The District Court denied her application for bail pending appeal, but the Court of Appeals granted it, and she was released two days after her commitment; the Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the recommitment order of the District Court on the ground that petitioner should not have been reconfined for civil contempt after the close of the main trial. 227 F. 2d 844. Two days after her release on bail, on September 8, petitioner was adjudged guilty of criminal contempt for the four June 26 refusals and sentenced to four three-year terms of imprisonment, to run concurrently. 107 F. Supp. 412. Petitioner was then reconfined; the District Court denied her bail pending appeal, but the Court of Appeals granted it, and she was released on bail three days after her recommitment. The Court-of Appeals subsequently reversed this contempt judgment because of the District Court’s failure to give any notice that it intended to regard the June 26 refusals as criminal contempts, 227 F. 2d 848.
Petitioner appealed her conviction of criminal contempt for the eleven refusals to answer on June 30; the Court of Appeals affirmed. 227 F. 2d 851. This Court held that there was but one contempt, not eleven, and that a sentence for only one offense could be imposed. Accordingly, we vacated the one-year sentence for that one conviction and remanded the case to the District Court for determination of a new sentence appropriate in view of our setting aside of the punishment for eleven offenses when in fact only one was legally established. 355 U. S. 66. On remand, the District Court, after hearing, resentenced petitioner to one year’s imprisonment. The court denied petitioner bail pending appeal; the Court of Appeals ordered her admitted to bail in the amount of $5,000, 252 F. 2d 568, and she was released after fifteen days’ confinement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court, noting that the sentence was “severe.” Ibid.
Reversing a judgment for contempt because of errors of substantive law may naturally call for a reduction of the sentence based on an extent of wrongdoing found unsustainable in law. Such reduction of the sentence, however, normally ought not be made by this Court. It should be left, on remand, to the sentencing court. And so, when this Court found that only a single offense was committed by petitioner, and not eleven offenses, it chose not to reduce the sentence but to leave this task, with gentle intimations of the necessity for such action, to the District Court. However, when in a situation like this the District Court appears not to have exercised its discretion in the light of the reversal of the judgment but, in effect, to have sought merely to justify the original sentence, this Court has no alternative except to exercise its supervisory power over the administration of justice in the lower federal courts by setting aside the sentence of the District Court.
Although petitioner’s conviction under the Smith Act, the substantive offense out of which this subsidiary matter arose, was reversed on appeal and the indictment itself dismissed on motion of the Government, she has in fact spent seven months in jail in the course of these proceedings. Not unmindful of petitioner’s offense, this Court is of the view, exercising the judgment that we are now called upon to exercise, that the time that petitioner has already served in jail is an adequate punishment for her offense in refusing to answer questions and is to be deemed in satisfaction of the new sentence herein ordered formally to be imposed. Accordingly, the writ of certio-rari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause remanded to the District Court with directions to reduce the sentence to the time petitioner has already been confined in the course of these proceedings.
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners brought two separate class actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against respondent Director of the Michigan Department of Social Services, claiming that respondent’s calculations of benefits under the federal Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program violated certain provisions of that federal law. Before a final determination on the merits of either case could be made, Congress amended the relevant statutory provisions. It is undisputed that respondent’s calculations thereafter have conformed to federal law. Notwithstanding this fact, petitioners claim that they were entitled to have the District Court award them both “notice relief” and a declaration that respondent’s prior conduct violated federal law. The District Court denied petitioners both forms of relief, and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. We now affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and applicable principles governing the issuance of declaratory judgments forbid the award of either form of relief.
The two class actions involved in this case were brought on behalf of recipients of benefits disbursed under the AFDC program. See 42 U. S. C. §§601-615. The AFDC program uses a person’s earned income in determining eligibility for, and the amount of, benefits. See §602. The complaints alleged that certain of respondent’s policies and regulations violated 42 U. S. C. § 1983 by inflating their respective class members’ earned income and thereby causing a reduction or termination of AFDC benefits contrary to the applicable federal law.
One putative class challenged respondent’s policy of prohibiting the deduction of child care costs in the calculation of earned income. While the case was pending in the District Court, Congress changed the relevant provisions of the AFDC program to expressly require participating States to deduct child care expenses up to a specified amount. Respondent thereafter brought state policy into compliance with this amendment and began deducting child care expenses in the calculation of earned income. There is no claim that respondent’s current child care deduction policy violates federal law.
The other putative class challenged respondent’s policy of automatically including stepparents’ income in the calculation of earned income. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing respondent from enforcing its automatic inclusion policy. But again, while the matter was pending on the merits, Congress amended the relevant section of the AFDC program to expressly require States to include stepparent income in the calculation of earned income. The parties thereafter stipulated that the District Court should terminate its preliminary injunction as of the effective date of the amendment. Here, too, there is no claim that respondent has not complied with federal law since that time.
The District Court granted respondent’s motions to dismiss in each case. It held in each that the changes in federal law rendered moot the claims for prospective relief, and that the remaining claims for declaratory and notice relief related solely to past violations of federal law. Such retrospective relief, the court determined, is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in a consolidated appeal. Banas v. Dempsey, 742 F. 2d 277 (1984). It agreed that the changes in federal law rendered moot the claims for prospective relief. Id., at 281-283. It also agreed that because the sought-after notice and declaratory relief was retrospective in nature, the relief was barred by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974). 742 F. 2d, at 286-288. It reasoned that when there is no prospective relief to which notice can be ancillary, even notice of the sort approved in Quern v. Jordan, 440 U. S. 332 (1979), cannot escape the Eleventh Amendment bar. 742 F. 2d, at 287-288. Declaratory relief is similarly barred under such circumstances, it explained, because such relief could relate solely to past violations of federal law. Id., at 288.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuits over whether federal courts may order the giving of notice of the sort approved in Quern v. Jordan, supra, or issue a declaratory judgment that state officials violated federal law in the past when there is no ongoing violation of federal law. The decision by the Court of Appeals in this case agrees with the result in Colbeth v. Wilson, 554 F. Supp. 539 (Vt. 1982), aff’d, 707 F. 2d 57 (CA2 1983) (per curiam), but it conflicts with the decisions in Appleyard v. Wallace, 754 F. 2d 955, 959-963 (CA11 1985); Randall v. Lukhard, 729 F. 2d 966 (CA4) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 872 (1984); Beltran v. Myers, 701 F. 2d 91, 94 (CA9) (per curiam), cert. denied, 462 U. S. 1134 (1983); and Silva v. Vowell, 621 F. 2d 640, 650-654 (CA5 1980), which all allowed notice relief even though changes in state policy or federal law rendered moot any claim for injunctive relief stopping ongoing violations of federal law. We now affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The Eleventh Amendment confirms that “the fundamental principle of sovereign immunity limits the grant of judicial authority in Art. III.” Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89, 98 (1984). Because of the Eleventh Amendment, States may not be sued in federal court unless they consent to it in unequivocal terms or unless Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of power, unequivocally expresses its intent to abrogate the immunity. Id., at 99. The landmark case of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), created an exception to this general principle by asserting that a suit challenging the constitutionality of a state official’s action in enforcing state law is not one against the State. Id., at 159-160. The theory of Young was that an unconstitutional statute is void, id., at 159, and therefore does not “impart to [the official] any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” Id., at 160. Young also held that the Eleventh Amendment does not prevent federal courts from granting prospective injunctive relief to prevent a continuing violation of federal law. Id., at 155-156, 159. We have refused to extend the reasoning of Young, however, to claims for retrospective relief. See Pennhurst, supra, at 102-103; Quern v. Jordan, supra, at 337; Edelman v. Jordan, supra, at 668.
Both prospective and retrospective relief implicate Eleventh Amendment concerns, but the availability of prospective relief of the sort awarded in Ex parte Young gives life to the Supremacy Clause. Remedies designed to end a continuing violation of federal law are necessary to vindicate the federal interest in assuring the supremacy of that law. See Pennhurst, supra, at 102. See also Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267 (1977). But compensatory or deterrence interests are insufficient to overcome the dictates of the Eleventh Amendment. Petitioners concede that any claim they might have had for the specific type of injunctive relief approved in Ex parte Young was rendered moot by the amendments to the AFDC program. They nevertheless seek “notice relief” of the type approved in Quern v. Jordan, arguing that notice is an independent form of prospective relief protected against the Eleventh Amendment bar by Ex parte Young. In taking this position, we think petitioners misconceive our Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence and our decision in Quern.
Quern was the last chapter in the litigation that initially gave rise to Edelman v. Jordan, supra. The plaintiffs in that litigation challenged a State’s administration of the federal-state program for Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled (AABD). The District Court issued a declaratory judgment that current state regulations governing the administration of the program violated federal regulations then in effect. It therefore permanently enjoined the state officials from continuing to violate federal law. Although the language of the declaratory judgment was no broader than necessary to complement the injunction against the current violation of federal law, it implied that the defendants had violated federal law in the past. The District Court therefore issued a second injunction ordering the defendants to release and remit all AABD benefits that they had wrongfully withheld on account of their past violations of federal law. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F. 2d 985 (CA7 1973), but we reversed, holding that the Eleventh Amendment barred the injunction ordering retroactive benefits because it was effectively an award of money damages for past violations of federal law. Edelman v. Jordan, 451 U. S., at 666-669.
On remand, the District Court ordered the defendants to send notice to the plaintiff class informing individual class members that they were wrongfully denied benefits in a particular amount, together with a returnable form for filing claims with the appropriate state agency. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the District Court’s proposed notice violated the Eleventh Amendment because it would effectively result in a federal adjudication of state liability for past violations of federal law. Jordan v. Trainor, 563 F. 2d 873, 875 (CA7 1977) (en banc). At the same time, the Court of Appeals determined that the Eleventh Amendment would not bar an order requiring state officials to send “a mere explanatory notice to applicants advising them that there is a state administrative procedure available if they desire to have the state determine whether or not they may be eligible for past benefits.” Ibid.
We affirmed in Quern v. Jordan, 440 U. S. 332 (1979), holding that although Edelman v. Jordan, supra, retained continuing vitality after Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978), see 440 U. S., at 338-345, the specific notice order approved by the Court of Appeals did not violate the Eleventh Amendment. Id., at 346-349. We explained that the appellate court’s particular notice order fell “on the Ex parte Young side of the Eleventh Amendment line rather than on the Edelman side.” Id., at 347. We reasoned that “unlike [the notice] ordered by the District Court, [this notice was] more properly viewed as ancillary to the prospective relief already ordered by the court,” id., at 349, and it did no more than “simply infor[m] class members that their federal suit is at an end, that the federal court can provide them with no further relief, and that there are existing state administrative procedures which they may wish to pursue.” Ibid. We also stressed that the state defendants had not objected to the expense of providing such notice, state agencies rather than federal courts would be the final arbiters of whether retroactive payments would be ordered, and the notice would not automatically lead to any particular action. Id., at 347-348.
Our review of the long, drawn-out Jordan litigation convinces us that neither the Court of Appeals nor this Court conceived of the requested notice allowed in that case to be an independent form of relief. We simply held that the specific order fell within the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment principle of sovereign immunity because it was ancillary to a valid injunction previously granted and was sufficiently narrow to retain its character as a mere case-management device. The notice in Quern v. Jordan did nothing other than inform a diverse and partially victorious class concerning the extent of the judgment in its favor, cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(d)(2), and that the federal courts could do no more for them. There was no suggestion that the notice itself would bind state officials in any way, or that such notice would be routinely available as a form of relief in other cases. Because “notice relief” is not the type of remedy designed to prevent ongoing violations of federal law, the Eleventh Amendment limitation on the Art. Ill power of federal courts prevents them from ordering it as an independent form of relief.
Measured by the standards of Quern, however, a request for a limited notice order will escape the Eleventh Amendment bar if the notice is ancillary to the grant of some other appropriate relief that can be “noticed.” Because there is no continuing violation of federal law to enjoin in this case, an injunction is not available. Therefore, notice cannot be justified as a mere case-management device that is ancillary to a judgment awarding valid prospective relief. Petitioners argue, however, that they are entitled to a declaratory judgment that respondent violated federal law in the past. Only if petitioners are correct in this assertion can they properly nlaim a right to “notice” of a judgment under the principles of Quern.
The Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934, 28 U. S. C. § 2201, permits a federal court to declare the rights of a party whether or not further relief is or could be sought, and we have held that under this Act declaratory relief may be available even though an injunction is not. Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 462 (1974). But we have also held that the declaratory judgment statute “is an enabling Act, which confers a discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right upon the litigant.” Public Service Comm’n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U. S. 237, 241 (1952). The propriety of issuing a declaratory judgment may depend upon equitable considerations, see Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66, 73 (1971), and is also “informed by the teachings and experience concerning the functions and extent of federal judicial power.” Wycoff, supra, at 243; cf. Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 44-45 (1971).
In applying these principles, we have held that a declaratory judgment is not available in a number of instances. In Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293 (1943), we held that a declaratory judgment was not available to obtain a determination of the constitutionality of a state tax even though the relevant federal statute prohibited federal courts only from issuing injunctions against the collection of such taxes. Id., at 299. We held in Samuels v. Mackell, supra, that a declaratory judgment declaring a state criminal statute unconstitutional was unavailable where it would have much the same effect as an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the statute, and the latter was barred by traditional principles of equity, comity, and federalism. Id., at 69-73. In Wycoff, we held that it was inappropriate to issue a declaratory judgment deciding whether the plaintiff’s business was interstate commerce and therefore potentially immune from state regulation. 344 U. S., at 244, 247-249. We reasoned that if the federal judgment were res judicata in subsequent state proceedings, then the federal court will have lifted the case out of the state court before the state agency or court can hear it. Id., at 247. On the other hand, if the federal judgment would not have such an effect, then it would “serv[e] no useful purpose as a final determination of rights.” Ibid.
We think that these cases demonstrate the impropriety of the issuance of a declaratory judgment in this case. There is no claimed continuing violation of federal law, and therefore no occasion to issue an injunction. Nor can there be any threat of state officials violating the repealed law in the future. Cf. Steffel v. Thompson, supra, at 454. There is a dispute about the lawfulness of respondent’s past actions, but the Eleventh Amendment would prohibit the award of money damages or restitution if that dispute were resolved in favor of petitioners. We think that the award of a declaratory judgment in this situation would be useful in resolving the dispute over the past lawfulness of respondent’s action only if it might be offered in state-court proceedings as res judicata on the issue of liability, leaving to the state courts only a form of accounting proceeding whereby damages or restitution would be computed. But the issuance of a declaratory judgment in these circumstances would have much the same effect as a full-fledged award of damages or restitution by the federal court, the latter kinds of relief being of course prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. The teachings of Huffman, Samuels, and Wycoff are that a declaratory judgment is not available when the result would be a partial “end run” around our decision in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974).
Justice Brennan’s dissent contends that because the injunction and declaratory judgment in Quern implied past violations of federal law, declaratory judgments expressly adjudicating the question of past violations are routinely available. We think he is mistaken. The District Court’s injunction and declaratory judgment against continuing and future violations of federal law in Quern implied that similar violations had occurred in the past because neither state nor federal policy had varied through the time of judgment. Here, by contrast, there are no present violations under the amended statute, and even if there were, an injunction against them would not imply that past practice violated the repealed federal law. Thus, a declaratory judgment that respondent violated federal law in the past would have to stand on its own feet as an appropriate exercise of federal jurisdiction in this case. This it cannot do for the reasons we have previously stated.
We hold that the District Court was correct in concluding that neither the “notice” proposed by petitioners nor a declaratory judgment should have issued in a case of this type. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
The declaratory judgment was embodied in paragraph 4 of the District Court’s judgment, which stated:
“Illinois Categorical Assistance Manual, Section 4004, and subsections thereunder, as applied to applicants for AABD are invalid insofar as they are inconsistent with the requirements of [federal law as construed in] paragraphs 1 and 2.” Jordan v. Weaver, No. 71 C 70, p. 3 (ND Ill., Mar. 15, 1972) (emphasis added).
If, of course, petitioners would make no claim that the federal declaratory judgment was res judicata in later commenced state proceedings, the declaratory judgment would serve no purpose whatever in resolving the remaining dispute between the parties, and is unavailable for that reason. Wycoff, 344 U. S., at 247.
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 White
announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Blackmun join.
In 1966, respondent James A. White was tried and convicted under two consolidated indictments charging various illegal transactions in narcotics violative of 26 U. S. C. § 4705 (a) and 21 U. S. C. § 174. He was fined and sentenced as a second offender to 25-year concurrent sentences. The issue before us is whether the Fourth Amendment bars from evidence the testimony of governmental agents who related certain conversations which had occurred between defendant White and a government informant, Harvey Jackson, and which the agents overheard by monitoring the frequency of a radio transmitter carried by Jackson and concealed on his person. On four occasions the conversations took place in Jackson’s home; each of these conversations was overheard by an agent concealed in a kitchen closet with Jackson’s consent and by a second agent outside the house using a radio receiver. Four other conversations — one in respondent’s home, one in a restaurant, and two in Jackson’s car — were overheard by the use of radio equipment. The prosecution was unable to locate and produce Jackson at the trial and the trial court overruled objections to the testimony of the agents who conducted the electronic surveillance. The jury returned a guilty verdict and defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeals read Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), as overruling On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747 (1952), and interpreting the Fourth Amendment to forbid the introduction of the agents’ testimony in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the court reversed but without adverting to the fact that the transactions at issue here had occurred before Katz was decided in this Court. In our view, the Court of Appeals misinterpreted both the Katz case and the Fourth Amendment and in any event erred in applying the Katz case to events that occurred before that decision was rendered by this Court.
I
Until Katz v. United States, neither wiretapping nor electronic eavesdropping violated a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights “unless there has been an official search and seizure of his person, or such a seizure of his papers or his tangible material effects, or an actual physical invasion of his house 'or curtilage’ for the purpose of making a seizure.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 466 (1928); Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129, 135-136 (1942). But where “eavesdropping was accomplished by means of an unauthorized physical penetration into the premises occupied” by the defendant, although falling short of a “technical trespass under the local property law,” the Fourth Amendment was violated and any evidence of what was seen and heard, as well as tangible objects seized, was considered the inadmissible fruit of an unlawful invasion. Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 509, 511 (1961); see also Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963); Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41, 52 (1967); Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 177-178 (1969).
Katz v. United States, however, finally swept away doctrines that electronic eavesdropping is permissible under the Fourth Amendment unless physical invasion of a constitutionally protected area produced the challenged evidence. In that case government agents, without petitioner’s consent or knowledge, attached a listening device to the outside of a public telephone booth and recorded the defendant’s end of his telephone conversations. In declaring the recordings inadmissible in evidence in the absence of a warrant authorizing the surveillance, the Court overruled Olmstead and Goldman and held that the absence of physical intrusion into the telephone booth did not-justify using electronic devices in listening to and recording Katz’ words, thereby violating the privacy on which he justifiably relied while using the telephone in those circumstances.
The Court of Appeals understood Katz to render inadmissible against White the agents’ testimony concerning conversations that Jackson broadcast to them. We cannot agree. Katz involved no revelation to the Government by a party to conversations with the defendant nor did the Court indicate in any way that a defendant has a justifiable and constitutionally protected expectation that a person with whom he is conversing will not then or later reveal the conversation to the police.
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293 (1966), which was left undisturbed by Katz, held that however strongly a defendant may trust an apparent colleague, his expectations in this respect are not protected by the Fourth Amendment when it turns out that the colleague is a government agent regularly communicating with the authorities. In these circumstances, “no interest legitimately protected by the Fourth Amendment is involved,” for that amendment affords no protection to “a wrongdoer’s misplaced belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it.” Hoffa v. United States, at 302. No warrant to “search and seize” is required in such circumstances, nor is it when the Government sends to defendant’s home a secret agent who conceals his identity and makes a purchase of narcotics from the accused, Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206 (1966), or when the same agent, unbeknown to the defendant, carries electronic equipment to record the defendant’s words and the evidence so gathered is later offered in evidence. Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427 (1963).
Conceding that Hoffa, Lewis, and Lopez remained unaffected by Katz, the Court of Appeals nevertheless read both Katz and the Fourth Amendment to require a different result if the agent not only records his conversations with the defendant but instantaneously transmits them electronically to other agents equipped with radio receivers. Where this occurs, the Court of Appeals held, the Fourth Amendment is violated and the testimony of the listening agents must be excluded from evidence.
To reach this result it was necessary for the Court of Appeals to hold that On Lee v. United States was no longer good law. In that case, which involved facts very similar to the case before us, the Court first rejected claims of a Fourth Amendment violation because the informer had not trespassed when he entered the defendant's premises and conversed with him. To this extent the Court’s rationale cannot survive Katz. See 389 U. S., at 352-353. But the Court announced a second and independent ground for its decision; for it went on to say that overruling Olmstead and Goldman would be of no aid to On Lee since he “was talking confidentially and indiscreetly with one he trusted, and he was overheard. ... It would be a dubious service to the genuine liberties protected by the Fourth Amendment to make them bedfellows with spurious liberties improvised by farfetched analogies which would liken eavesdropping on a conversation, with the connivance of one of the parties, to an unreasonable search or seizure. We find no violation of the Fourth Amendment here.” 343 U. S., at 753-754. We see no indication in Katz that the Court meant to disturb that understanding of the Fourth Amendment or to disturb the result reached in the On Lee case, nor are we now inclined to overturn this view of the Fourth Amendment.
Concededly a police agent who conceals his police connections may write down for official use his conversations with a defendant and testify concerning them, without a warrant authorizing his encounters with the defendant and without otherwise violating the latter’s Fourth Amendment rights. Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S., at 300-303. For constitutional purposes, no' different result is required if the agent instead of immediately reporting and transcribing his conversations with defendant, either (1) simultaneously records them with electronic equipment which he is carrying on his person, Lopez v. United States, supra; (2) or carries radio equipment which simultaneously transmits the conversations either to recording equipment located elsewhere or to other agents monitoring the transmitting frequency. On Lee v. United States, supra. If the conduct and revelations of an agent operating without electronic equipment do not invade the defendant’s constitutionally justifiable expectations of privacy, neither does a simultaneous recording of the same conversations made by the agent or by others from transmissions received from the agent to whom the defendant is talking and whose trustworthiness the defendant necessarily risks.
Our problem is not what the privacy expectations of particular defendants in particular situations may be or the extent to which they may in fact have relied on the discretion of their companions. Very probably, individual defendants neither know nor suspect that their colleagues have gone or will go to the police or are carrying recorders or transmitters. Otherwise, conversation would cease and our problem with these encounters would be nonexistent or far different from those now before us. Our problem, in terms of the principles announced in Katz, is what expectations of privacy are constitutionally “justifiable”' — what expectations the Fourth Amendment will protect in the absence of a warrant. So far, the law permits the frustration of actual expectations of privacy by permitting authorities to use the testimony of those associates who for one reason or another have determined to turn to the police, as well as by authorizing the use of informants in the manner exemplified by Hoff a and Lewis. If the law gives no protection to the wrongdoer whose trusted accomplice is or becomes a police agent, neither should it protect him when that same agent has recorded or transmitted the conversations which are later offered in evidence to prove the State’s case. See Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427 (1963).
Inescapably, one contemplating illegal activities must realize and risk that his companions may be reporting to the police. If he sufficiently doubts their trustworthiness, the association will very probably end or never materialize. But if he has no doubts, or allays them, or risks what doubt he has, the risk is his. In terms of what his course will be, what he will or will not do or say, we are unpersuaded that he would distinguish between probable informers on the one hand and probable informers with transmitters on the other. Given the possibility or probability that one of his colleagues is cooperating with the police, it is only speculation to assert that the defendant’s utterances would be substantially different or his sense of security any less if he also thought it possible that the suspected colleague is wired for sound. At least there is no persuasive evidence that the difference in this respect between the electronically equipped and the unequipped agent is substantial enough to require discrete constitutional recog-ration, particularly under the Fourth Amendment which is ruled by fluid concepts of “reasonableness.”
Nor should we be too ready to erect constitutional barriers to relevant and probative evidence which is also accurate and reliable. An electronic recording will many times produce a more reliable rendition of what a defendant has said than will the unaided memory of a police agent. It may also be that with the recording in existence it is less likely that the informant will change his mind, less chance that threat or injury will suppress unfavorable evidence and less chance that cross-examination will confound the testimony. Considerations like these obviously do not favor the defendant, but we are not prepared to hold that a defendant who has no constitutional right to exclude the informer’s unaided testimony nevertheless has a Fourth Amendment privilege against a more accurate version of the events in question.
It is thus untenable to consider the activities and reports of the police agent himself, though acting without a warrant, to be a “reasonable” investigative effort and lawful under the Fourth Amendment but to view the same agent with a recorder or transmitter as conducting an “unreasonable” and unconstitutional search and seizure. Our opinion is currently shared by Congress and the Executive Branch, Title III, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 212, 18 U. S. C. §2510 et seq. (1964 ed., Supp. V), and the American Bar Association. Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Electronic Surveillance § 4.1 (Approved Draft 1971). It is also the result reached by prior cases in this Court. On Lee, supra; Lopez v. United States, supra.
No different result should obtain where, as in On Lee and the instant case, the informer disappears and is unavailable at trial; for the issue of whether specified events on a certain day violate the Fourth Amendment should not be determined by what later happens to the informer. His unavailability at trial and proffering the testimony of other agents may raise evidentiary problems or pose issues of prosecutorial misconduct with respect to the informer’s disappearance, but they do not appear critical to deciding whether prior events invaded the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.
II
The Court of Appeals was in error for another reason. In Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244 (1969), we held that our decision in Katz v. United States applied only to those electronic surveillances that occurred subsequent to the date of that decision. Here the events in question took place in late 1965 and early 1966, long prior to Katz. We adhere to the rationale of Desist, see Williams v. United States, ante, p. 646. It was error for the Court of Appeals to dispose of this case based on its understanding of the principles announced in the Katz case. The court should have judged this case by the pr e-Katz law and under that law, as On Lee clearly holds, the electronic surveillance here involved did not violate White’s rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black, while adhering to his views expressed in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 640 (1965), concurs in the judgment of the Court for the reasons set forth in his dissent in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 364 (1967).
White argues that Jackson, though admittedly “cognizant” of the presence of transmitting devices on his person, did not voluntarily consent thereto. Because the court below did not reach the issue of Jackson’s consent, we decline to do so. Similarly, we do not consider White’s claim that the Government’s actions violated state law.
A panel of three judges on March 18, 1968, reversed the conviction, one judge dissenting. A rehearing en banc was granted, and on January 7, 1969, the full court followed the panel’s decision, three judges dissenting. 405 F. 2d 838.
It follows from our opinion that we reject respondent’s contentions that Lopez should be overruled.
Other courts of appeals have considered On Lee viable despite Katz. Dancy v. United States, 390 F. 2d 370 (CA5 1968); Long v. United States, 387 F. 2d 377 (CA5 1967); Koran v. United States, 408 F. 2d 1321 (CA5 1969). See also United States v. Kaufer, 406 F. 2d 550 (CA2), aff’d per curiam, 394 U. S. 458 (1969); United States v. Jackson, 390 F. 2d 317 (CA2 1968); Doty v. United States, 416 F. 2d 887 (CA10 1968), id., at 893 (rehearing 1969).
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 First Amendment generally prohibits government officials from dismissing or demoting an employee because of the employee's engagement in constitutionally protected political activity. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) ; Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980) ; but cf. Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 564, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973). In this case a government official demoted an employee because the official believed, but incorrectly believed, that the employee had supported a particular candidate for mayor. The question is whether the official's factual mistake makes a critical legal difference. Even though the employee had not in fact engaged in protected political activity, did his demotion "deprive" him of a "right ... secured by the Constitution"? 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We hold that it did.
I
To decide the legal question presented, we assume the following, somewhat simplified, version of the facts: In 2005, Jeffrey Heffernan, the petitioner, was a police officer in Paterson, New Jersey. He worked in the office of the Chief of Police, James Wittig. At that time, the mayor of Paterson, Jose Torres, was running for reelection against Lawrence Spagnola. Torres had appointed to their current positions both Chief Wittig and a subordinate who directly supervised Heffernan. Heffernan was a good friend of Spagnola's.
During the campaign, Heffernan's mother, who was bedridden, asked Heffernan to drive downtown and pick up a large Spagnola sign. She wanted to replace a smaller Spagnola sign, which had been stolen from her front yard. Heffernan went to a Spagnola distribution point and picked up the sign. While there, he spoke for a time to Spagnola's campaign manager and staff. Other members of the police force saw him, sign in hand, talking to campaign workers. Word quickly spread throughout the force.
The next day, Heffernan's supervisors demoted Heffernan from detective to patrol officer and assigned him to a "walking post." In this way they punished Heffernan for what they thought was his "overt involvement" in Spagnola's campaign. In fact, Heffernan was not involved in the campaign but had picked up the sign simply to help his mother. Heffernan's supervisors had made a factual mistake.
Heffernan subsequently filed this lawsuit in federal court. He claimed that Chief Wittig and the other respondents had demoted him because he had engaged in conduct that (on their mistaken view of the facts) constituted protected speech. They had thereby "depriv[ed]" him of a "right ... secured by the Constitution." Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The District Court found that Heffernan had not engaged in any "First Amendment conduct," 2 F.Supp.3d 563, 580 (D.N.J.2014) ; and, for that reason, the respondents had not deprived him of any constitutionally protected right. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. It wrote that "a free-speech retaliation claim is actionable under § 1983 only where the adverse action at issue was prompted by an employee's actual, rather than perceived, exercise of constitutional rights." 777 F.3d 147, 153 (2015) (citing Ambrose v. Robinson, 303 F.3d 488, 496 (C.A.3 2002) ; emphasis added). Heffernan filed a petition for certiorari. We agreed to decide whether the Third Circuit's legal view was correct. Compare 777 F.3d, at 153 (case below), with Dye v. Office of Racing Comm'n, 702 F.3d 286, 300 (C.A.6 2012)
(similar factual mistake does not affect the validity of the government employee's claim).
II
With a few exceptions, the Constitution prohibits a government employer from discharging or demoting an employee because the employee supports a particular political candidate. See Elrod v. Burns, supra ; Branti v. Finkel, supra . The basic constitutional requirement reflects the First Amendment's hostility to government action that "prescribe[s] what shall be orthodox in politics." West Virginia Bd. of Ed . v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943). The exceptions take account of "practical realities" such as the need for "efficiency" and "effective[ness]" in government service. Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 672, 675, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994) ; see also Civil Service Comm'n, supra, at 564, 93 S.Ct. 2880 (neutral and appropriately limited policy may prohibit government employees from engaging in partisan activity), and Branti, supra, at 518, 100 S.Ct. 1287 (political affiliation requirement permissible where affiliation is "an appropriate requirement for effective performance of the public office involved").
In order to answer the question presented, we assume that the exceptions do not apply here. But see infra, at 1419. We assume that the activities that Heffernan's supervisors thought he had engaged in are of a kind that they cannot constitutionally prohibit or punish, see Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62, 69, 110 S.Ct. 2729, 111 L.Ed.2d 52 (1990) ("joining, working for or contributing to the political party and candidates of their own choice"), but that the supervisors were mistaken about the facts. Heffernan had not engaged in those protected activities. Does Heffernan's constitutional case consequently fail?
The text of the relevant statute does not answer the question. The statute authorizes a lawsuit by a person "depriv[ed]" of a "right ... secured by the Constitution." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But in this context, what precisely is that "right?" Is it a right that primarily focuses upon (the employee's) actual activity or a right that primarily focuses upon (the supervisor's) motive, insofar as that motive turns on what the supervisor believes that activity to be? The text does not say.
Neither does precedent directly answer the question. In some cases we have used language that suggests the "right" at issue concerns the employee's actual activity. In Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983), for example, we said that a court should first determine whether the plaintiff spoke " 'as a citizen' " on a " 'matter[ ] of public concern,' " id., at 143, 103 S.Ct. 1684. We added that, if the employee has not engaged in what can "be fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern, it is unnecessary for us to scrutinize the reasons for her discharge." Id., at 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684. We made somewhat similar statements in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006), and Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968).
These cases, however, did not present the kind of question at issue here. In Connick, for example, no factual mistake was at issue. The Court assumed that both the employer and the employee were at every stage in agreement about the underlying facts: that the employer dismissed the employee because of her having circulated within the office a document that criticized how the office was being run (that she had in fact circulated). The question was whether the circulation of that document amounted to constitutionally protected speech. If not, the Court need go no further.
Neither was any factual mistake at issue in Pickering. The Court assumed that both the employer (a school board) and the employee understood the cause for dismissal, namely, a petition that the employee had indeed circulated criticizing his employer's practices. The question concerned whether the petition was protected speech. Garcetti is substantially similar. In each of these cases, the only way to show that the employer's motive was unconstitutional was to prove that the controversial statement or activity-in each case the undisputed reason for the firing-was in fact protected by the First Amendment.
Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994), is more to the point. In that case the Court did consider the consequences of an employer mistake. The employer wrongly, though reasonably, believed that the employee had spoken only on personal matters not of public concern, and the employer dismissed the employee for having engaged in that unprotected speech. The employee, however, had in fact used words that did not amount to personal "gossip" (as the employer believed) but which focused on matters of public concern. The Court asked whether, and how, the employer's factual mistake mattered.
The Court held that, as long as the employer (1) had reasonably believed that the employee's conversation had involved personal matters, not matters of public concern, and (2) had dismissed the employee because of that mistaken belief, the dismissal did not violate the First Amendment. Id., at 679-680, 114 S.Ct. 1878. In a word, it was the employer's motive, and in particular the facts as the employer reasonably understood them, that mattered.
In Waters, the employer reasonably but mistakenly thought that the employee had not engaged in protected speech. Here the employer mistakenly thought that the employee had engaged in protected speech. If the employer's motive (and in particular the facts as the employer reasonably understood them) is what mattered in Waters, why is the same not true here? After all, in the law, what is sauce for the goose is normally sauce for the gander.
We conclude that, as in Waters, the government's reason for demoting Heffernan is what counts here. When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in political activity that the First Amendment protects, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -even if, as here, the employer makes a factual mistake about the employee's behavior.
We note that a rule of law finding liability in these circumstances tracks the language of the First Amendment more closely than would a contrary rule. Unlike, say, the Fourth Amendment, which begins by speaking of the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects ...," the First Amendment begins by focusing upon the activity of the Government. It says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." The Government acted upon a constitutionally harmful policy whether Heffernan did or did not in fact engage in political activity. That which stands for a "law" of "Congress," namely, the police department's reason for taking action, "abridge[s] the freedom of speech" of employees aware of the policy. And Heffernan was directly harmed, namely, demoted, through application of that policy.
We also consider relevant the constitutional implications of a rule that imposes liability. The constitutional harm at issue in the ordinary case consists in large part of discouraging employees-both the employee discharged (or demoted) and his or her colleagues-from engaging in protected activities. The discharge of one tells the others that they engage in protected activity at their peril. See, e.g ., Elrod, 427 U.S., at 359, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (retaliatory employment action against one employee "unquestionably inhibits protected belief and association" of all employees). Hence, we do not require plaintiffs in political affiliation cases to "prove that they, or other employees, have been coerced into changing, either actually or ostensibly, their political allegiance." Branti, 445 U.S., at 517, 100 S.Ct. 1287. The employer's factual mistake does not diminish the risk of causing precisely that same harm. Neither, for that matter, is that harm diminished where an employer announces a policy of demoting those who, say, help a particular candidate in the mayoral race, and all employees (including Heffernan), fearful of demotion, refrain from providing any such help. Cf. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 521, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972) (explaining that overbreadth doctrine is necessary "because persons whose expression is constitutionally protected may well refrain from exercising their rights for fear of criminal sanctions"). The upshot is that a discharge or demotion based upon an employer's belief that the employee has engaged in protected activity can cause the same kind, and degree, of constitutional harm whether that belief does or does not rest upon a factual mistake.
Finally, we note that, contrary to respondents' assertions, a rule of law that imposes liability despite the employer's factual mistake will not normally impose significant extra costs upon the employer. To win, the employee must prove an improper employer motive. In a case like this one, the employee will, if anything, find it more difficult to prove that motive, for the employee will have to point to more than his own conduct to show an employer's intent to discharge or to demote him for engaging in what the employer (mistakenly) believes to have been different (and protected) activities. We concede that, for that very reason, it may be more complicated and costly for the employee to prove his case. But an employee bringing suit will ordinarily shoulder that more complicated burden voluntarily in order to recover the damages he seeks.
III
We now relax an assumption underlying our decision. We have assumed that the policy that Heffernan's employers implemented violated the Constitution. Supra, at 1416. There is some evidence in the record, however, suggesting that Heffernan's employers may have dismissed him pursuant to a different and neutral policy prohibiting police officers from overt involvement in any political campaign. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 27-28. Whether that policy existed, whether Heffernan's supervisors were indeed following it, and whether it complies with constitutional standards, see Civil Service Comm'n, 413 U.S., at 564, 93 S.Ct. 2880 are all matters for the lower courts to decide in the first instance. Without expressing views on the matter, we reverse the judgment of the Third Circuit and remand the case for such further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice ALITO joins, dissenting.
Today the Court holds that a public employee may bring a federal lawsuit for money damages alleging a violation of a constitutional right that he concedes he did not exercise. Ante, at 1416. Because federal law does not provide a cause of action to plaintiffs whose constitutional rights have not been violated, I respectfully dissent.
I
This lawsuit concerns a decision by the city of Paterson, New Jersey (hereinafter City), to demote one of its police officers, Jeffrey Heffernan. At the time of Heffernan's demotion, Paterson's mayor, Jose Torres, was running for reelection against one of Heffernan's friends, Lawrence Spagnola. The police chief demoted Heffernan after another officer assigned to Mayor Torres' security detail witnessed Heffernan pick up a Spagnola campaign sign when Heffernan was off duty. Heffernan claimed that he picked up the sign solely as an errand for his bedridden mother. Heffernan denied supporting or associating with Spagnola's campaign and disclaimed any intent to communicate support for Spagnola by retrieving the campaign sign. Despite Heffernan's assurances that he was not engaged in protected First Amendment activity, he filed this lawsuit alleging that his employer violated his First Amendment rights by demoting him based on its mistaken belief that Heffernan had communicated support for the Spagnola campaign.
II
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action against "[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects ... any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution." For Heffernan to prevail on his § 1983 claim, then, a state actor must have deprived him of a constitutional right. Nothing in the text of § 1983 provides a remedy against public officials who attempt but fail to violate someone's constitutional rights.
There are two ways to frame Heffernan's First Amendment claim, but neither can sustain his suit. As in most § 1983 suits, his claim could be that the City interfered with his freedom to speak and assemble. But because Heffernan has conceded that he was not engaged in protected speech or assembly when he picked up the sign, the majority must resort to a second, more novel framing. It concludes that Heffernan states a § 1983 claim because the City unconstitutionally regulated employees' political speech and Heffernan was injured because that policy resulted in his demotion. See ante, at 1418. Under that theory, too, Heffernan's § 1983 claim fails. A city's policy, even if unconstitutional, cannot be the basis of a § 1983 suit when that policy does not result in the infringement of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
A
To state a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, public employees like Heffernan must allege that their employer interfered with their right to speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Whether the employee engaged in such speech is the threshold inquiry under the Court's precedents governing whether a public employer violated the First Amendment rights of its employees. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). If the employee has not spoken on a matter of public concern, "the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer's reaction to the speech." Ibid. If the employee did, however, speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, then the Court looks to "whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public." Ibid.
Under this framework, Heffernan's claim fails at the first step. He has denied that, by picking up the yard sign, he "spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern." Ibid. In fact, Heffernan denies speaking in support of or associating with the Spagnola campaign. He has claimed that he picked up the yard sign only as an errand for his bedridden mother. Demoting a dutiful son who aids his elderly, bedridden mother may be callous, but it is not unconstitutional.
To be sure, Heffernan could exercise his First Amendment rights by choosing not to assemble with the Spagnola campaign. Cf. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 559, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985) (freedom of expression "includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all" (internal quotation marks omitted)). But such an allegation could not save his claim here. A retaliation claim requires proving that Heffernan's protected activity was a cause-in-fact of the retaliation. See University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2534, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013). And Heffernan's exercise of his right not to associate with the Spagnola campaign did not cause his demotion. Rather, his perceived association with the Spagnola campaign did.
At bottom, Heffernan claims that the City tried to interfere with his constitutional rights and failed. But it is not enough for the City to have attempted to infringe his First Amendment rights. To prevail on his claim, he must establish that the City actually did so. The City's attempt never ripened into an actual violation of Heffernan's constitutional rights because, unbeknownst to the City, Heffernan did not support Spagnola's campaign.
Though, in criminal law, a factually impossible attempt like the City's actions here could constitute an attempt, there is no such doctrine in tort law. A plaintiff may maintain a suit only for a completed tort; "[t]here are no attempted torts." United States v. Stefonek, 179 F.3d 1030, 1036 (C.A.7 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sebok, Deterrence or Disgorgement? Reading Ciraolo After Campbell, 64 Md. L. Rev. 541, 565 (2005) (same). And "there can be no doubt that claims brought pursuant to § 1983 sound in tort." Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 709, 119 S.Ct. 1624, 143 L.Ed.2d 882 (1999). Because Heffernan could claim at most that the City attempted to interfere with his First Amendment rights, he cannot prevail on a claim under the theory that the City infringed his right to speak freely or assemble.
B
To get around this problem of factual impossibility, the majority reframes Heffernan's case as one about the City's lack of power to act with unconstitutional motives. See ante, at 1417. Under the majority's view, the First Amendment prohibits the City from taking an adverse employment action intended to impede an employee's rights to speak and assemble, regardless of whether the City has accurately perceived an employee's political affiliation. The majority surmises that an attempted violation of an employee's First Amendment rights can be just as harmful as a successful deprivation of First Amendment rights. Ante, at 1419. And the majority concludes that the City's demotion of Heffernan based on his wrongfully perceived association with a political campaign is no different from the City's demotion of Heffernan based on his actual association with a political campaign. Ante, at 1418.
But § 1983 does not provide a cause of action for unauthorized government acts that do not infringe the constitutional rights of the § 1983 plaintiff. See Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340, 117 S.Ct. 1353, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997) ("In order to seek redress through § 1983, ... a plaintiff must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely a violation of federal law "). Of course the First Amendment "focus[es] upon the activity of the Government." Ante, at 1418. See Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law ..."). And here, the "activity of Government" has caused Heffernan harm, namely, a demotion. But harm alone is not enough; it has to be the right kind of harm. Section 1983 provides a remedy only if the City has violated Heffernan's constitutional rights, not if it has merely caused him harm. Restated in the language of tort law, Heffernan's injury must result from activities within the zone of interests that § 1983 protects. Cf. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. ----, ----, n. 5, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1389, n. 5, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014) (discussing the zone-of-interests test in the context of negligence per se ).
The mere fact that the government has acted unconstitutionally does not necessarily result in the violation of an individual's constitutional rights, even when that individual has been injured. Consider, for example, a law that authorized police to stop motorists arbitrarily to check their licenses and registration. That law would violate the Fourth Amendment. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 661, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). And motorists who were not stopped might suffer an injury from the unconstitutional policy; for example, they might face significant traffic delays. But these motorists would not have a § 1983 claim simply because they were injured pursuant to an unconstitutional policy. This is because they have not suffered the right kind of injury. They must allege, instead, that their injury amounted to a violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable seizures-that is, by being unconstitutionally detained.
Here too, Heffernan must allege more than an injury from an unconstitutional policy. He must establish that this policy infringed his constitutional rights to speak freely and peaceably assemble. Even if the majority is correct that demoting Heffernan for a politically motivated reason was beyond the scope of the City's power, the City never invaded Heffernan ' s right to speak or assemble. Accordingly, he is not entitled to money damages under § 1983 for the nonviolation of his First Amendment rights.
The majority tries to distinguish the Fourth Amendment by emphasizing the textual differences between that Amendment and the First. See ante, at 1418 ("Unlike, say the Fourth Amendment ..., the First Amendment begins by focusing upon the activity of the Government"). But these textual differences are immaterial. All rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights "focu [s] upon the activity of the Government" by "tak[ing] certain policy choices off the table." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 636, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) ; see also Hohfeld, Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions As Applied in Judicial Reasoning, 23 Yale L.J. 16, 30, 55-57 (1913) (recognizing that an immunity implies a corresponding lack of power). Fourth Amendment rights could be restated in terms of governmental power with no change in substantive meaning. Thus, the mere fact that the First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law" does not broaden a citizen's ability to sue to vindicate his freedoms of speech and assembly.
To reach the opposite conclusion, the majority relies only on Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994) (plurality opinion). See ante, at 1418 - 1419. But Waters does not support the majority's expansion of § 1983 to cases where the employee did not exercise his First Amendment rights. The issue in Waters was whether a public employer violated the First Amendment where it reasonably believed that the speech it proscribed was unprotected. The Court concluded that the employer did not violate the First Amendment because it reasonably believed the employee's speech was unprotected: "We have never held that it is a violation of the Constitution for a government employer to discharge an employee based on substantively incorrect information." 511 U.S., at 679, 114 S.Ct. 1878. And the Court reaffirmed that, to state a First Amendment retaliation claim, the public employee must allege that she spoke on a matter of public concern. See id., at 681, 114 S.Ct. 1878.
Unlike the employee in Waters, Heffernan admits that he was not engaged in constitutionally protected activity. Accordingly, unlike in Waters, he cannot allege that his employer interfered with conduct protected by the First Amendment. "[W]hat is sauce for the goose" is not "sauce for the gander," ante, at 1418, when the goose speaks and the gander does not.
* * *
If the facts are as Heffernan has alleged, the City's demotion of him may be misguided or wrong. But, because Heffernan concedes that he did not exercise his First Amendment rights, he has no cause of action under § 1983. I respectfully dissent.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
Factual impossibility occurs when "an actor engages in conduct designed to culminate in the commission of an offense that is impossible for him to consummate under the existing circumstances." 1 P. Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses § 85, p. 422 (1984). Canonical examples include an attempt to steal from an empty pocket, State v. Wilson, 30 Conn. 500, 505 (1862), or an attempt to commit false pretenses where the victim had no money, People v. Arberry, 13 Cal.App. 749, 757, 114 P. 411 (1910).
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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, acting pursuant to its authority under § 20 (a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 74, 86, 15 U. S. C. § 77t, issued orders directing an investigation to determine whether Penfield Company had violated the Act in the sale of stock or other securities. In the course of that investigation it directed a subpoena duces tecum to Young, as an officer of Pen-field, requiring him to produce certain books of the corporation covering a four year period ending in April, 1943. See § 19 (b) of the Act. Upon Young’s refusal to appear and produce the books and records, the Commission filed an application with the District Court for an order enforcing the subpoena. After a hearing, the court ordered Young, as an officer of Penfield, to produce them. Young persisted in his non-compliance. The Commission then applied to the District Court for a rule to show cause why Young should not be adjudged in contempt—a proceeding which, as we shall see, was one for civil contempt. The District Court delayed action on the motion until after disposition of a criminal case involving Young, Penfield, and others. When that case was concluded, the court, after hearing, adjudged Young to be in contempt. It refused, however, to grant any coercive relief designed to force Young to produce the documents but instead imposed on him a flat, unconditional fine of $50.00 which he paid.
That was on July 2, 1945. On September 24, 1945, the Commission filed a notice of appeal in the District Court and subsequently a statement of points challenging as error the action of the District Court in imposing the $50.00 fine instead of a remedial penalty calculated to make Young produce the documents. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the District Court erred in imposing the fine and directing that Young be ordered imprisoned until he produced the documents. 157 F. 2d 65. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Penfield Co. and Young. Neither the District Court nor the Circuit Court of Appeals rendered judgment against Penfield. Nor is any relief sought by or against it here. Accordingly the writ is dismissed as to Penfield.
First. It is argued that since no application for an allowance of an appeal was made, the Circuit Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain it. If the appeal was in a suit of a civil nature, the filing of the notice of appeal with the District Court was adequate under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is the nature of the relief asked that is determinative of the nature of the proceeding. Lamb v. Cramer, 285 U. S. 217, 220. This was not a proceeding in which the United States was a party and in which it was seeking to vindicate the public interest. See Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 445. The contempt proceedings were instituted as a part of the proceedings in which the Commission sought enforcement of a subpoena. The relief which the Commission sought was production of the documents; and the only sanction asked was a penalty designed to compel their production. Where a fine or imprisonment imposed on the contemnor is “intended to be remedial by coercing the defendant to do what he had refused to do,” Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., supra, p. 442, the remedy is one for civil contempt. United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. pp. 258, 303. Then “the punishment is wholly remedial, serves only the purposes of the complainant, and is not intended as a deterrent to offenses against the public.” McCrone v. United States, 307 U. S. 61, 64. One who is fined, unless by a day certain he produces the books, has it in his power to avoid any penalty. And those who are imprisoned until they obey the order, “carry the keys of their prison in their own pockets.” In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 461. Fine and imprisonment are then employed not to vindicate the public interest but as coercive sanctions to compel the contemnor to do what the law made it his duty to do. See Doyle v. London Guarantee Co., 204 U. S. 599; Oriel v. Russell, 278 U. S. 358; Fox v. Capital Co., 299 U. S. 105; McCrone v. United States, supra.
The Act gives the Commission authority to require the production of books and records in the course of its investigations. And in absence of a basis for saying that its demand exceeds lawful limits (Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186), it is entitled to the aid of the court in obtaining them. A refusal of the court to enforce its prior order for the production of the documents denies the Commission that statutory relief. The issue thus raised poses a problem in civil, not criminal, contempt.
Where a judgment of contempt is embodied in a single order which contains an admixture of criminal and civil elements, the criminal aspect of the order fixes its character for purposes of procedure on review. Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107. But there was no such admixture here. The District Court refused to grant any remedial relief to the Commission. The denial of that relief was the ground of the Commission’s appeal. The order of denial being final, was appealable, Lamb v. Cramer, supra, pp. 220-221, and the right to appeal from it was in no way dependent on an appeal from the imposition of the fine.
Second. The question on the merits is two-fold: (1) whether the Circuit Court of Appeals erred in granting the Commission remedial relief by directing that Young be required to produce the documents; and (2) whether that court exceeded its authority in reversing the judgment which imposed the fine and in substituting a term of imprisonment conditioned on continuance of the contempt.
As we have already noted, the Act requires the production of documents demanded pursuant to lawful orders of the Commission and lends judicial aid to obtain them. There is no basis in the record before us for saying that the demand of the Commission exceeded lawful limits. There is, however, a suggestion that the District Court was warranted in denying remedial relief since the contempt hearing came after a criminal trial of petitioners in another case, during the course of which many of Penfield’s books and records were examined. The thought apparently is that the Commission had probed enough into Penfield’s affairs. But the District Court did not hold that the Commission’s request had become moot, that the documents produced satisfied its legitimate needs, or that the additional ones sought were irrelevant to its statutory functions. We agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals that at least in absence of such a finding, the refusal of the District Court to grant the full remedial relief which the Act places behind the orders of the Commission was an abuse of discretion. The records might well disclose other offenses against the Securities Act of 1933 which the Commission administers. The history of this case reveals a long, persistent effort to defeat the investigation. The fact that Young paid the fine and did not appeal indicates that the judgment of contempt may have been an easy victory for him. On the other hand, the dilatory tactics employed suggest that if justice was to be done, coercive sanctions were necessary.
When the Circuit Court of Appeals substituted imprisonment for the fine, it put a civil remedy in the place of a criminal punishment. For the imprisonment authorized would be suffered only if the documents were not produced or would continue only so long as Young was recalcitrant. On the other hand, the fine imposed by the District Court, unlike that involved in Fox v. Capital Co., supra, pp. 106-107, was unconditional and not relief of a coercive nature such as the Commission sought. It was solely and exclusively punitive in character. Cf. Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33, 42-43.
As already noted, Young did not appeal from the order holding him in contempt and subjecting him to a fine. Young maintains, however, that once the fine was imposed and paid, the jurisdiction of the court was exhausted; that the Circuit Court of Appeals was without authority to substitute another penalty or to add to the one already imposed and satisfied. That argument rests on the statute granting federal courts the power to punish contempts of their authority, Judicial Code § 268, 28 U. S. C. § 385, and the decisions construing it. The statute gives the federal courts power “to punish, by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, contempts of their authority,” including violations of their lawful orders. At least in a criminal contempt proceeding both fine and imprisonment may not be imposed since the statute provides alternative penalties. In re Bradley, 318 U. S. 50. Hence if a fine is imposed on a contemnor and he pays it, the sentence may not thereafter be amended so as to provide for imprisonment. The argument here is that after a fine for criminal contempt is paid, imprisonment may not be added to, or substituted for the fine, as a coercive sanction in a civil contempt proceeding. If that position is sound, then the statutory limitation of “fine or imprisonment” would preclude a court from imposing a fine as a punitive measure and imprisonment as a remedial measure, or vice versa.
The dual function of contempt has long been recognized—(1) vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct; (2) coercion to compel the contemnor to do what the law requires of him. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., supra, pp. 441 et seq. United States v. United Mine Workers, supra, p. 302. As stated in Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324, 327, “The purpose of contempt proceedings is to uphold the power of the court and also to secure to suitors therein the rights by it awarded.”
We assume, arguendo, that the statute allowing fine or imprisonment governs civil as well as criminal contempt proceedings. If the statute is so construed, we find in it no barrier to the imposition of both a fine as a punitive exaction and imprisonment as a coercive sanction, or vice versa. That practice has been approved. Kreplik v. Couch Patents Co., 190 F. 565, 571. And see Phillips S. & T. P. Co. v. Amalgamated Assn., 208 F. 335, 340. When the court imposes a fine as a penalty, it is punishing yesterday’s contemptuous conduct. When it adds the coercive sanction of imprisonment, it is announcing the consequences of tomorrow’s contumacious conduct. At least in that situation the offenses are not the same. And the most that the statute forbids is the imposition of both fine and imprisonment for the same offense.
Young raises objections that go to the merits of the judgment of contempt. These were considered and determined against him by the District Court. Since he did not appeal from that adverse judgment, he is precluded from renewing the objections at this stage. Le Tulle v. Scofield, 308 U. S. 415, 421-422; Helvering v. Pfeiffer, 302 U. S. 247, 250-251.
There is a difference of view among us whether the portion of the order of the Circuit Court of Appeals which set aside the unconditional fine of $50 imposed on Young is here for review. But if we assume that it is, a majority of the Court is of the opinion that the Circuit Court of Appeals was correct in setting it aside, since the fine was imposed in a civil contempt proceeding. See Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., supra.
Affirmed.
Sec. 22 (b) provides:
“In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena issued to any person, any of the said United States courts, within the jurisdiction of which said person guilty of contumacy or refusal to obey is found or resides, upon application by the Commission may issue to such person an order requiring such person to appear before the Commission, or one of its examiners designated by it, there to produce documentary evidence if so ordered, or there to give evidence touching the matter in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by said court as a contempt thereof.”
That order was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 143 F. 2d 746.
The request of the Commission and the ruling of the court are made clear by the following colloquy:
“Mr. Cuthbertson : So far as the punishment which the Court might see fit to impose, that is up to the Court. We are still anxious to get a look at these books and records, so I suggest to the Court, if he be so disposed, whatever punishment the Court might see fit to impose would be in connection with or so long as he refused to produce his books and records for our inspection.
“The Court: I don’t think that I am going to be disposed to do anything like that. I sat here for six weeks and listened to books and records. The Government produced people from all over the United States in connection with the Penfield matter.
“Mr. Cuthbertson : I might say, your Honor, that we have in mind that these books and records may disclose certain acts other than those charged in the indictment. We don’t propose to go over the same matter that the Court went over in connection with the criminal case.
“The Court: The Court can take judicial notice of its own books and records, and in that trial the evidence was clear and definite and positive from all of the Government’s witnesses, that during one period of time this defendant had nothing whatsoever
to do with the Penfield Company. Whether that period of time is covered by what the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks or not, I don’t know.
“The judgment and sentence of the Court is that the defendant pay a fine of $50, and stand committed until paid.”
Section 8 (c) of the Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. 936, 940, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 230, provides: “No appeal intended to bring any judgment or decree before a circuit court of appeals for review' shall be allowed unless application therefor be duly made within three months after the entry of such judgment or decree.” See Alaska Packers Assn. v. Pillsbury, 301 U. S. 174; Georgia Lumber Co. v. Companía, 323 U. S. 334.
Rule 73 (a) provides in part: “When an appeal is permitted by law from a district court to a circuit court of appeals and within the time prescribed, a party may appeal from a judgment by filing with the district court a notice of appeal.” Where a Rule of Civil Procedure conflicts with a prior statute, the Rule prevails. 48 Stat. 1064, 28 U. S. C. § 723b.
See § 22 (b), supra, note 1.
This thus disposes of the further contention that the appeal was not timely under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. Supp. II § 682. United States v. Hark, 320 U. S. 531.
As will be seen from note 3, supra, the court, immediately prior to rendering its sentence, noted that there was one period during which Young was not connected with Penfield Co. But the court added: “Whether that period of time is covered by what the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks or not, I don’t know.”
Some rules governing criminal contempts are, of course, different from those governing civil contempts. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., supra, pp. 444, 446-449. If those differences are satisfied and if, as in In re Swan, 150 U. S. 637; Matter of Christensen Engineering Co., 194 U. S. 458; In re Merchants’ Stock Co., 223 U. S. 639; Farmers Nat’l Bk. v. Wilkinson, 266 U. S. 503, the criminal penalty and the remedial relief are segregated, no problem of the adequacy of the order for purposes of appellate review is presented. No question is raised here as to the propriety of combining civil and criminal contempt in the same proceeding.
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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In March 1963, the Internal Revenue Service, pursuant to powers afforded the Commissioner by § 7602 (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, summoned respondent Powell to appear before Special Agent Tiberino to give testimony and produce records relating to the 1958 and 1959 returns of the William Penn Laundry (the taxpayer), of which Powell was president. Powell appeared before the agent but refused to produce the records. Because the taxpayer’s returns had been once previously examined, and because the three-year statute of limitations barred assessment of additional deficiencies for those years except in cases of fraud (the asserted basis for this summons), Powell contended that before he could be forced to produce the records the Service had to indicate some grounds for its belief that a fraud had been committed. The agent declined to give any such indication and the meeting terminated.
Thereafter the Service petitioned the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for enforcement of the administrative summons. With this petition the •agent filed an affidavit stating that he had been investigating the taxpayer’s returns for 1958 and 1959; that based on this investigation the Regional Commissioner of the Service had determined an additional examination of the taxpayer’s records for those years to be necessary and had sent Powell a letter to that effect; and that the agent had reason to suspect that the taxpayer had fraudulently falsified its 1958 and 1959 returns by overstating. expenses. At the court hearing Powell again stated his objections to producing the records and asked the Service to show some basis for its suspicion of fraud. The Service chose to stand on the petition and the agent’s affidavit,, and, after argument, the District Court ruled that the agent be given one hour in which to re-examine the records.
The Court of Appeals reversed, 325 P. 2d 914. It reasoned that since the returns in question could only be reopened for fraud, re-examination of the taxpayer’s records must be barred by the prohibition of § 7605 (b) of the Code against “unnecessary examination” unless the Service possessed information “which might cause a reasonable man to suspect that there has been fraud in the return for the otherwise closed year”; and whether this standard has been met is to be decided “on the basis of the showing made in the normal course of an adversary proceeding . ...” The court concluded that the affidavit in itself was not sufficient to satisfy its test of probable cause. Consequently, enforcement of the summons was withheld.
Because of the differing views in the circuits on the standards the Internal Revenue Service must meet to obtain judicial enforcement of its orders, we granted certiorari, 377 U. S. 929.
We reverse, and. hold that the Government need make no showing of probable cause to suspect fraud unless the taxpayer raises a substantial question that judicial enforcement of the administrative summons would be an abusive use of the court’s process, predicated on more than the fact of re-examination' and the running of the statute of limitations on ordinary tax liability.
I.
This enforcement proceeding was brought by the Government pursuant to § 7604 (b) of the Code. In Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U. S. 440, decided last Term subsequent to the rendering of the decision below, this Court stated that § 7604 (b) “was intended only to cover persons who were summoned and wholly made default or contumaciously refused to comply.” 375 U. S:, at 448. There was no contumacious refusal in this case. Thus the Government’s conceded error in bringing its enforcement proceeding under § 7604 (b) instead of § 7402 (b) or § 7604 (a), each of which grants courts the general power to enforce the Commissioner’s summonses “by appropriate process,” raises a threshold question whether we must dismiss this case and force the Government to recommence enforcement proceedings under the appropriate sections. Since the Government did not apply for the prehearing sanctions of attachment and arrest peculiar to § 7604 (b), and since these constitute the major substantive differences between the sections, we think it would be holding too strictly to the forms of pleading to require the suit to be recommenced, and therefore treat the enforcement proceeding as having been brought under §§ 7402 (b) and 7604 (a).
II.
Respondent primarily relies on § 7605 (b) to show that the Government must establish probable cause for suspecting fraud, and that the existence of probable cause is subject to challenge by the taxpayer at the hearing. That section provides:
“No taxpayer shall be subjected to unnecessary examination or investigations, and only one inspection of a taxpayer’s books of account shall be made for each taxable year unless the taxpayer requests otherwise or unless the Secretary or his delegate, after investigation, notifies the taxpayer in writing that an additional inspection is necessary.”
We do not equate necessity as contemplated by this .provision with probable cause or any like notion. If a taxpayer has filed fraudulent returns, a tax liability exists without regard to any period of limitations. Section 7602 authorizes the Commissioner to investigate any such liability. If, in order to determine the existence or nonexistence of fraud in the taxpayer’s returns, information in the taxpayer’s records is needed which is not already in the Commissioner’s possession, we think the examination is not “unnecessary” within the meaning of § 7605 (b). Although a more stringent interpretation is possible, one which would require some showing of cause for suspecting fraud, we reject such an interpretation because it might seriously hamper the Commissioner in carrying out investigations he thinks warranted, forcing him to litigate and prosecute appeals on the very subject . which he desires to investigate, and because the legislative history of § 7605 (b) indicates that no severe restriction was intended.
Section 7605 (b) first appeared as § 1309 of the Revenue Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 310. Its purpose and operation were explained by the manager of the bill, Senator Penrose, on the Senate floor:
“Mr. PENROSE. Mr. President, the provision is entirely in the interest of the taxpayer and for his relief from unnecessary annoyance. Since these income taxes and direct taxes have been in force very general complaint has been made, especially in the large centers of wealth and accumulation of money, at the repeated visits of tax examiners, who perhaps are overzealous or do not use the best of judgment in the exercise of their functions. I know that from many of the cities of the country very bitter complaints have reached me and have reached the department of unnecessary visits and inquisitions after a thorough examination is supposed to have been had. This section is purely in the interest of quieting all this trouble and in the interest of the peace of mind of the honest taxpayer.
“Mr. WALSH; ... So that up to the present time an inspector could visit the office of an individual or corporation and inspect the books as many times as he chose?
“Mr. PENROSE. And he often did so.
“Mr. WALSH. . . . And this provision of the Senate committee seeks, to limit the inspection to one visit unless the commissioner indicates that there is necessity for further examination?
“Mr. PENROSE. That is the purpose of the amendment.
“Mr. WALSH. ... I heartily agree with the beneficial results that the amendment will produce to the taxpayer.
“Mr. PENROSE. I knew the Senator would agree to the amendment, and it will go a long way toward relieving petty annoyances on the part of honest taxpayers.” . 61 Cong. Rec. 5855 (Sépt. 28, 1921).
Congress recognized a need for a curb on the investigating powers of low-echelon revenue agents, and considered that it met this need simply and fully by requiring such agents to clear any repetitive examination with a superior. For us to import a probable cause standard to be enforced by the courts would substantially overshoot the goal which the legislators sought to attain. There is no intimation in the legislative history that Congress intended the courts to oversee the Commissioner’s determinations to investigate. No mention was made of the statute of limitations and the exception for fraud.
We are asked to read § 7605 (b) together with the limitations sections, in such a way as to impose a probable cause standard upon the Commissioner from the expiration date of the ordinary limitations period forward. Without some solid indication in the legislative history that such a gloss was intended, we find it unacceptable. Our reading of the statute is said to render the first clause of § 7605 (b) surplusage to a large extent, fbr, as interpreted, the clause adds little beyond the relevance and materiality requirements of § 7602. That clause does appear to require that the information sought is not already within the Commissioner’s possession, but we think its primary purpose was no more than to emphasize the responsibility of agents to exercise prudent judgment in wielding the extensive powers granted to them by the Internal Revenue Code.
This view of the statute is reinforced by the general rejection of probable cause requirements in like circumstances involving other agencies. In Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186, 216, in reference to the Administrator’s subpoena power under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Court said “his investigative function, in searching out violations with a view to securing enforcement of the Act, is essentially the same as the grand jury’s, or the court’s in issuing other pretrial orders for the discovery of evidence, and is governed by the same limitations,” and accordingly applied the view that inquiry must not be “ ‘limited ... by forecasts of the probable result of the investigation.’ ” In United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U. S. 632, 642-643, the Court said of the Federal Trade Commission, “It has a power of inquisition, if one chooses to call it that, which is not derived from the judicial function. It is more analogous to the Grand Jury, which does not depend on a case or controversy for power to get evidence but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.” While the power of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue derives from a different body of statutes, we do not think the analogies to other agency situations are without force when the scope of the Commissioner’s power is called in question.
III.
Reading the statutes as we do, the Commissioner need not meet any standard of probable cause to obtain enforcement of his summons, either before or after the three-year statute of limitations on ordinary tax Labil-ities has expired. He must show that the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose, that the information sought is not already within the Commissioner’s possession, and that the administrative steps required by the Code have been followed-j-in particular, that the “Secretary or his delegate,” after investigation, has determined the further examination to be necessary and has notified the taxpayer in writing to that effect. This does not make meaningless the adversary hearing to which the taxpayer is entitled before enforcement is ordered. At the hearing he “may challenge the summons on any appropriate ground,” Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U. S. 440, at 449. Nor does our reading of the statutes mean that under no circumstances may the court inquire into the underlying reasons for the examination. It is the court’s process which is invoked to enforce the administrative summons and a court may not permit its process to be abused. Such an abuse would take place if the summons had been issued for an improper purpose, such, as to harass the taxpayer or to put pressure on him to settle a collateral dispute, or for any other purpose reflecting on the good faith of the particular investigation. The burden of showing an abuse, of the court’s process is on the taxpayer, and it is not met by a mere showing, as was made in this case, that the statute of limitations for ordinary deficiencies has run or that the records in question have already been once examined.
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.
I. R. C., §6501 (a).
I. R. C., § 6501 (c) (1), which in relevant part provides: “In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time.”
The parties subsequently agreed that if the Government was upheld in its claim of right to examine without showing probable cause, the one-hour time limitation would be removed.
See page 52, infra.
325 F. 2d 914, 915-916.
Id,., at 916.
“Probable cause” as used hi this opinion is meant to include the full range of formulations offered by lower courts.
Compare Foster v. United States, 265 F. 2d 183 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1959); United States v. Ryan, 320 F. 2d 500 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1963), affirmed today, post, p. 61, with O’Connor v. O’Connell, 253 F. 2d 365 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1958), followed in Lash v. Nighosian, 273 F. 2d 185 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1959); Globe Construction Co. v. Humphrey, 229 F. 2d 148 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1956); De Masters v. Arend, 313 F. 2d 79 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1963).
Section 7604 (b) provides:
“Whenever ■ any person summoned under section 6420 (e) '(2), 6421 (f)(2), or 7602 neglects or refuses to obey such summons, or to produce books, papers, records, or other data, or to give testimony, as required, the Secretary or his delegate may apply to the judge of the district court or to a United States commissioner for the district within which the person so summoned resides or is found for an attachment against him as for a contempt. It shall be the duty of the judge or commissioner to hear the application, and, if satisfactory proof is made, to issue an attachment, directed to some proper officer, for the arrest of such person, and upon his being brought before him to proceed to a hearing of the ease; and upon such hearing the judge or the United States commissioner shall have power to make such order as he shall deem proper, not inconsistent with the law for the punishment of contempts, to enforce obedience to the requirements of the summons and to punish such person for his default or disobedience.”
The two sections are virtually identical. Section 7402 (b) provides:
“If any person is summoned under the internal revenue laws to appear, to testify, or to produce books, papers, or other data, the district court of the United States for the district in which such person resides or may be found shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel such attendance, testimony, or production of books, papers, or other data.”
See n. 18, infra.
Section 7602 provides;
“For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect of' any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such liability, the Secretary or his delegate is authorized—
“(1) To examine any books, papers, records, or other data which may be relevant or material to such inquiry;
“(2) To summon the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any officer'or employee of such person, or any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any other person the Secretary or his delegate may deem proper, to appear before the Secretary or his delegate at a time and place named in the summons and to produce such books, papers, records, or other data, and to give such testimony, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry; and
“(3) To take such testimony of the person concerned, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry.”
Other relevant legislative history to like effect may be found in H. R. Rep. No. 350, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 16 (1921) ; S. Rep. No. 275, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 31 (1921) ; 61 Cong. Rec. 5202 (Aug. 18, 1921), remarks of Mr. Hawley. The provision was. re-enacted in 1926. In the Senate, a substitute measure was adopted which would have limited the Commissioner to two examinations appertaining to returns of any one year. Senator Reed’s objection to the original provision was: “By merely claiming fraud the Government at any time can make examination after examination, subject only to one limitation, that it must give notice that it is going to make the examination. That, in ordinary course, is • done by the mere writing of a letter,” 67 Cong. Rec. 3856 (Feb. 12, 1926). There is no indication in the discussion that the courts were thought to play any significant limiting role. The Senate substitute was ultimately deleted by the Conference Committee and the original provision resubstituted. H. R. Rep. No. 356, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 55. The section was re-enacted in 1939 and 1954 without substantial change and without further elaboration of the congressional intent. Respondent contends that in re-enacting the provision, Congress must have been aware of, and acquiesced in, decisions of lower courts that a showing of probable cause is required. In re Andrews’ Tax Liability, 18 F. Supp. 804 (1937); Zimmermann v. Wilson, 105 F. 2d 583 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1939); In re Brooklyn Pawnbrokers, 39 F. Supp. 304 (1941); Martin v. Chandis Securities Co., 128 F. 2d 731 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1942). These cases represent neither a settled judicial construction, see In re Keegan, 18 F. Supp. 746 (1937),; nor one which we would be justified in presuming Congress, by its silence, impliedly approved. Compare Shapiro v. United States, 355 U. S. 1.
Revenue Act of 1921, §250 (d), 42 Stat. 265, provided a four-year period of limitation on ordinary tax liability.
The contrary view derives no support from the characterization •■of the limitations provision as a' “statute of repose.” The present three-year limitation on assessment of ordinary deficiencies relieves the taxpayer.of concern for further assessments of that type, but it by no means follows that it limits the right of the Government to investigate with respect to deficiencies for which no statute of limitations is imposed.
The Court of Appeals 'appears to have been led astray by the fact that the Government argued its case on the premise that § 7604 (b) was the governing statute.
See 1 Davis, Administrative Law, §3.12 (1958).
Because § 7604 (a) contains no provision specifying the procedure to be followed in invoking the court’s jurisdiction, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply, Martin v. Chandis Securities Co., 128 F. 2d 731. The proceedings are instituted by filing a complaint, followed, by answer and hearing. If the taxpayer has contumaciously refused to comply with the administrative summons and the Service fears he may flee the jurisdiction, application for the sanctions available under § 7604 (b) might be made simultaneously with the filing of the complaint.
See 1 Davis, Administrative Law, § 3.12 (1958).
See Jaffe, The Judicial Enforcement of Administrative Orders, 76 Harv. L. Rev. 865 (1963).
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.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
In our original opinion in this case, 357 U. S. 449, we held the Alabama judgment of civil contempt against this petitioner, together with the $100,000 fine which it carried, constitutionally impermissible in the circumstances disclosed by the record. We declined, however, to review the trial court’s restraining order prohibiting petitioner from engaging in further activities in the State, that order then not being properly before us. 357 U. S., at 466-467. Our mandate, issued on August 1, 1958, accordingly remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Alabama “for proceedings not inconsistent with” our opinion.
In due course the petitioner moved in the Supreme Court of Alabama that our mandate be forwarded to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County for the further proceedings which were left open by our decision. After the motion had been twice renewed the Supreme Court of Alabama on February 12, 1959, “again affirmed” the contempt adjudication and $100,000 fine which this Court had set aside. Finding that the Circuit Court had determined that petitioner had. failed to “produce the documents described” in its production order, the State Supreme Court concluded that this Court was “mistaken” in considering that, except for the refusal to provide its membership .lists, petitioner had complied, or tendered satisfactory compliance, with such order. This conclusion was considered as “necessitating another affirmance of. the [contempt] judgment,” involving, so the State Court thought, matters not covered by the opinion and mandate of this Court.
We have reviewed the petition, the response of the State and all of the briefs and the record filed here in the former proceedings. Petitioner there claimed that it had satisfactorily complied with the production order, except as to its membership lists, and this the State did not deny. In fact, asidé from the procedural point, both the State and petitioner, in the certiorari papers posed one idéntical question, namely, had the petitioner “the .constitutional right to refuse tp. produce records.of its membership in Alabama, relevant to issues in a judicial proceeding to. which it is a party, on the mere speculation that these members may be exposed to economic and social sanctions by private citizens of Alabama because of their membership?” (State’s Brief in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari, p. 2.) The State made not even an indication that other portions of the production order had not been complied with and, therefore, required its affirmance. On the contrary, the State on this phase of the case relied entirely on petitioner’s refusal' to furnish the “records of its membership.” That was also the basis on which ,the issue was- briefed and argued before us by both sides after certiorari had been granted. That was the view of the record which underlay this Court’s conclusion that petitioner had “apparently complied satisfactorily with the production order, except for the membership lists,” 357 U. S., at 465. And that was the premise on which the Court disposed of the case. The- State plainly accepted this view of the issue presented by the Record and by its argument on it, for it - did not seek a rehearing or suggest a clarification or correction of our opinion in that regard.
It now for the first time hére says that it “has never agreed, and does not now agree, that the petitioner has complied with the trial court’s order to produce with the exception of membership. The respondent, in fact, specifically denies that the petitioner has produced or offered to produce in all aspects except for lists of membership.” This denial comes too late. The State is bound by its previously taken position, namely, that decision of the sole question regarding the membership lists, is' dispositive of the whole case.
We take it from the record now before us that the Supreme Court of Alabama evidently was not acquainted with the detailed basis of the proceedings here and the consequent ground for our defined disposition. Petitioner was, as the Supreme Court of Alabama held, obliged to produce the items included in the Circuit Court’s order. It having claimed here its satisfactory compliance with the order, except as to its membership lists, and the State having not denied this claim, it was taken as true.
. In these circumstances the Alabama Supreme Court is foreclosed from re-examining the grounds of our disposition. “Whatever was before the Court, and is disposed of,, is considered as finally settled,” Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 492. See also Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304; Tyler v. Magwire, 17 Wall. 253.
This requires that thie judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama be reversed. Upon further proceedings in the Circuit Court, if it appears that further production is necessary, that court may, of course, require the petitioner to produce such further items, not inconsistent with this and our earlier opinion, that may be appropriate, reasonable and constitutional under the circumstances then appearing.
We assume that the State Supreme Court, thus advised, will not fail to proceed promptly with the disposition of the matters left open under our mandate for further proceedings, 357 U. S., at 466-467, and, therefore, deny petitioner’s application in No. 674, Misc., for a writ of mandamus.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Petitioner’s motion was first made on November 5, 1958, and was renewed, on November 19, 1958, and on December 1, 1958, by mailing to the Attorney General and filing with the Alabama Supreme Court copies of the original.
In its previous order, on which the former proceeding here was based, the Alabama Supreme Court held that certiorari did not- lie to review the merits of the contempt adjudication, and dismissed the original petition for certiorari on that ground, 265 Ala. 349, 91 So. 2d 214. Its opinion on which the present proceedings are based includes this statement: “Lest there be no misapprehension on the part of the bench and bar of Alabama, we here reaffirm the well recognized and uniform pronouncements of this Court with respect to the functions and- limitations of common-law certiorari, and the distinctions between that and other methods of review. 265 Ala. 349, 91 So. 2d 214, supra. As we stated in American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Dawkins, 268 Ala. 13, 104 So. 2d 827, 834: ‘We cannot hurdle or make shipwreck of well-known rules of procedure in order to accommodate a single case.’ ” 268 Ala. 531, 532, 109 So. 2d 138-139.
Question I in the petition for certiorari was as follows: “Whether the refusal of petitioner to produce names and addresses of its Alabama members was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s interdiction against state interference with First Amendment rights?”
See Note 5, infra.
Indeed had the State denied this claim it would have raised additional serious constitutional issues. As we noted in our original opinion the contempt adjudication not only carried a .fine of serious proportions, but under Alabama law it had the effect of foreclosing “petitioner from obtaining a hearing on the merits of the underlying ouster action, . or from taking any steps to dissolve the temporary restraining order which had been issued ex parte, until it purged itself of contempt.” 357 U. S., at 454. Yet upon the facts disclosed by the record, the validity of a contempt decree carrying these consequences would, apart from the refusal to produce the membership lists, have depended upon nothing more substantial than the reasonableness of the degree of petitioner’s tendered compliance. For example, Item “5”'of the production order called for: “All files, letters, copies of letters, telegrams and other correspondence, dated or occurring within the last twelve months next preceding the date of filing the petition for injunction, pertaining to or between the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc., and persons, corporations, associations, groups, chapters and partnerships within the State of Alabama.”- Petitioner’s tender was this: “the-files in the.offices of respondent [petitioner] are filed under subject matter headings. Therefore, to comply with this paragraph would require respondent to search all of its files in order to secure all information requested. Respondent receives correspondence in its offices at the rate of 50,000 letters alone per year and files are maintained for a period of ten years. Respondent produces, however, all memoranda'to branches during the twelve months period next preceding June 1, 1956, which would include its branches in the State of Alabama.”
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 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.